Talk: Rollback/Archive

Bleh. Talk open. —Warw/Wick 14:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Major pointless. Just ask Entropy on her talk. --84.24.206.123 14:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I discussed the idea of this with her in game and she said go ahead, so bleh.. heres the page =P —Warw/Wick 14:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be rather hard to keep track of such requests, and public comment on them, if it was in my talkpage. I mean, for the same reason we can't do RfA's on my talkpage - that would be stupid and unprofessional. While I am not quite sure exactly how the process will work, I do believe that there should at least be a central page from which all requests originate. It can probably be more informal than a full RfA since it's a lesser responsibility...but users still need to comment etc. since rollback shouldn't be given to everyone either. Btw, Viper, please sign in. (T/C) 14:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Suppose so. Last suggestion: Rename to "Rf rollback rights". Sounds more correct, to me. Request for rollback sounds like a tag for someones edits to be checked out and perhaps rv'd... --- -- (s)talkpage 15:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Instead of a full RFA style template, why not something like Template:Proposed RFR and then people can place comments unser that user's subheading, when a decision is made, that entry is removed, or moved to archive RT | Talk 15:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Noob of mine

What's a rollback?reanor 17:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Rolback is a one click revert, when you rollback, you revert all of the last contributor's edits, you do not need to confirm this action, so it is good for reverting mass vandalism (i.e. page blankings) RT | Talk 17:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Podax, anyone...? 17:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. —Warw/Wick 17:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, dosn't work for deltions, and I'm refraining from saying his name, as it may encorage his "reputation" RT | Talk 17:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can revert page moves via the Move Log, it's not a hard job for an admin to delete leftover pages. No rollbacking needed. But having some users with rollback capabilities would be great for a lot of other vandals. We have a bunch of users who end up reverting lots of vandalism anyway, giving them a bit of extra tools for that would be great. Not much damage that can be done with rollback, so no need to worry about then going overboard with the power; but the ability to revert multiple edits in one shot, quite useful.

I'm all for this, a "rollback" user group I suppose? I would probably nominate users I've seen reverting a lot; after every major vandalism spree, you almost always see two or three users in RC doing all the work. Nominating users like that seems like a good plan. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 20:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a good plan. We'll create a team of backrollers. 20:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I know right now sysop appointment is already pretty much at Entropy's discretion, and that the RfA process is just so that she can get feedback easier. That said, I still am of the inclination that we should make it even more flexible for Bcrats to hand out rollback rights, and perhaps less formal. I'd like to see the Bcrat able to give anyone rollback without a RfR, though alternately, the Bcrat themselves can just post a RfR for the person they are interested in promoting, then speedily act on it. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 21:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Pan, Entropy asked me to ask you to (if the community approves of this) if you could make a user group for people who have sysop rights —Warw/Wick 21:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

@May, confused? RT | Talk 21:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Warwick, what do you mean by "make a user group"? Special:Listusers/sysop? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 22:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sort of like that- Special:Listusers/Rollback —Warw/Wick 22:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This convo is confusing RT | Talk 22:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think RfR should be a list to notify entropy "hey, needs moar rollback", it's a cool tool to use (I have it on wikipedia) and makes editing that bit easier. Dosn't have to be formal, just a quick talk page note, and hey presto, rollback. Perhaps adding a tag onto talk page that adds to catagory, and then entropy jsut looks at the catagory. Say a Template:RfR that could be put on somones talk page by any user, then when complet, entropy could just use, say subst template RfR accept or decline. RT | Talk 21:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth would Entropy use you to communicate with Pan? Let her ask Pan herself.

I totally support RT's "informal RfR" plan, btw. 21:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Because she went to sleep. -.-. Stop acting as if I'm lying. Ask Entropy when she gets on, if you must. —Warw/Wick 21:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

meh

Meh, why don't we just make everyone a sysop? Why are some users able to get these rights but not the full set of sysop powers? We only trust them a little? —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 23:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm 100% clear what rolling back is, but it's to my understanding it is like a revert, except it even pulls back the history. If this is the case, it'd be a nightmare tool for vandals. They could easily revert an article to what it was when it first started with no hope of reversing it. --Powersurge360 23:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback = "revert to the most recent version that is written by a different contributor". So, if you edit, then I edit 200 times in a row, a rollback goes back to your version (mine still show in history). If you edit, I edit, then you edit again, then a rollback goes back to my version. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 00:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback doesn't do anything a normal user can't do. Thus I don't consider it anything being closed to "partial sysop" or "second-class sysops". I see it as "a tool that allows you to faster do what you can do as a regular user". -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 00:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the point? Can it revert multiple pages at once? If not, then why bother. Just go to the history page before the vandal's edits and save it. --Macros 00:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

it's just something that saves time, that's all. If I notice a vandal spree, I have the choices of:

• Rollback method

1. Go to the vandal's Contributions page (and wait for it to load)
2. Ctrl+Click on all the Rollback links on that page, and move on to do something else in a different window/tab.

• Traditional method

1. Open the history of a vandalized page (and wait for history to load)
2. find the most recent version before the vandal's edit and go to that version (and wait for page to load)
3. hit edit at that version (wait for page to load)
4. hit save, then move on to do something else in a different window/tab

They do the same thing, but Rollback is significantly easier and faster.-User:PanSola (talk to the ) 00:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I love rollback. Also Wikipedia:Requests for rollback may be helpful. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 04:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

I am currently strongly opposed to this policy for several reasons. Firstly, it conflicts with GW:YAV which states that "all users have the same clout on the GuildWiki", yes, everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others? Secondly i can see these rollback privellages being given specifically to an elitist clique of users who post on talkpages more, rather than those who would necessarily be able to put them to best use. Thirdly, as someone previously stated, all this does is make something a user can do anyway easier. Why make life easier for some people and harder for others, doesn't seem fair. Then there is the possibility of it being mis-used to cause damage to the wiki - am i correct in thinking that a "roll-back" does not appear in page-history and therefore cannot be reverted using the normal method? Therefore, i personally do not think that this should, or needs to be implemented, and if it is then GW:YAV should be changed, or rollback should be given to all registered users, which creates problems with risk of vandalism-- - (Talk/Contribs) 18:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think this violates YAV, why are sysops allowed to delete/protect/ban? Think. Post. Lord of all tyria 18:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"all users have the same clout on the GuildWiki" I am aware that YAV also refers to the admin status of a user, but still, giving some users, rather than admins/sysops who are atleast partially democratically appointed, privalleges over others seems to suggest that those users arent given said privellages are less able. It is understandable that people dont automatically gain admin powers upon registering, but for something that simply makes a task easier i think it really should be for all users or none, other wise it seems to imply some users are more valuable than others-- - (Talk/Contribs) 18:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

go edit the sandbox and I'll demonstrate rollback. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 18:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Righto-- - (Talk/Contribs) 14:36, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Ah, ok, i withdraw my opposition. Thankyou for your demonstration of how rollback works, it was a lot more helpful than "Think. Post.".-- - (Talk/Contribs) 18:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, its pretty tricky for me to demonstrate rollback without access to it. I was taking issue with what I considered an obvious flaw in your argument. Lord of all tyria 19:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean that in an offensive way -_- though it was pretty difficult for me to make an accurate judgement on introducing a feature i don't have access to and as such have limited understanding of.-- - (Talk/Contribs) 13:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarificaton on the Rollback function

For ease of description I will compare it with the "Undo" function that all users have access to:

• Undo can be attempted on all diffs. Rollback can only be performed against the most recent revision of a page.
• Undo requires choosing a particular range of revisions to undo. Rollback automatically targets all consecutive revisions performed by the most recent contributor.
• When performing an undo, additional edits may be performed in the wiki text, and edit summary may be edited. Rollback automatically revert to the version before the current contributor, and edit summary cannot be altered.
• Undo requires an additional "Save" click. Rollback is performed as soon as as the "Rollback" link is clicked.

Similarities:

• All the revisions that are reverts stay in the page history. The Undo/Rollback action effectively act as a new edit on top of the previous edits, that brings the article to teh state of a prior version.

In terms of usage etiquette:

• undo can be used for anything, including content dispute (as long as it doesn't break 1RV). It is expected that the edit summary is manually modified to explain content edits.
• rollback should only be used against obvious vandalism. Whenever good-faith can be assumed, rollback should NOT be used, and instead a manual reversion/undo should be performed. (I would strongly recommend this into a policy, such that all rollback actions not used against obvious vandalism is considered abuse of the rollback function).

-User:PanSola (talk to the ) 18:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

so

Am I correct in thinking we have a basic consensus of "Rollback should be informal process"? I like that too, less work and paperwork (err...articles) to deal with.

The idea with a usergroup would be so it's easy to tell who has rollback rights at any given time. It doesn't even have to be a system-generated list necessarily. But let's say there is a vandal attack - you can go check the list and notify a rollbacker who may not have noticed. At least I think that's how it would work. (T/C) 04:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, rollback should be informal, Entropy should promote who she thinks, when she thinks, and this page can be a list of suggestions. I assume that giving rollback is 'crat only? RT | Talk 05:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Haven't really participated in this discussion much, but have been watching it. I thought I'd add a couple comments here. I do like the idea of rollback, because of the time saving features of having to wait for history and diff to load. Also it would screw with alot of vandals that believe if they make many multiple edits on top of eachother, that their vandalism won't be undone so easily. And lastly, Entropy's sudden lack of bcrat abilities won't have any effect on this, will it? -- Sk8 (T/C) 05:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It might. As far as I know, Special:Makesysop (also see here) is the only special she can access atm that affects user rights, and I'm under the impression that all it can really do is make people sysops :/ ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 22:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Special:Listusers/rollback. We don't need to "create" a usergroup. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 06:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Usage?

1. Enter {{GuildWiki:Request for rollback/Username}} into the above section
2. Enter {{SUBST:rfa1|username|reason ~~~~}} into the created red link
3. Notify the user on their talk page
4. Retrieved from "GuildWiki:Request_for_rollback"

Shouldn't that be {{SUBST:rfr1|username|reason ~~~~}} rather than {{SUBST:rfa1|username|reason ~~~~}}?-- - (Talk/Contribs) 16:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage necromancy!

So, yeah... From above discussion, the consensus seemed to be that this should be accepted as a policy, but then discussion died out and nothing happened for over a month. —Dr Ishmael 03:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - needs moar implementation RandomTime 05:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Needs less implementation. This page is still set up like a full-fledged RFA, yet the discussion two sections up says go ask Entropy. If we still only had one bcrat, I'd say implement and replace Entropy with other crat name. However, now that 3 bcrats are active, anything except an at least semi-formal RfRR seems inappropriate and screams bias. --Shadowcrest 04:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds it sad that merely because we have multiple bureaucrats now, people suddenly demand "semi-formal RfRR"? That screams lack of trust in the bureaucrat's judgment, not bias. What difference does it make if there is one or three? You should feel equally comfortable with asking a bureaucrat, getting the approval, and that's the end of it. There are no strings attached. True, each bureaucrat may have different ideas about your worthiness for the tools. But such it is when asking for anything else, too. I hardly see how it becomes a biased system. Especially since I am sure every single user will be friends with at least one of the bureaucrats, yes?

"The wiki is not a democracy," indeed. :\ If democracy means 100% transparancy, the community "consensus" determining and overseeing everything, bureaucrats having to explain their decisions in defiance of that creed, a lack of trust and even an antagonism between the "masses" and the "elitist cabal bureaucracy"...then do you know what we really have? Successful Communism. In Soviet Russia, community governs you! (T/C) 11:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's almost the definition of bias, imo. If I'm in Auron's good books but not in Pan's or Jedi's, I could ask Auron to promote me and could still be promoted, regardless of Pan's or Jedi's opinion. In theory, anyway. The decision could easily be overturned, but only if Pan and Jedi were to disagree with Auron (in this theoretical example) to the point of wishing to revoke the rollback rights, and drama would crop up. How major it would be, I can't tell. I'm not a psychic, after all. That was the reason I suggested semi-formality. Yeah, it's a bit more red tape and might take a day or two longer than ask-a-bureaucrat, but it would avoid most (if not all) possible drama. The only time drama would crop up is if a candidate is "promoted" despite resounding opposition (which can easily be proven. Look at User talk:Auron of Neon. No, this is not a stab at Auron.) And since until yesterday I hadn't made my opinions clear, I will now. I wouldn't mind in the slighest if this was made into an ask-a-bureaucrat process (especially because- let's face it- rollback rights aren't extraordinary). I trust Auron, Pan, and Jedi enough to not mind if the community has to place their faith in them. What I would mind is if drama pops up because one bureaucrat were to make a questionable promotion without talking to the others, which a semi-formal process would hopefully avoid. We all know we have more than enough drama to deal with. That is why I suggested a semi-formal RfRR, not my "lack of trust in the bureaucrat's judgment." --Shadowcrest 23:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective, I feel that unlike sysop promotion, it is actually rather hard to have a questionable decision with respect to granting access to the rollback tool (I don't want to call it a 'right' since the person with the tool isn't exactly more powerful/higherup than normal users). The only edge case is if the user in question has abused the tool before and have been revoked access to it. Otherwise I feel rollback can be granted almost quite liberally. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 19:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely; I was arguing on principle, and also to take a preemptive strike at anyone who starts drama over percieved bias that I'd have to read (if not become involved in). I wouldn't mind if all registered users got it, tbh. --Shadowcrest 19:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion (2)

Again, just put something like:

• [[User:Name]] - short reason

if someone wants to comment on the request, they just use

• • Comment ~~~~

and when a bcrat has decided, they put

• • accepted/declined - optional reason/notes ~~~~

RandomTime 09:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Rollback isn't a big enough deal that you'd really nominate other people for it. This would be much simpler. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 05:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Make simpler or dump it

There's no case that this policy is needed. Or there's too much red tape. I submit the following alternative proposal:

1. explain what rollback is (see above)
2. Bureaucrats can grant rollback powers to users that they find responsibly fighting vandalism, without application on their part. These users are listed here.
3. If a user wants rollback rights, he can ask an active bureaucrat. GW:AI may indicate which Bureaucrat best to approach for this.
4. Abuse of this right is discussed on the Admin noticeboard.

I was thinking about adding It is recommended that the bureaucrat who grants this notify the user somehow, but a) that's common sense, b) the users in question follow RC and should be reading the user rights log anyway, and c) they'll see that the functionality is available when they need it. --◄mendel► 19:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree on pretty much all points. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 22:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been suggesting something like that for about three sections now, but it never got me anywhere. /signed (T/C) 01:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Page name?

I've rewritten the proposal along the above lines, taking liberally from your comments on this page for the explanation. Now one thing remains that I'm not satisfied with: the page name. The following options seem sensible:

• rename the article GuildWiki:Rollback

Advantange: the explanation is close to the policy

• put the explanation (the box) in GuildWiki:Rollback and the actual policy (the numbered lines) in GuildWiki:Rollback policy, with links to each other.

Advantage: The explanation can be edited whenever, because it's not part of the policy.

Thoughts? --◄mendel► 09:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait...why do we need two separate pages? (T/C) 13:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So we're able to edit the explanation and it's not a policy change. I'm not sure if that's a really strong reason, that's why I'm unsure. --◄mendel► 19:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I favor move as opposed to having a separate page. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 20:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We could always transclude the box contents onto the page, if we wanted to get fancy (I can demonstrate if asked). But at this point it's not really important for me which option is chosen, so when the time comes to make thi sa policy, go right ahead. --◄mendel► 20:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say a single page at GuildWiki:Rollback policy, and the shortcut can be GW:ROLL. 21:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Mendel, I still don't understand your reasoning, becaus edits to the explanation obviously aren't "a policy change". Just check the section header in the summary or read the diff. Otherwise, we should go on a standardization campaign so that all policies have separate pages for explanations and stuff. (T/C) 21:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the difference is between "obviously" and "more obviously". Like I said, it doesn't really matter that much. And your "otherwise, we should go" argument is what R.Phalange would have liked to call a "slippery slope" argument. --◄mendel► 21:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to make a separate explanation page just for this one policy. It's not even an important one (basically says "this is informal process, go ask bcrat") nor would it be a likely target for vandalism or something. Therefore you either have all or none. (T/C) 21:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I'd be able to tell the difference between an edit to the explanation and an edit to the policy itself. Especially since mendel went to the trouble of putting it in a specially-colored div. No need for separate pages. —Dr Ishmael 00:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Now there's an idea - prettify our policies so it's easy to tell what's important. (T/C) 01:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And we should have GuildWiki:Rickroll, shortcut GW:RROLL, designating when it is proper to do rickrolls, and when it is not. And Mr. T should play the voice of Barret when they make the FF7 remake. And someone should smack me to stop being random and quit listening to FF music on YouTube --Gimmethegepgun 01:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Rickroll was removed from YouTube. Danika should voice Tifa Lockhart, and MoW can be Sephiroth. (T/C) 01:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'll be Yuffie. Yatatata! 02:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

rickroll is still there. And YAY completely derailed this conversation! :D --Gimmethegepgun 02:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Rickroll'D (10 million views) is still there. Rickroll (20 million) is not. 03:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Rollback can hide

See m:Rollback#Bot_rollback. --◄mendel► 16:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So it basically flags both the vandalism and the rollback as bot edits, interesting. That's definitely something to consider when handing out rollback rights, then - would the user abuse this feature? Example: "I really hate User:Foo, so I'm going to follow him around and bot-rollback every single edit he makes." —Dr Ishmael 17:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Bot" rollback feature is confirmed for user with Bcrat flag, and confirmd for user with Sysop flag. It is confirmed to NOT work with accounts that only have the rollback flag. So it can only be abused by Sysops and Bcrats. The observation is consistent with the language of the linked article, where it said "admins may..." when describing the special feature of the roll back tool. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 18:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally missed that word when I read it. -_- —Dr Ishmael 20:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me like if a sysop/bcrat abuses the rollback, that also puts their other powers in question. Hmm. (T/C) 21:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we start a separate conversation about "Bot-Rollback" to avoid confusing the issue with the regular rollback? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 21:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Since 99% of the time it is non-sysop/bcrat who does mass vandal reverts, I don't think it is much of an issue. (T/C) 22:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that, I wasn't sure whether I had interpreted the language wrong (the author could've thought that typically only admins have rollback). So it's basically a non-issue in the context of this proposal. --◄mendel► 22:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So is the assumption that rollback will be a sysop+ power? --JonTheMon 14:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, sysops+ already have rollback as part of their power "package"; the whole point of the rollback group is to expand that specific power to non-sysops. The discussion above is about a feature of rollback that is only available to sysops, sparked by my initial confusion that it was available to everyone with rollback. —Dr Ishmael 15:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's clear now. --JonTheMon 15:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To Recap

Among the stuff archived, the question of whether to make it a (semi-)formal process or completely informal is not conclusively decided. I would like to suggest making the language of the article super painfully clear that the Rollback flag is only an access to a short-cut tool, and not a special user status; also that any user who has been determined to have abused the tool should lose it for life (no second chance, but can appeal on the previous case). I would like to claim that with those two points added to the article, it should eliminate any drama arose out of good faith (malicious drama can always be created regardless of how many layers of precaution we take), and thus the granting of Rollback flag can be a complete informal process. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 20:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur. (T/C) 21:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought your recent edits to the proposal are clear enough on that point; that consequences should not be discussed/decided in advance, but rather as a case arises; and that Shadowcrest's objections had been met. --◄mendel► 22:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

implementation

Now that all objections seem to have been cleared and no dissenting points unresolved, I would like to move that this policy be accepted as is. --Shadowcrest 16:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur. —Dr Ishmael 16:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 18:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I'll let this declaration sit for one more day just in case. (-: -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 18:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

/agree with that! Fi-na-lee RandomTime 18:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion from the previous section has been implemeted over my opposition, namely, the clause about losing rollback rights forever when you screw up once. (Even our block doctrine isn't as harsh). The only people who can re-grant are Bureaucrats, the most trusted people on the wiki; if we can't trust them (including Pan himself) to handle the handing out of a tool that we agree an editor can do little mischief with, we're sunk anyway.

I say we cross that bridge when we come to it; this talkpage already states that you're not likely to get rollback again if you screw up, and the rest can be regulated by evolving a custom before commiting it to policy. If you're still for it after my diatribe eloquent reasoning, don't let me keep you - it's not an issue I want to fight over. --◄mendel► 00:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Edited so that only the "informality of asking for rollback" might be lost indefinitely due to abuse of rollback. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 00:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I missed that part. I think someone made an oversight writing it. Rollback < sysoption, and we've given that back at least once. (T/C) 01:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I oppose re-granting without formal process, and I wanted to keep rollback granting informal. That's why it was worded like that originally. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 01:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see. In that case I like the current rewording, and I agree that it's unlikely it will be an issue anyway. (T/C) 01:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)