Commons talk:Rollback

purpose

The proposal does not describe the necessity or the purpose of adding this functionality.

I personally, think that all administrative tools should be targeted towards bad edits and bad information, and avoid entirely the concept of 'targeting bad people'. The cyber space should be a space of 'laws' or 'rules', and not of personal conflict.

I dont understand what the point is of 'more powerful weapons' against certain users. There are plenty of small scale edit wars and ego conflicts, and it seems to me that increasing the 'arsenal' for people in these little wars will only exacerbate these conflicts. If there is really, truly, some horrible epidemic of spamming that necessitates this tool, please, let us see the evidence.

People can already revert things using the available tools.. what is the urgent need to make these tools more efficient? Is it that hard to make a few extra clicks with the mouse and keyboard? Is there some massive spamming that necessitates this tool? If you are too lazy to undo edits with a few extra keyboard commands, then I don't understand why it is so important that you be doing that in the first place.

Energy towards automating wikipedia should be put towards making it easier to use, increasing transparency, helping editors deal with copyright issues more easily, and most of all fixing the horrendously conflicted Reference and Bibliography system. . . . . energy put towards 'more efficient targeting of people' is to me, a pointless waste of creative effort.

Generic topic

I oppose on giving the rollback automatic. I think I administrator should give it after a reqeust where people can oppose or support for a day or three. Abigor talk 22:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

As I'm wrote at the same time as you posted Abigor, I think this could be handed out at ane administrators discretion. A +/- vote is in my opinion to make this a bigger deal than it really is. Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not to comfortable with this being automatically given to users. Mainly because it's a function not everyone would need, or even know how to use. There's bound to be quite a lot of accidental rollbacks if users who are not aware of the differences between rollback and undo get this new function. I would opt for that this could be given to (any) user at an administrators discretion, a specific number of edits/time at Commons is in my opinion not that important.

Having said that, it's no big deal, and I will not start kicking and screaming if the rest of you people would like this to be automatically implemented ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should handle this the same as Trusted User for Flickr reviewing or for The media move bot :) Abigor talk 22:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of the above users. No need to make this a big deal. --Kanonkas_(talk) 22:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it's not a big deal, I can't see why you oppose autopromotion. FYI: German wikipedia is autopromoting users to sighter status, which includes rollback. There are barely abuses of this feature and I have not yet found a user who couldn't handle it. However, it is really a great help when fighting vandalism. As recent changes patrolling participation on Commons is really low ATM, I think we must make it easier for users to help. Having them ask for rollback first is IMHO not neccessary if they show they are experienced contributors. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Finnrind's comment above address this part, IMO. --Kanonkas_(talk) 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had addressed Finnrind's comment. As I said, many users on de.wp have this feature (currently about 6k) and there are basically no accidental reverts. After all, it's just yet another button that cannot really do a lot of irreversible harm. On the other hand, giving it out to so many users seems to be quite a task for our current number of administrators. This will, however, only be effective if a sufficient number of users has the tool and uses it. Our primary goal should be to make it easier to combat vandalism as we don't have enough users doing this. The rollback button is a great help for this task. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And how works rollback for files? Is it reuploading of the file?--Anatoliy (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think Rollback works with files, It can revert multiple edits by a user in one click. But it doesn't do anything for files. Abigor talk 12:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Rollback for files is not neccessary, as you have a "revert to this version" button for every version of a file. So you can just revert to the last vandalism-free version without having to remove all versions by the vandal step by step. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. Rollbacking is editting and reverting an edit is cheap. I simply don't see why one would need to request rollback. I propose to give rollback to all logged in users, or if that is too radical for people to all autoconfirmed users. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The proposal as currently written seems reasonable to me; no objection. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The only qualm I have with automatically granting the permission is that some users might not want it, for whatever reason. When I first became an admin on en, it took some getting used to. I was accustomed to scrolling by clicking on the wheel, then moving the mouse up and down. Once a rollback button appeared over on the right side of the contributions page, I would occasionally accidentally hit it. So I could imagine a user not using it. Also, if you get it automatically and are coming from a wiki other than the English Wikipedia, you may not be aware of the restrictions for using it (don't use it in edit wars). Requiring that a user affirmatively request the permission ensures that they are aware of the restrictions on use. Beyond that, I support the proposal. --UserB (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with UserB here. People should not automatically get rollback if they will either never use, or they just don't want to use it. Therefore, I think that people should not automatically get rollback because it could potentially lead to all kinds of problems later on down the road. Furthermore, I think that the fact of whether or not the user in question already has rollback on other wikis, that that would have more of an impact of whether or not the user is granted the rollback or not. I think that all users, regardless of their standings, should have to request the rollback tool. That way, it shows that they would use the tool to it's advantage and it gives the community a sense that that person needs the rollback tool to help with the daily load of vandalism reversion. Razorflame (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really agree with "I think that the fact of whether or not the user in question already has rollback on other wikis, that that would have more of an impact of whether or not the user is granted the rollback or not". Anyone—whether they come from a wiki with rollback or not—ought to be granted it, the only issue in my mind is whether it is on request or automatic. This isn't en, where edit warring is common place and there needs to be a review to make sure that they don't have a history of abusing tools or revert warring without edit summaries. On Commons, I'd grant it to anyone and everyone who asks—the only requirement is that they acknowledge an understanding of the rules. Heck, if it were possible, we could have a bot do it—you click a button saying you acknowledge the rules and a bot assigns you to the group. --UserB (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• it would be nice to have, but I'm neutral on how it's implemented. Evrik (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Second version

I have read the discussion I made a other version.

This version makes sure all users with more that 200 non vandal edits can get rollback within 24 hours.

Commons:Rollback/beta.

Best regards, Abigor talk 17:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Why make a separate page rather than edit the current one? There are grammatical things that could stand to be improved (like "undo all latest consecutive edits") and having two copies of the proposal just duplicates the work. The only substantive difference is over automatic granting of the permission and there seems to be pretty strong agreement that automatically granting it is a bad idea. As for 200 non-vandal edits? That seems rather high for someone whose primary activity is not on Commons. I barely get that in a year. It all strikes me as instruction creep - if you see the request, look at their contributions, make a decision and give it to them or reject the request. The risk of improper use of rollback is so incredibly low on Commons that there's just no reason for instruction creep here. --UserB (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem

Hello,

I just asked for information in the Tech channel and I think we could have a problem. If we give away the rollback rights after 500 edits we can't revoke the right. So this is another reason where for I believe we should give it by a admin. Abigor talk 12:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm. I made the (wrong) assumption that it would work because it works for Flagged Revisions permission on dewiki, but it turns out that the Flagged Revisions extension has a separate autopromotion system (mw:Extension:FlaggedRevisions#Automatic user promotion), which we cannot use to grant rollback rights. While I still think it is a good idea to autopromote users, I think it is unacceptable that this right cannot be revoked. I am thus recommending against autopromotion and will make the according changed to the proposal, should no objections be raised. Thanks and best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with this concern. If I understand this correctly, even a 'crat cannot remove this because it is tied to the edit count. I prefer the "semi-automatic" method where an admin assigns the bit immediately upon request for anyone with >500 edits (and, no history of extreme vandalism.......) -- Avi (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, there seems to be a way to do this, see posting on wikitech-l by Aryeh Gregor. Under these circumstances I'd like to stick with autopromotion because I think it is important to give this to as many users as possible. If we still have the chance to revoke it, there shouldn't be too much abusing possible Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm leery of anything that cannot be revoked, or needs the "right hand scratching left ear" treatment. Are there truly not enough admins to hand this out as needed? -- Avi (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

accept

Hello,

Are there people who still have a problem with the policy as it is proposed now? Or can go we go and make the reqeust on Bugzilla. Please sign below if there are still some problems. Abigor talk 12:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's please resolve the autopromotion issue before we put this on Bugzilla. Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the "All administrators are automatically granted irrevocable rollback permission while they are administrators." part under Commons:Rollback#Automatically. And let's see if I understood this, if the right is granted automatically it can't be revoked but if it's not granted automatically it acts as a normal user right that can be given or revoked by an admin, is that it? Patrícia ^msg 16:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Each user group is assigned a certain amount of permissions (all found at Special:ListGroupRights. Administrators are given the rollback function as part of their package, so the only way to revoke it would be to degroup the administrator. In the case of rollback on its own, rollbackers are given this group permission, and administrators have the ability to grant and remove this userright. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should remove all automatic parts out the policy, if we give it automatic we cant revoke it. That is in my eyes not a good idea. Abigor talk 17:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

On English Wikipedia, all administrators have irrevocable rollback and I can't see any harm there. However, I don't see neither a technical, nor a procedural reason why should the 500-contribution autopromotion rollback be irrevocable. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Without knowing too much about the technical details (I was just told on the tech channel that it wouldn't work), I think you might be able to revoke it, but the software will assign the permission again once it checks the user's requirements again. I am posting to wikitech-l, someone on there will probably know what is possible and what is not. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Rollback does not give a user the ability to do something new, it just makes it faster: manual rollback through edit history is available to anyone, even anon. IPs. If rollback were made available to everyone abuse and vandalism could be handled in the usual fashion. Having revokable rights sounds like a waste of admins' time to me. Even though English Wikipedia has rollback granted/revoked, it is available to anyone using twinkle. Babakathy (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As others have stated, rollback seems to be no big deal. Since it's only needed when a single person vandalizes a lot on a single page with no other intervening edits, it's not something I find useful. Most vandalism I see is a single edit or two. I either use the automated rollback features in the gadgets or, more commonly, open up the revision prior to the vandal's first edit and re-save. Rollback takes a 5 second operation and turns it into a 3 second operation. I would be fine with it being added to users as proposed, or when a user is auto-confirmed, or never. Since Twinkle and other tools provide the same functionality, it's really a non-issue for non-admins. Admins should have this feature, of course, because saving 2 seconds here and there has a cumulative effect, and it lets them focus on other things and be more productive. --Willscrlt (Talk) 23:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this needed?

Is there a demand for this? On an encylopaedia, I can understand it, but on an image collection? Mike Peel (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There has already been a vote about that in the village pump. That have been open for like two weeks and there was 100% support, so whe have already past than point, al we need to do know is make a policy. Abigor talk 18:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've found this vote at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009Feb#Rollback. Interestingly, no-one says that _they_ would find it useful, instead agreeing in principle to its usefulness. Mike Peel (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange, at least, the precise advantages and drawbacks of the rollback versus standard procedures should be clearly documented (no editable edit summary, not inserted in user watchlist, others ?). --Foroa (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible with a user script. --Kanonkas_(talk) 18:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Trusted user list

Call me paranoid but the criteria for qualification seems rather low, how about a system similar to Commons:MediaMoveBot/CheckPage. All admins would have the rollback facility, and any user who feels the need for this additional tool may request the facility which can be granted by any admin.KTo288 (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should try to streamline procedures and keep them as much as possible similar and coherent. --Foroa (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is my preferred approach rather than automatic granting. Any admin granting is not too restrictive, but automatic is too loose. ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Pointless favoritism

Anybody can revert all edits by a single user and more, even with a simple JavaScript; making it available based off some good behavior system is pointless. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the same with bots. You can code up all kinds of automatic processes and run them without permission (the functions of AWB, for example), but it takes a certain amount of knowledge and effort that seems to keep that at a minimum. I remember TWINKLE use to do rollbacks for a while even after it was made a user right. 71.155.238.150 03:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Automatic with override

I would prefer a "RollbackEligible" setting automated and defined at run-time, with manual flags of "Rollback" and "Rollbackdenied." Rollback would be allowed if Rollbackdenied was absent and either of the other two flags was present.

I'd like to see this scheme for all automated flags, such as the English Wikipedia's autoconfirmed flag.

As for what the criteria should be for RollbackEligible, I'm not picky. I'd prefer to see at least a month's service, with at least 5 files at least 14 days old with nothing deleted since the oldest of the 5 files was uploaded, or at least 10 uploads at least 14 days old with no more than 1 upload deleted since the oldest of the 10 was uploaded. I would also enable RollbackEligible on accounts over a month old with at least 100 edits and no deleted files in the last 30 days, to allow people who contribute administratively or by expanding categories and the like the privilege. However, I'm not married to these minimums. Davidwr (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's technically possible, but I don't see why admins can't just grant the tools themselves. It allows that second eye over a user in case there are any problems, which I think can be helpful. Automatic promotion of user's to rollbacker, without admin intervention, is not something I'd like to see personally. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I second that. →Na·gy 23:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the rollback tool shoot be given by admins and not in a automatic way. Abigor talk 21:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to make thousands of edits without ever removing vandalism. It is also easy to remove a series of vandalism manually. I believe users should have the tools they need and can handle. I prefer that the rights are not granted automatically but that they are given to those who ask and are trusted by an admin. MGA73 (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Start by making it easy to get the permission; adjust if problems emerge

I think an "automatic" granting is important, and should be slightly more permissive than what is proposed. That is, automatic rollback should probably be extended to editors who have had rollback or admin privileges on other Wikimedia projects for at least a month, or similar.

I say this because in all volunteer projects I've worked on (online, offline, etc.), the volunteer is generally much more likely to jump in and get a lot of work done if there's a minimum of red tape involved in getting to work. For instance, I just started editing on the Open Directory Project, and I'm a bit put off by how difficult it is to get permissions on various categories. Any wait time generally means that a volunteer's enthusiasm will cool, and they may find other projects to work on in the meantime.

It's probably important to also outline conditions under which automatic privileges will NOT be granted: if you've been removed from admin or rollback permissions on this or another WM project in the past, for instance. -Peteforsyth (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. -- samj _in^out 08:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Current version OK but recommend additional change

The current version of March 2 is acceptable as-is, but I would recommend the following changes to the removal section, either now or after this is adopted:

Add:

1. Editors who are blocked may have their rollback permissions revoked at the discretion of the blocking administrator or, for indefinite blocks or blocks lifted early, at the discretion of the unblocking administrator.

   A blocked editor would not qualify for rollback automatically, and would likely not be granted access by request or discussion shortly after a block. However, if neither the blocking nor unblocking administrator sees a problem with keeping rollback, then it should stay. Rollback should be removed if either administrator thinks it might be abused when the block is lifted or expires, not as an additional punishment.

2. Editors who are granted rollback at administrator discretion and who do not yet qualify for rollback under another criteria may have this permission removed at the discretion of the granting administrator.

   This gives the granting administrator a short time to watch the editor and summarily revoke the permissions if the administrator realizes he made a mistake. However, this expires if the editor qualifies for automatic rollback or qualifies under any future criteria.

3. Any editor may request that his own rollback permission be turned off.

   This is implies already for all permissions that are not computed at run-time, I'm just spelling it out.

Change:

• Users who had their rollback permission revoked shall not be granted rollback permission without discussion.

to:

• Users who had their rollback permission revoked shall not be granted rollback permission without discussion or the consent of the revoking administrator.

  This gives the revoking administrator the option to forgive without a community discussion.

Davidwr (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not see a need for #1, as the policy already specifies that any admin may revoke rollback at any time at their own discretion. If a user is blocked for abusing rollback, the admin will likely remove that permission. If they are blocked for a content dispute or a personal attack, there is no reason to remove the permission. Same goes for #2: The granting admin (and every other admin) can remove the rollback permission, should he think it is neccessary. I don't see why we would need an additional rule for this. I implemented #3 now, any user can choose to have their rollback permission removed at any time. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

First part:

I think the automatic promotion to rollback ought to be removed. Not every trusted user needs it at all. IMO if the user in question request rollback, and are in good standing - I'm sure the admins can handle the request rather then relying on an automatic process. (I see the automatic process part is now removed. See below; from the current proposed policy as of 10 April, '09)

Second part:

I think that's a bit bureaucratic to be honest, with no offence implied. Rollback isn't a big deal, after all.

Third part:

I think this is fair. It's my opinion this is making the proposal less of a big deal, but at the same time I think your proposal should be tweaked a bit; "All admins can grant the revoked user rollback, if they deem it as appropriate."

--Kanonkas_(talk) 23:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of automatic granting, minor tweaks, anything else?

I removed the autopromotion feature. The reason for this is, that once granted, there is no easy way to revoke the permission again. This does work on the German Wikipedia, as the rollback permission is tied to the editor group, which is given out by the FlaggedRevisions extension. This extension uses its own autopromotion system, which works different from the MediaWiki one. This is why removal of autopromoted permissions is possible on dewiki, but not on Commons. As many other users have expressed concerns about automatically giving out the permission, I think it is reasonable to remove the autopromotion for now. We might enable it later on, once MediaWiki's autopromotion system is improved and we don't see a lotof abuse coming. I also implemented the Davidwr's proposal of letting users choose whether they want to resign their rollback permission, this seems to me an uncontroversial change. As there has been no substantial criticism for quite some time, I think the proposal has almost reached its final stage. I'd appreciate any feedback about whether this is acceptable to you so we can go on with implementing it. Thanks and best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I perfectly agree with you here, let's see if there are some different opinions within the community before forwarding this request to Bugzilla. Thanks for your work, →Na·gy 09:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

support Huib talk 17:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should remove this bit:

"Requests for rollback should remain on that page for at least seven days so other users can express concerns about a specific user having rollback permission. After seven days, the request will be closed by an administrator deciding whether the applicant is promoted or not."

I think that's a bit too far. Rollback shouldn't be this hard to get. I think it's up to the reviewing administrator(s) to decide the outcome, regardless of how long the request has been on the requests page. --Kanonkas_(talk) 17:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

How about we make it 2 days for non-disputed users and 7 for disputed users? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a process like the English Wikipedia use is a good idea, and a working process. So I kind of stand by my words. I think the reviewing administrator(s) have enough clue to know when to give a user rollback or not, same applies to disputed users. If they're unsure, they should give a comment at the request. I do not think a time limit is a good idea. --Kanonkas_(talk) 17:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I'm not really married to this requirement, so unless someone else feels strongly about this, just go ahead and remove it. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I set up a request on Bugzilla as all major issues have been discussed now . Bugzilla:18434. →Na·gy 08:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Good deal! Let us then create the Commons:Rollback/requests page, yes? ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Userbox

This user has rollback rights on Wikimedia Commons. (verify)

I've created the userbox at right. It's directly copied from Template:User rollback at the English Wikipedia. I'm not an expert at templates, so if you see a problem, feel free to fix it. Just add {{User:Wadester16/Rollback}}. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good work, but why not move it into the template namespace? →Nagy 07:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal request

I propose to delete the following sentence from the policy page:

(but such applications should preferably be made by personal request to any admin, as described in the section above).

I think filing a request at RFR is always the best method for obtaining this right. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

"When to use Rollback" RFC

Hello, Currently at Commons:Rollback#When_to_use_rollback it states "The use of rollback should normally be limited to combating vandalism, but the tool can also be used to rollback your own mistaken edits or the clearly mistaken edits of another user. It should only be used for clear-cut cases, as an automatic edit summary is provided without the opportunity for adding custom text (unless you use a script such as User:Kanonkas/rollbackSummary.js)." (emphasis mine)

I would like to propose we remove the bolded sentence as ROLLBACK should only ever be used for blatant vandalism or to revert yourself, Twinkle or the undo button should be used for good faith mistaken edits (or anything else where Rollback doesn't apply).

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Support Since rollback is primarily an anti-vandalism tool, the person whose edits are rollbacked gets the lable of a "vandal" implicitly which is uncivil. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose Rollback can be used to mass revert others' edits which are not vandalism but would be far too tedious to revert manually. We trust our rollbackers/admins to know what "clear-cut" means, and if they consistently get it wrong, it can be grounds for removal of permissions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment If I'm being honest, and I don't expect anyone to agree with me here, I never really understood on any project why rollback was even a user right, rather than a default ability. Everyone can do exactly the same thing; it just take like nine seconds longer. It's only a "special ability" in the sense that...you're suddenly a super hero, but your power is being able to skip exactly one person in line at the grocery store. If anything, having it not be a part of the default toolkit for all users harms small projects where there isn't even a right to grant, and vandal fighters who don't have GR have to go to the extra trouble for no real good reason. I get that for many projects, there is not an option to leave an edit summary...but...I mean...open a phab. It seems like it should be the easiest thing to fix in the world given that multiple projects have fixed it in multiple ways. GMG^talk 21:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • IMO, the difference (at least in theory) is the amount of damage a malicious user could cause before getting blocked. If a user can do 10x the damage in a given amount of time (10s for undo vs 1s for rollback, pulling numbers out of my ass), it makes sense to restrict the use of the rollback tool to somewhat trusted users. The existence of scripts that allow quick rollback-style reverts weakens this argument, but I could see why we don't want the rollback button to appear in everyone's screens by default.
•  Support per nom and 4nn1l2. 1989 (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose Vandalism is indented harm. But there are many damages created just by not reading some guidelines, but without a bad faith. Commons:Structured data/Computer-aided tagging is a good example for this. --GPSLeo (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose mainly per King of Hearts. Rollback can be used to revert good faith edits as long as there is a clear consensus between parties to make reverting easier. As long as the edit that is rollbacked isn't vandalism, an edit summary should be used instead. --Minorax^talk 07:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Weak support. I don't think anything other than blatant vandlaism should be undone without some comment explaining why from the reverting user, as a form of assuming good faith. Someone making a mistake, unless the mistake appears to be a cat sat on a keyboard, should always really have the mistake explained to them in some form. But then I'm also not sure we need a formal rule for this, and there are cases where it is sensible to use it for cases other than vandalism. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 08:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose, but maybe rewrite it? In my opinion, the fifth point of the enwiki policy strikes the right balance. I would change the relevant part of the policy to something like:

The use of the rollback tool without an edit summary should only be used:

1. To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear
2. To revert edits that you have made (for example, edits that you accidentally made)
3. To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page

Thoughts? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Weak oppose - Per King of Hearts. In my opinion, rollback can be used when it's a... "clear-cut" case. For example, I think it can be used to revert test edits or mass-revert edits (when an explanation is provided). Ahmad^talk 23:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Conditional support I completely agree that this wording needs to be removed, so that we do not have another case of an admin abusing this tool. What we have otherwise is a circular logic: "UserA: Why were my edits rolled back? UserB: Because their were clearly mistaken. UserA: How did you figure this? UserB: Because an admin will only roll back on clear mistake?" However, that section needs not to be just removed, instead we can add clauses to allow roll back on 1) Community consensus after discussion, and 2) When the person has requsted their edits to be rolled back immediately after making them. The goal here should be to safeguard this tool from further abuses, but not to make it useless. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 07:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)