Wikipedia:Administrative action review

Administrative action review (XRV/AARV) determines whether use of the administrator tools or other advanced permissions is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Any action (or set of related actions) involving a tool not available to all confirmed editors—except those covered by another, more specific review process—may be submitted here for community review. The purpose of an administrative review discussion is to reach a consensus on whether a specific action was appropriate, not to assign blame. It is not the place to request comment on an editor's general conduct, to seek retribution or removal of an editor's advanced permissions, or to quibble about technicalities.

To request an administrative action review, please first read the "Purpose" section to make sure that your particular concerns are within the proper scope. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Administrative action review may be used to request review of:

1. an administrator action
2. an action using an advanced permission

Administrative action review should not be used:

1. to request an appeal or review of an action with a dedicated review process

   For review of page deletions or review of deletion discussion closures, use Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV)

   For review of page move discussion closures, use Wikipedia:Move review (MRV)

2. to ask to remove a user's permissions:

   Permissions granted at WP:PERM may be revoked by an administrator consistent with the guidelines for that permission.

   Repeated or egregious misuse of permissions may form the basis of an administrators' noticeboard or incidents noticeboard report, or a request for arbitration, as appropriate.

3. to argue technicalities and nuances (about what the optimal action would have been, for example), outside of an argument that the action was inconsistent with policy.
4. to ask for a review of arbitration enforcement actions. Such reviews must be done at arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE"), at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"), or directly to the Arbitration Committee at the amendment requests page ("ARCA").
5. for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioural problems; use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ("ANI") instead
6. for serious, entrenched or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking; use Wikipedia:Arbitration ("ArbCom") instead
7. for a block marked with any variation of {{CheckUser block}}, {{OversightBlock}}, or {{ArbComBlock}}; Contact the Arbitration Committee instead
8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias. Such requests may be speedily closed.

Instructions

Initiating a review

1. Before listing a review request, try to resolve the matter by discussing it with the performer of the action.
2. Start a new discussion by clicking the button below and filling in the preloaded template (or use {{subst:XRV}} directly)
3. Notify the performer of the action of the discussion.

   You must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. You may use {{subst:XRV-notice}} for this purpose.

   Use of the notification system is not sufficient.

Start a new discussion

• Participating in a discussion — Any editor in good standing may request a review or participate in discussing an action being reviewed. Participation is voluntary. The goal of the discussion is to determine whether the action is consistent with Wikipedia's policies. Contributions that are off-topic may be removed by any uninvolved administrator. You may choose to lead your comment with a bold and bulleted endorse or not endorsed/overturn, though any helpful comment is welcome. Please add new comments at the bottom of the discussion.
• Closing a review — Reviews can be closed by any uninvolved administrator after there has been sufficient discussion and either a consensus has been reached, or it is clear that no consensus will be reached. Do not rush to close a review: while there is no fixed minimum time, it is expected that most good faith requests for review will remain open for at least a few days. The closer should summarize the consensus reached in the discussion and clearly state whether the action is endorsed, not endorsed, or if there is no consensus.
• After a review — Any follow-up outcomes of a review are deferred to existing processes. Individual actions can be reversed by any editor with sufficient permissions. Permissions granted at WP:PERM may be revoked by an administrator. Closed reviews will be automatically archived after a period of time. Do not archive reviews that have not been formally closed.

May 2026 Rollback by Johnbod

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Diffs/logs: Special:Contributions/Johnbod

User: Johnbod (talk · contribs · logs) (prior discussion)

This is my first time doing something like this, so I apologize if I have made any formatting/procedural errors. I was going through the list of pages that use Template:Post-nominals and removing postnominals from the lead sentence, in accordance with MOS:POSTNOM. Johnbod then left a message on my talk page which said in part "if you remove eg "RA" there, you need to put it somewhere else in the lead".

I'm not under any obligation to make an edit, and I would rather leave what is leadworthy to other editors. When I continued to remove postnoms from the lead sentence of articles (almost all of which weren't RA), Johnbod said "I see you are still just removing post-noms without putting them elsewhere in the leas as appropriate. I shall just rollback these lazy edits". Johnbod then reverted my edits, which are compliant with POSTNOM, to versions which have postnominals in the lead sentence, and thus violate POSTNOM. Johnbod had previously acknowledged that POSTNOM applies to lead sentences, so these reversions by his own acknowledgement go against the MOS. Shogeneral (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - No opinion on the actual matter at hand, that sounds like a content dispute that you should attempt to resolve in the usual fashion through dialogue and consensus-building. And not edit-warring. On the issue of the use of rollback, I think Johnbod has adhered to the spirit of the guidelines around that, even if he might be technically in violation. WP:ROLLBACK says: "Use of MediaWiki rollback with the default summary for any other purposes (such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with) is considered misuse of the tool because those edits should be explained" (emphasis mine). So Johnbod did use rollback to revert a good-faith edit, but the reasons why you're not supposed to do that didn't really apply here. In the instance you mention, Johnbod had already given you the reason why he planned to revert your changes ahead of time, so there was no need for him to "explain" on the edits themselves. Others may disagree but I don't personally think there's any need for sanctions; the correct approach is that you should both go back and resolve the matter in the normal fashion at a suitable talk page. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
• I don't see why this doesn't fall under WP:ROLLBACKUSE #5. Obviously the two of you disagree about whether the edits were unhelpful to the encyclopedia, but that's a content dispute; the important part for rollback is that there was a contemporaneous explanation given. I'm not sure what would be gained by having Johnbod paste that explanation into the edit-summary field 53 times. Endorse. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse Johnbod reverted 51 edits (example). That is a perfect use of WP:Rollback (see "To revert widespread edits"). The issue was first explained at User talk:Shogeneral#Post-noms. Editors are welcome to be bold but mass editing articles against an objection is disruptive regardless of how MOS:POSTNOM is interpreted. By the way, that is a guideline, not a policy. The correct procedure, given that the two parties disagree, would be to seek additional views perhaps at a sample article or at MOS. Johnuniq (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment and question: The MoS guideline changed, and having the postnominals in the first sentence of the lead is a violation then, explained or not. The best way to follow the guideline is placing it in |honorific_suffix= of the infobox, provided there is one. Doing so now should not be regarded as edit-warring but an improvement, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Wrong, Gerda! Most of these (perhaps all) already had the post-noms (in the usual small font size) in the infobox, but it is a very well-established principle that information of any significance should not only be in the infobox (or buried at the bottom of the biography). When the information was removed from the first sentence it should have been inserted elsewhere in the lead (which in most cases there was plenty of room for. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  That's not what MOS:POSTNOM states: post-nominal letters may be included in any part of the article other than the lead sentence (bolding for emphasis). TarnishedPath^talk 04:16, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  We all know that, but POSTNOM does not at all say what you seem to be claiming, namely either or both of a) including in the infobox removes any need to have the info anywhere in the lead (which is what Gerda also seems to think) b) Post-noms should not go anywhere in the lead (which is what Levivich says below). POSTNOM actually says what you quoted, and nothing else. Please don't misquote policy - POSTNOM is bad enough already! Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks for these comments above! I have had rollback for at least a decade I think, and use it sparingly - I don't think my usage has been challenged here before. I'm also not an admin, if anyone was wondering. Shogeneral 's attitude to the interpretation of policy, and the encyclopedia in general is shown, to a rather comical degree, in the exchanges on his talk, and now here: "I'm not under any obligation to make an edit, and I would rather leave what is leadworthy to other editors" - after removing what other editors had put in. He appears to claim (at his talk) that post-noms can only be used in the subjects bio, but not in the first sentence, so never in say lists. The policy does need rephrasing to remove the possibility of this misreading, and I will propose such changes. If one ever could assume a degree of common sense among editors, those days are gone. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
• Not endorse. POSTNOM is clear that postnominals shouldn't be in the lead. Removing them from the lead were correct, policy/guideline-compliant, backed-by-global-consensus edits. They were not "edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia" (WP:ROLLBACKUSE). Restoring the postnoms with rollback violated the global consensus of WP:POSTNOM and WP:ROLLBACK. Not a proper use of rollback. A better move for either editor would have been to put the postnoms where they belong, rather than just removing them, or putting them in the lead sentence. But on the narrow issue of rollback use, not endorsed. Johnbod should self-revert and remove from the lead sentences those postnoms they restored. (Up to them if they want to move them to another appropriate place.) Levivich (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
  • • I presume that this is an honest mistake, but "POSTNOM is clear that postnominals shouldn't be in the lead" is completely untrue - it says they shouldn't be in the FIRST SENTENCE of the lead. Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

      Which means that you knowingly violated the MOS with your rollbacks. Shogeneral (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

      • I recognised this in my first comment on your talk page many days ago " As I expect you know the policy only refers to the lead sentence, and if you remove eg "RA" there, you need to put it somewhere else in the lead, as it is virtually always lead-worthy, at least in the case of the major British societies. That it is mentioned waaay down in the text does not provide an excuse. The edits you are doing are damaging the articles". Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  Also, I'm disappointed by Johnbod's ad hominem response above, calling Shogeneral's "attitude to the interpretation of policy" as "comical" and saying that Shogeneral lacked "common sense." Not cool. Wikipedia needs to un-normalize this "PvP" approach. If someone complains about your rollback, it should not be normal to respond with an ad hominem. Levivich (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• No endorse I'm less sympathetic to the use of rollback here. Any use of mass rollback must always be uncontroversial. This is a content dispute where one editor used their elevated privileges to reintroduce disputed content en masse. --tony 15:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse as a metaprocedural matter this falls within point 5 of WP:ROLLBACKUSE. The rest is a content dispute not in scope of this board. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:53, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Point 5 is for unambiguously non-helpful edits made by users who obviously don't know any better; as a content dispute I can't see how it applies here. tony 16:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  The top of this page says "Administrative action review determines whether use of the administrator tools or other advanced permissions is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Johnbod used administrator tools for edits that are inconsistent with the MOS, which is one of Wikipedia's guidelines. It's not a content dispute. Shogeneral (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Like others, I do not see how edits that implement the MOS could possibly be considered "edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia" (point 5 of WP:ROLLBACKUSE). For example, when somebody moves punctuation to be after the quotation mark per MOS:LQ, or bolds the article title in the lead per MOS:BOLD, those cannot be accurately described as "unhelpful edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot)." If the MOS says "X," edits that implement "X" are not unhelpful; quite the opposite.

  I also don't see this as a content dispute, at all. The content dispute -- whether postnominals should appear in the lead sentence -- was already decided in a 2023 RFC. A 2025 RFC found no consensus to change that global consensus, and the subsequent closure review confirmed that "postnominals are not allowed in the lead sentence." Per the WP:CONLEVEL policy ("Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."), editors cannot decide on an individual article to ignore that global consensus, so I don't see any content dispute here. This is one editor editing with global consensus, and another editor using rollback to edit against global consensus. I'm rather surprised to see three different administrators supporting using rollback to edit against global MOS consensus (particularly one subject to multiple RFCs and close reviews, as recently as within the last 12 months). Levivich (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Not endorse The edits that restored the postnominals to the lead sentences were against MOS:POSTNOM - they literally shouldn't be there. When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments ... post-nominal letters may be included in any part of the article other than the lead sentence. I presume that Johnbod has misread the MOS entry and would just suggest that they revert themself on these, to save others having to do so. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Not endorse As this was not per se an action of an administrator, I can neither endorse nor disendorse. Notwithstanding that, *if* this had been done by an administrator I would not have supported the action. The letter of MOS:POSTNOM is pretty clear, it's hard to see how the actions of the editor violate that. The editor chose to make the articles compliant with the MOS, in doing so they are not under any obligation to restore information that is removed in doing so. Moreover, while possibly moot, the spirit of MOS:POSTNOM (and MOS:LEADCLUTTER) would suggest that there's no reason for these items to be in the lede. Obviously, an editor removing material should not do so in a way that ruins grammar, breaks sentences etc, but in *this* specific circumstance the editor was bringing the articles into compliance with WP:POSTNOM and there is no indication they did anything else. I suspect each one of these cases would need individual examination (no one will want any of a monarch's titles mentioned in the lede, a firefighter awarded a title for bravery may well merit mention in the lede) - as such the use of Rollback was not warranted. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  I've revised my contribution, kudos to Shogeneral for reminding me (and others) this board is about the (mis)use of advanced tools (by an admin or otherwise). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Not endorsed. MOS:POSTNOM couldn't be clearer on this point. If anyone is "misguided" (per criteria #5 of WP:ROLLBACKUSE), it's Johnbod. There were two well-attended RfCs, and Johnbod participated in both of them, though consensus went against them. Using rollback when you know consensus doesn't support your changes isn't on. Mackensen (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • The issue is not about taking them out of the first sentence, but removing them from the lead altogether - Shogeneral's frankly pathetic justification is "I'm not under any obligation to make an edit, and I would rather leave what is leadworthy to other editors." I would have no objection if he had placed them, or most of them, elsewhere in the lead, but he was doing a massive number of drive-by edits, of which I only reverted a small number, and has continued to do so. The American closer of the first MOS discussion said he completely ignored the arguments about differences between British/Commonwealth & American treatments in RS of post-noms, & I notice those not endorsing my edits here are I think all American. Cultural imperialism rules ok in Trumpworld! Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

    If you were intending to reassure people about your judgement this is a step in the wrong direction. Mackensen (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• My edits have now been mass-reverted, by another editor using the same edit summary "per MOS:POSTNOM, already in the infobox", and of course making no attempt to consider whether the information was needed elsewhere in the lead, which in most cases it certainly is. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• I've looked at this from several angles, and I'm coming to the view that the rules might say no postnominals in the lead sentence, but they shouldn't. I think that Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive § Proposal: Moving post-nominals from lead sentences to article bodies was misclosed. The accurate close would have been "no consensus". But that ship might have sailed; edits to our rules become unchallengeable after a year or two, even if they're idiotic.—S Marshall T/C 08:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  To answer question 2 from S Marshall, there appears to be a lot of objection to and little if any support for the idea that this RFC close should have been based on the premise that a previous RFC was incorrectly closed. - the 2025 close review that overturned your close of the 2025 POSTNOM RfC. Levivich (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, it's true that Beland made that claim in his partisan and poorly thought out close of a close review in 2025. Like Ixtal, Beland fails to appreciate what the community's actually saying. I challenge you to read those RFCs with your brain in gear and tell me there's a consensus in any of them.—S Marshall T/C 07:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  I participated in the 2025 RfC, so take this how you will. That it lacked consensus was clear. It therefore did not constitute a rationale to overturn the 2023 RfC. Multiple people said this at the close review, and it surprises me you still disagree. I say this as someone who appreciates the closing work you do, and has no issue with the closes in general. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  There wasn't a consensus at the 2023 RFC either. Ixtal's 2023 close was a supervote. Nobody called him on it in time, so it seems to have become unchallengeable, but a supervote is what it was.—S Marshall T/C 16:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  It isn't unchallengeable. It's far too late to be vacating the closure on the merits, but the outcome most certainly can be reversed. Indeed the 2025 RfC was a challenge, which did not reach a consensus. Future RfCs are always possible, because consensus can change, and specifically because the outcomes here have been close calls. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  Well, the reason why it's unchallengeable is because there's no community consensus on what to do about this. (And never has been.) We're dealing with a crystallized error: Ixtal's mistaken close from 2023 can't be fixed.—S Marshall T/C 22:26, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Not Endorsed: MOS:POSTNOM is pretty clear that post-nominals can go anywhere else in the article other than the first sentence. As Johnbod feely admits above, most of the concerned articles already have the post-nominals in the infobox and their contention is that Shogeneral hasn't peformed additional edits to place them into somewhere else in the lead. Shogeneral isn't required to make edits to please Johnbod and Johnbod's subsequent rollback seems to be going against the spirit of WP:ONUS at the very least. TarnishedPath^talk 04:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  It has always been accepted that significant information should never only be in the infobox, and no doubt this is enshrined in the various policy & MOS statements that you types will know much better than I do. That Shogeneral is free to remove whatever information he likes, without even considering (as he freely admits) whether it needs to be prominently placed elsewhere in the text, seems wholly against the spirit of WP:LEAD and various policies. That isn't a question of "edits to please Johnbod and Johnbod's style", and I find that suggestion both remarkable and offensive. If we wanted that doing, we could get a bot to do it. At least one of his edits wasn't even to the first sentence, or in a bio, and that is clearly not required or supported by MOS:POSTNOM, though he has argued that it is. Johnbod (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  You don't help your argument with statement like that you types will know much better than I do. TarnishedPath^talk 13:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Interjection. I've not been following this closely, and as I seldom use rollback, I'm probably not current on present thinking. Having thusly opined, it is my recollection that rollback was added to deal with vandalsim-in-progress. This doesn't sound like that. It is possible to revert a bunch of edits by simply going to the last clean (or preferred) version and saving that version. I think that would have been the better choice here.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• I see the merits of the edits here as largely separate from the alleged rollback abuse. The merits are debatable at best: POSTNOM compliance vs loss of information in the text is a reasonable disagreement that could have been resolved by either party via normal editing. Sadly neither chose to do so. Whether POSTNOM should be revisited, or the MO for enforcing it adjusted, may merit further discussion. The use of rollback is not, however, remotely justified on the grounds of reversing disruptive edits. Further, the basic issue with rollback is the lack of explanation it provides. Johnbod gave Shogeneral an explanation before the fact, which greatly mitigates a concern over intentional rollback misuse. But rollback is still not equivalent to manual editing, in that anyone looking at the page history has no context as to why an edit ostensibly enforcing the MOS was reverted like common vandalism. If Johnbod had used mass rollback with a canned edit summary that would be okay procedurally, per ROLLBACKUSE#6; whether someone's using rollback vs undo is secondary to the question of whether a revert was explained. Given that such an edit summary was not used, I conclude this use is not endorsed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
  • There had been exchanges on his talk page for over a week before I did the rollbacks, so he was in no doubt as to my problem with his edits, and I was in no doubt that he was totally unreceptive to the issues I had raised. Initially I had no idea he had been doing so many of these harmful edits (of which I only reverted a small proportion before I got bored), & if I had known I probably would have used a standard edit summary. Now that all my edits have in turn been reverted, with a clear edit summary (though wrong in policy terms, saying that inclusion in the infobox means nothing is needed in the text) even passers by should be in no doubt as to what the issue was. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Johnbod's reverts are compliant with Wikipedia:Rollback#RB5: To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location. Johnbod posted at User talk:Shogeneral#Post-noms on 4 May 2026. Their opening should have been expressed with more collegiality but the essentials for the rollback guidelines were met. Shogeneral made 737 similar "rm per MOS:POSTNOM" edits starting on 29 April 2026 including 78 edits in 43 minutes on 12 May 2026. That's more than a week after Johnbod objected. I don't know who is correct but mass editing against an objection is not desirable. It has alway been ok to use rollback to reverse mass edits provided an explanation is provided. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

    To me the fact that Shogeneral's own edits may have fallen short of ideal doesn't excuse the lack of explanation from Johnbod to everyone who hadn't seen Shogeneral's talk page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

    I'm not making a judgment on the post-nom disagreement or on behavior apart from the issue for this noticeboard: was the use of an advanced permission consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? My view is that the rollback usage was consistent, per Wikipedia:Rollback#RB5. Further, I'm pretty sure I have seen that kind of usage several times and believe I've done it myself. A nice edit summary would be ideal but there should not be obstacles when removing mass editing, particularly when that editing has received an objection and there has been no central discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Not endorse: The best justification for the action is point 5 of WP:ROLLBACKUSE. An important requirement for that use is that the edits being rolled back have to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia. I interpret this phrase to mean "edits that are against our policies and guidelines", or "edits that a consensus of editors find to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia".
  I'm not completely sure how I feel about the merits of the edits: they are enforcing WP:POSTNOM by removing them from the lead sentence, but whether they should be put somewhere else in the prose first is a reasonable argument. That said, the discussion above this !vote does not show consensus that the edits were unhelpful to the encyclopedia, so this fails point 5's requirents. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
  • That's not how Wikipedia works—we don't after-the-case decide who was right and conclude that one side's use of a tool was valid. An objection was raised about the mass edits a week before; no central discussion occurred; there was no consensus whether WP:POSTNOM overruled Johnbod's points. Assuming good faith, we assume each editor thought they were helping the encyclopedia. Mass editing is often reverted with a central discussion later deciding what should be done. The question here is whether WP:Rollback#RB5 permits rollback when an explanation is provided elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

    I agree that both editors were trying to do the right thing, and if Johnbod had used an edit summary I would be endorsing his use of rollback. I'm not trying to decide who's right, but the discussion above shows that there's no agreement that this was right. It's fair to mass revert mass editing, but if it's not clear that the edits were unhelpful then I think an edit summary is necessary per Vanamonde93. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• GOODNESS GRACIOUS. Quite a deal of WP:ALL CAPS TEA LEAF READING back and forth here. On the merits, whether postnominals need to be consistent across articles, there seems to be two groups: 1) those who don't care, and 2) those who shouldn't. I can tell one class of people in the first group: the readers. (Excepting the occasional grump and we don't need to cater to grumps.) We are unique. Our inconsistency on matters like this is both our sin and our glory, I guess. Oh well. Over the years I have not read anyone complaining about these types of cross-article inconsistances. My take would be the person who rolled back should have gone and petted a kitten instead, and person who started this thread shoule have done same. We now have this thread instead of two happy kittens. My 2p. Herostratus (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

No endorse. I'm a bit late, but this would be a perfect use of rollback if uncontroversial. The rollbacker should have discussed with the person who made the edit before any usage of rollback. _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 20:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Which is what I did - see above. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

No endorse But this near-edge-case is too minor to worry about other than to just give some guidance. This is not what rollback is for. North8000 (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.