Wikidata talk:Rollbackers

Huggle

Integration of Wikidata in Huggle asked. Conny (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC).

Heh! While I am here and replying to the section below I will see how huggle and wikidata work together :) ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 16:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding a line

It has debated status as a policy (though nobody seems to object with it being one :D), but would anyone mind if acceptable use was expanded to clearly include "To revert widespread edits incorrect or unhelpful edits" as well? Addshore suggested this on his talk page, and it sounds like a good idea to me as well. If there aren't any objections, I'll add it in a few days. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

As the suggester, of course I think it should be added! :) ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 16:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing qualification of other projects

I do not think I need a discussion for this but @Vogone: seems to want to enforce a version of the policyguideline without community consensus. I will revert back to my version if no-one else comments on this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It was very appropriately tagged as a guideline by John F. Lewis. I know of some admins that have accepted qualifications elsewhere when assigning the bit in the past, and others who prefer local experience. While I personally prefer candidates to have some experience reverting vandalism locally, I don't think it's a big enough deal to be concerned with. If admins want to assign it based on experience elsewhere, I would not object. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I support keeping the "other projects" version. In my opinion having rollback at other projects shows that they can be trusted with it here, and if they don't end up using it here, it doesn't hurt anything. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so because people need to know what vandalism on Wikidata looks like. It also encourages hat collection, in my opinion. And from what I've seen from rights requests, admins tend to agree with me.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion vandalism here and vandalism on Wikipedia looks very similar. About the hat collecting, I do see your point there. I still think the same though. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. For example, there are valid reasons to remove sitelinks and knowing what are valid sitelink removals is something that is unique to Wikidata. Likewise with properties that take in seemingly random characters as input (but which really are IDs of some sort). --Jasper Deng (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I see. I now feel neutral about it. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I cannot take you serious when you complain on IRC that I called this guideline a "policy" but yourself are doing it here as well. Needless to say I also disagree with your unnecessary offense towards me in your initial statement. Regarding the content of the guideline page, I am of the same opinion as Ajraddatz. Vogone talk 07:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. It seems like neither of you are actually challenging my edit.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"Q2727213"

Impossessazione in italiano è un termine brutto e poco usato. Da evitare Gabriele.badii (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Rollbackers

Hello, what's the difference between being able to revert an edit and being a "Rollbacker" ?Bouzinac ^{💬●✒️●💛} 16:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It depends on how you read "to revert". If it is "to roll back", then you have to be a rollbacker or an admin. If it is "to undo", then everyone who is permitted to edit can revert and rollbackers can do it with a single click. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Recommendation: clarify difference between "undo" and "restore"

While reading the documentation on rollback and vandalizm I am missing a clarification of the difference between undo versus restore. I suppose a restore is meant to use for a single edit while an undo is meant for undoing all edits back up to the selected edit, right? --Katpatuka (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

No, it’s almost the other way round. Restore undoes all edits back up to the selected edits, and undo undoes the selected edit. However, undo is more versatile than allowing only undoing a single edit—if you initiate it from the diff view, it will try to undo the changes made by whatever edits you selected (if you click on the undo link in the page history, it’ll try to undo that single edit). It can be used to revert a single edit or multiple edits in a row (even if they were made by different users); it can revert the latest edit(s) or even older one(s) without reverting the latest edit. (Reverting older edits only works if the software can determine what reverting those edits means; on wikitext pages, later modifications are likely to confuse the software, but on entity pages, it works quite well even when I try to undo a years-old edit without undoing the dozens of newer edits, thanks to the structured nature of entities’ content.) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, understood. Thanks for clarification :) --Katpatuka (talk) 04:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)