Currently, rollbacks are never rolled into the previous revision.

I propose a simple change making the rollback-link more useful:

If the rollback is to the pre-edit revision, and an ordinary edit would be rolled into the previous revision, just pretend it was one.

(The resulting empty revision has the summary [Edit removed during grace period].)

That avoids recording any more evidence than necessary of the brain-fart which led to the edit, reducing embarrassment and avoiding puzzlement to readers by de-cluttering the revision-history.

Also, reverting all changes does not retract the notification (tested with Mogsdad), thus a second proposal:

If the edit-notification was not yet signalled to the user, squash it. After all, there's nothing to see.

  • 3
    As an aside: until two years ago manually undoing an edit would hide it from the revision history altogether (while in the meantime one could have silently removed or changed an old, locked-in vote). But that was fixed in May 2013.
    – Arjan
    Aug 17, 2015 at 0:32
  • 1
    would that allow for stealth vote unlock?
    – gnat
    Aug 17, 2015 at 0:46
  • 1
    @gnat: Unfortunately(?) no more than the current system. Aug 17, 2015 at 0:47
  • 3
    @gnat: There's still an entry in the edit history (see the edit history on this question for my test), so not so much "stealth." Aug 17, 2015 at 10:26
  • I just got bit by this today because I thought a rollback would trigger the edit merge mechanism. It is really unintuitive that you're supposed to not use the "undo your edit" button to undo your edit if you want to trigger this. May 8, 2018 at 19:06


You must log in to answer this question.