Wikipedia:Limit the undo function

The undo function is currently available to all users - this is a proposal to limit the undo function in some way.

Reasoning:
 * The undo function is being used inappropriately by many
 * Counterargument: By many registered and even autoconfirmed users.
 * The undo option makes it very easy to edit war and could be seen as encouraging it
 * Counterargument: Only in the same way that the "edit" button could be seen as encouraging it.
 * The function is similar to the administrator rollback function, the abuse of which is agreed to be incorrect
 * Counterargument: Nobody's denying abuse of it is incorrect. Vandalism is incorrect, that doesn't mean we should prevent anonymous editing.

Available to anonymous users
Under the proposal, the undo function will only be available after a person registers.

View by violet/riga (t) (original proposer)
The undo function has become a tool for vandals and edit warriors. I like the ability to undo and give reasoning but I've seen it abused far too many times. While anyone can go into the history of an article and revert an edit I think it is now too easy for IPs to undo an edit. I would suggest that undo is removed for anonymous users only, per the first proposal. violet/riga (t) 11:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, great idea. What with annoying messages and captchas to solve every time you want to revert something, Wikipedia just isn't hostile enough to anonymous RC patrollers at the moment. This change might finally drive them off altogether! Won't it be nice without all those pesky newcomers to deal with – Gurch 23:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm is rarely the best way to handle sensible discussions. I wonder if the use of undo by anonymous users has a net benefit as you seem to believe.  violet/riga (t) 23:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't keep an exact count, but based on my contributions, in the past year or so I have probably reviewed around 100,000 anonymous contributions. I have seen anonymous abuse of the undo function perhaps three or four times, and legitimate use of it hundreds of times. I have seen it abused far more often by registered users than I have by anonymous users – Gurch 10:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With regards anonymous usage I would say the opposite from my own experience. violet/riga (t) 10:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you care to point me to a diff that shows abuse of the undo function by an anonymous user? – Gurch 10:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While you're looking, here are three examples showing valid use of the "undo" function by anonymous users within the last few minutes – Gurch 10:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How about three on one article (probably the same person)? A brief anon undo edit war and several undo uses from one IP. That's just three recent ones from my watchlist - there were a couple of positive reversions too, but not as many.  violet/riga (t) 11:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All I see on the second is several registered users undoing vandalism and one anonymous user making what looks like a good-faith edit (though I agree an unnecessary one) using the undo function. The last one, besides being from four days ago, is clearly an attempt, though not an entirely successful one, to undo the contributions of User:Google master 33, which were unconstructive. As for the first, that is simple vandalism, so unless you're suggesting anonymous users will magically stop vandalizing if the undo function is disabled, I don't see how there will be any improvement – Gurch 13:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by what you are talking about here. The second shows a long history of anons edit warring using undo, the last one happened only yesterday and was the latest of several undos, and the first was vandalism aided by the use of undo.  As for yours, the first was an anon undoing himself, the second and third was the same anon undoing edits by a vandal - this is a useful service and I hope the anon has since registered; if the undo option was a carrot for registering then perhaps that would've improved the chances of us gaining a new user.  violet/riga (t) 16:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Result: a valid suggestion vetoed by Gurch. Has this suggestion, which does not infringe an anonymous IP's ability to edit from an earlier version but simply offers one-click ease, been more widely reviewed elsewhere?--Wetman (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

View by User:Sceptre
I don't like the undo function as a free-for-all - I have not once seen it used by an IP correctly. If an IP editor wishes to revert, he can edit the old revision himself. Otherwise, it has the potential to give destructive people a mini-rollback script. Support restricting to autoconfirmed and above. Will (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know about you, but I've seen it used for constructive purposes by anonymous users. That said, I don't see why we should be quashing anonymous vandal-fighters.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, having an account = having better tools. This is one of those "better tools". - jc37 18:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Question
AFAICT there isn't much difference between clicking UNDO; and clicking the version one step back and then the edit tab. So all UNDO does is remove a key press step? (I'm asking, because I feel as if I'm missing something, likely important.) - jc37 12:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It does work a little differently. Undo can remove an edit to a particular section even if the article has had other edits since, while going back to the history and reverting back to before the offending change would remove all of those afterwards.  The main question is do we want to make it easier for anonymous users to undo edits?  I believe that that the anons that use it for edit warring and reverting the removal of their vandalism outnumber and outweigh those than use it for good.  To clarify I am a great supporter of anonymous editing, but think that the undo function is most appropriately used by registered users and would be best as a further carrot to encourage people to sign up.  violet/riga (t) 12:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nod, I knew that but wasn't thinking of it when I asked. Thanks for the reminder.
 * Incidentally, knowing that, I support the proposal of removing this ability from IPs. It sounds like trouble waiting to happen. Especially if it's not caught right away. Further edits could make this a mess to try to figure out. - jc37 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Partial restriction
How about only allowing IP users to undo edits made by other IP users? This would let them deal with the majority of vandalism and avoid abusive edit wars with registered users who may have just undid vandalism from an IP user. UncleDouggie (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This actually looks like a good idea to me. I've seen a lot of vandalism by anonymous users, but there were examples shown of valid editing there which was just exactly this kind of thing: an anonymous user removing another anonymous user's vandalism. -- BRG (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This does sound like a good compromise. However, one problem I do see is how it might confuse new (unregistered) users. They will see the undo function available for some edits, but not for others. Jersey emt (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This indeed looks like a good idea. As for new unregistered users, an "error" notification of the lack of an UNDO command and a link to register should be fine, shouldn't it? Ginbot86 (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I, an anonymous user just having used the undo function against another anoymous user, support that. I prefer keeping the UNDO for anonymous edits and will not be confused if disabled on registered user's edits. But, please refrain from providing links to the register page: I want to keep editing as anonymous user for privacy reasons and expect others doing so to have their own reasons, too. -- Juergen 80.133.210.26 (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Juergen, being an anonymous user actually has less privacy than being registered as your IP address can be used to locate you. Ginbot86 (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hebe Camargo
I made an issue in the article Hebe Camargo only with the intention of improving the article, but my edits were reverted. I ask that the modifications made by me are restored (remake). 187.22.219.128 (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not the place to ask a question like this. This proposal already was considered failed. 187.22.219.128, check your talk page because it has the reason your edit was reverted. Ginbot86 18:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)