Forum:Undo without summary = Rollback??

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Undo without summary = Rollback??
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 10 December 2009 by Robert Horning.

This is all my own, personal opinion. I am hoping to shed some light on the subject, which was why I have posted it in Yew Grove. Be warned: This sometimes verges on a rant.

Rollback is meant to be used to remove vandalism that is so blatant that writing a edit summary is not justified. The undo button is used to remove vandalism and such when there is the possibility of confusion over it, so you have to leave a message explaining what you are doing. With that so, what is the point of a user (with rollback) reverting a mild vandalism edit while leaving a blank edit summary?? Isn't this going against the whole point of using "undo" instead of "rollback"?? Isn't a blank revert just a rollback with more work?? The reason why people seem to undo vandalism without edit summaries is to say "this is only minor vandalism, so not rollback worthy". Doing that seems rather pointless. Blatant vandalism is blatant vandalism, no matter what the context. </rant>

So I am wondering this: Is it all much ado about nothing and I have misinterpreted everything the wrong way?? Should we discourage the use of blank edit summaries or just let it continue on since it isn't harmful?? Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 10:10, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

To make my point more obvious, I have thought of a proposal:
  1. Seek out all users (with rollback) who currently leave blank undo summaries and encourage them to do otherwise.
  2. When a crat gives someone rollback powers, include in the message that the Beurocrat leave on their talk page a sentence along the lines of "use rollback to remove vandalism that is so blatentely obvious that a edit summary is not justified. If there is any posibility of confusion over why you reverted vandalsim, use the undo button and explain why you did what you did."
Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 08:48, October 30, 2009 (UTC)


I don't like using blank edit summaries, I like to explain what I'm doing (see my edit report, only 95 blank summaries). I do agree that undoing minor vandalism without a summary is pointless... I'd like to see more thoughts on discouraging blank summaries first though. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 11:33, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

I agree that blank undo summaries are not good to have, it is akin to telling whom ever made the edit that they are not worth an explanation. Where that isn't vandalism of course, vandals are owed nothing. Oh hell, I have 666 blanks. But most of those are minor fixes and talk page things.--Degenret01 11:41, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Question - Would you say that using the standard "Undid revision by......." is the same as a blank edit summary? C.ChiamTalk 12:03, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't say why. Many undid edits are not vandalism, just really poor, or repeating information already in the article. Who ever added it should see why it was taken out so they don't get the idea that their input is not appreciated.--Degenret01 18:08, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - This is precisely why I did not request for rollback XD. --Nup(T) 12:30, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I totally agree - there is no use in undoing something without an edit summary if you could also use rollback. I personally try to leave edit summaries whenever I undo something. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 16:03, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I never bothered to request rollback for this exact reason: undoing without an edit summary is the same thing, just slightly more work. There's really no difference between the two unless you start encouraging all undos to come with edit summaries. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 18:15, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are supporting since I ended the section with open questions. Anyway, that is the reason why in the example I had "with rollback" in brackets. I was saying that in all cases, rollback should replace blank undo's when reverting vandalism. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 07:29, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
I thought I was supporting encouraging people to provide edit summaries when they were undoing edits <_< kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 07:34, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
You now are supporting that. I just added a proposal along those lines! Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 08:48, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

I don't edit the Wiki too much, so this is just speculation. Might you be getting blank summaries from people who aren't very active on the Wiki and just revert vandalism if they see it/ They may not be familiar with the ins and outs of the Wiki but want to help out by reverting the vandalism. Theboy1001 14:25, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

I am more talking about users with rollback who leave blank edit summaries. In order to receive rollback, you have to specifically request it from a 'crat, while being a reasonably respected member of the community. I might make a preposal to help clarify everything and make it less rant-like. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 08:48, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Discussion Closed - No significant objection has been placed here against Evil Yanks' proposal, and as a guide to users with rollback privileges they should try to use the rollback options. As for where to actually put this suggestion beyond the Yew Grove archives, I'll leave that in the very capable hands of User:Evil yanks as he sees fit. --Robert Horning 16:43, December 10, 2009 (UTC)