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 '15 at 0:32
  • 1
    would that allow for stealth vote unlock? – gnat Aug 17 '15 at 0:46
  • 1
    @gnat: Unfortunately(?) no more than the current system. – Deduplicator Aug 17 '15 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." – T.J. Crowder Aug 17 '15 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. – user2357112 May 8 '18 at 19:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .