Please describe and summarize whatever is written on that wiki page. See https://mediawiki.org/wiki/How_to_report_a_bug for future reference. Thanks.

Global rollback shouldn't ever be forced to use ES. It defeats the purpose and is used globally, thus across MANY languages. This isn't a bug, it's the intent of the tool as explained in that thread.

@Timeshifter usually the acronyms can be suffixed by "WP:" and they will direct you to a page explaining it. ie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LTA (which stands for "Long Term Abuse"). Either that or search them in the "Search Wikipedia" box, and look for pages suffixed "Wikipedia:".

Addressing Chrissymad's concerns. One of the options in the edit summary list could be to leave no edit summary. Or Chrissymad could choose Long Term Abuse, etc, etc. from the list as an option. From then on all her rollbacks would show that as the edit summary. At least until she chose another option from the list.

I suggest that the developers show the last selected option somewhere openly on the diff page and revision history page. Etc. So one knows before clicking the rollback button.

No, that's not how Rollback works nor should it, as repeatedly explained. That is what undo is for. Either you're suggesting removal of the feature or turning it into undo.

In T201696#4494842, @Timeshifter wrote:

Addressing Chrissymad's concerns. One of the options in the edit summary list could be to leave no edit summary. Or Chrissymad could choose Long Term Abuse, etc, etc. from the list as an option. From then on all her rollbacks would show that as the edit summary. At least until she chose another option from the list.

I suggest that the developers show the last selected option somewhere openly on the diff page and revision history page. Etc. So one knows before clicking the rollback button.

This idea may have some merit for Undo, but it's not the correct approach for Rollback.

Rollback has always been (and has always intended to be) a 'quick and dirty' way of very rapidly reverting content that should not be in the most recent revision of a page. Its use is subject to local and global policies, it has been accepted by the community on a local and global basis that when rollback is used, a default edit summary rather than a custom/tailored/hand-written edit summary will be left.

I also note, based on the local and global policy basis, any changes to the Rollback tool and the canned edit summary it provides would need to be subject to consensus on a local project and global project basis. You want to take charge of that cat herding rodeo, go right ahead.

In T201696#4494851, @Nick wrote:

Rollback has always been (and has always intended to be) a 'quick and dirty' way of very rapidly reverting content that should not be in the most recent revision of a page. Its use is subject to local and global policies, it has been accepted by the community on a local and global basis that when rollback is used, a default edit summary rather than a custom/tailored/hand-written edit summary will be left.

Where is this "default edit summary". I have rollback right on English Wikipedia and all I see when I rollback one of my user pages or subpages is "Reverted edits by Timeshifter (talk) to last version by ..."

In T201696#4494864, @Timeshifter wrote:

In T201696#4494851, @Nick wrote:

Rollback has always been (and has always intended to be) a 'quick and dirty' way of very rapidly reverting content that should not be in the most recent revision of a page. Its use is subject to local and global policies, it has been accepted by the community on a local and global basis that when rollback is used, a default edit summary rather than a custom/tailored/hand-written edit summary will be left.

Where is this "default edit summary". I have rollback right on English Wikipedia and all I see when I rollback one of my user pages or subpages is "Reverted edits by Timeshifter (talk) to last version by ..."

That response warrants a CiR block, in my opinion.

The default edit summary is, wait for it, drum roll, "Reverted edits by User1 (talk) to last version by User2"

"Reverted edits by User1 (talk) to last version by User2" says nothing about why the reversion was made.

Providing a list of editable edit summaries could be implemented in such a way that you wouldn't have to use it. The default setting would just be the near-useless "Reverted edits by User1 (talk) to last version by User2".

In T201696#4494900, @Timeshifter wrote:

"Reverted edits by User1 (talk) to last version by User2" says nothing about why the reversion was made.

Providing a list of editable edit summaries could be implemented in such a way that you wouldn't have to use it. The default setting would just be the near-useless "Reverted edits by User1 (talk) to last version by User2".

Your complaint and the entire reason for filing this request is because you don't accept "Reverted edits by User1 (talk) to last version by User2" is an acceptable edit summary. What precisely is the point of developing edit summaries for Rollback if you're not going to require their use ?

The whole point of creating some options for meaningful edit summaries for Rollback is to generate a more positive atmosphere on Wikimedia Projects. To avoid rude blanking of parts of pages without explanation. To lower the number of active editors who leave. To encourage those that stay by feeling the need to explain things to them. Wikimedia has become so rude at times that some longterm rollback users do not even see the problem.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_active_editor_statistics

I am not seeking to make mandatory the use of edit summaries in rollback because that would be a non-starter with many editors. And I fully acknowledge the difficulty of making a list of edit summaries that would cover everything rollback is used for.

Could you clarify if this is a general technical suggestion for custom wikis, or if you are explicitly requesting a change in local rollback behavior for, e.g., the English Wikipedia?

I would like this optional edit summary list to be available for all Wikimedia wikis that have the rollback function. I am not a developer and so I don't know anything about implementing this technically.

I am also an editor on Wikia. I am a bureaucrat on a wiki there, and have tens of thousands of edits there. There was a similar problem awhile back on Wikia where cross-wiki vandalism, etc. was being removed without explanation in the edit summaries. It confused many wikis. It was solved with simple edit summaries such as "cross-wiki spam" and other similar edit summaries.

I don't know what specific reversion and rollback tools were being used. They have whole crews there, just like here, to remove spam and revert vandalism, etc..

In T201696#4495130, @Timeshifter wrote:

The whole point of creating some options for meaningful edit summaries for Rollback is to generate a more positive atmosphere on Wikimedia Projects. To avoid rude blanking of parts of pages without explanation. To lower the number of active editors who leave. To encourage those that stay by feeling the need to explain things to them. Wikimedia has become so rude at times that some longterm rollback users do not even see the problem.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_active_editor_statistics

I am not seeking to make mandatory the use of edit summaries in rollback because that would be a non-starter with many editors. And I fully acknowledge the difficulty of making a list of edit summaries that would cover everything rollback is used for.

The comedy of you prattling on about editors leaving when you STILL haven't apologised to the editor on Meta you accused of abusing rollback because of your own ignorance regarding edit summaries. Why not focus on making your deep, meaningful apology to Chrissymad instead of continuing to dig a hole here.

I asked her why she didn't leave an edit summary, and she beat around the bush about not needing one at all. In the 2nd thread I suggested changing its title to "Rollback is currently inherently abusive". I think Rollback editors should apologize for the times its use causes all these problems. Problem is solved by using undo instead in those situations where a lot of material is being removed from different sections of a talk page.

In T201696#4495322, @Timeshifter wrote:

I asked her why she didn't leave an edit summary, and she beat around the bush about not needing one at all. In the 2nd thread I suggested changing its title to "Rollback is currently inherently abusive". I think Rollback editors should apologize for the times its use causes all these problems. Problem is solved by using undo instead in those situations where a lot of material is being removed from different sections of a talk page.

You asked her why she didn't leave an edit summary because you did not know what an edit summary was. You need to apologise for your behaviour and stop blaming Chrissymad for editing absolutely perfectly in accordance with existing policies and community norms. You don't get to go around accusing people of abuse and breaches of policy when it's YOU who is in the wrong. There was no rollback abuse as you've been told countless times, you need to apologise to Chrissymad for your allegations when stem from your ignorance and ONLY your ignorance.

Wrap yourself around "existing policies and community norms" all you want. I did not abuse the talk page. She did. She blanked part of it without explanation.

It may have been according to all the policies and norms, but the rollback policy and tool needs to be changed. Just as a similar problem was fixed on Wikia. By leaving a meaningful edit summary. The rollback tool itself is abusive. I have nothing to apologize for.

This is getting a little off-topic here.

Is there something technical which needs to be changed, bearing in mind that rollback is intended for rapid reversion of obvious abuse, and undo is intended for other situations where a summary is needed?

From my reading of this thread, it sounds like Timeshifter wants Rollback either disabled entirely or turned into another just another "undo" function.

Assuming that's the case, can @Timeshifter (or anyone else) provide a link to some on-wiki consensus for this change?

Please discuss potential disagreements about specific actions on English Wikipedia in English Wikipedia or via private communication but not here. Thanks!

In T201696#4495439, @Primefac wrote:

From my reading of this thread, it sounds like Timeshifter wants Rollback either disabled entirely or turned into another just another "undo" function.

I guess in a way it is like a rapid undo function since it uses meaningful edit summaries. On-wiki consensus is a total pain. So I would be happy with a rapid undo function with an edit summary list. There are plenty of other edit summary lists used in editing. So maybe one of those could be adapted to the undo function.

In T201696#4495447, @Timeshifter wrote:

On-wiki consensus is a total pain.

But yet, it's 100% necessary to implement any of the changes you're proposing. In other words, if you really want to get this changed, you've got to suck it up and start an RFC somewhere.

Here is a diff image for my user page on English Wikipedia. If I click on the undo link I get sent to a confirmation page with a list of edit summaries to choose from.

There is a "reverting vandalism or test edit" edit summary that would work instead of rollback in many cases. So maybe a "rapid undo" link could be added to the right of the undo link. It would trigger the undo without the confirmation page, and would use that meaningful edit summary.

That is an entirely different function...if you want rollback removed, start the RFC. A Phab ticket isn't going to fix it. And let me clarify, had this been an option, I still would have rolled back the edits that I did because it was perfectly in-line with policy. You're asking for something that is already solved. Editors can choose undo or in some cases, restore and leave a summary which is essentially the same option as an edit summary for rollback. Rollback having an es option would be detrimental for several reasons but the primary being that it prevents the rapid revision that it was designed for.

Ignoring the motivation and meta discussion that led to this task, I think the underlying request of allowing a set of canned edit summaries for rollback would be useful. Twinkle for example has "rollback vandalism" and "rollback AGF" links, which are included in the edit summary. I'm not yet sure on whether this should be something in MediaWiki, or maybe a gadget. The rollback API module already supports providing a custom edit summary, so making a gadget to see whether this feature would be useful is totally doable.

A API based semi rollback (with edit summary but without the diff screen) would be trivial to implement. I believe I have some code in my userspace which does just this. Found it ! This should be the user script that does that.