Well, considering everything else that's going on I feel this is appropriate. This has been an issue that has been controversial in the past, at one point the highlight was removed to consensus, at another it was brought back via consensus. A lot of time has passed since then and I figure it doesn't hurt if we ask again.
Support removal of rollback highlight
- Support — - "The colors are used to distinguish between users with certain access rights. Although rollbacks have one additional tool then others they are not able to perform administrative tasks therefore allowing them a highlight would serve no purpose. I don't think a user needs to know who has rollbacks rights as, in a hypothetical situation, won't see the need in a user contacting a rollback simply to request them save time to revert an edit rather than themselves undoing it. It's simply used to distinguish between users who can offer additional aid to others." 17:14, August 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Support — It's confusing for editors unfamiliar with user rights permissions, as they may see a colored name and assume they're capable of doing things like blocking vandals and changing page permissions. Like Neon said, the main tool they receive with the name is just a tool to revert things more easily. LionsLight (talk) 17:19, August 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Support — This is already being discussed on another forum, no they don't need it. WHat do they do that requires them to need a highlight? 17:21, August 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Support — Rollback's only addition is not having to waste ten to twenty minutes to do something everyone is naturally able to do. I don't see why it would need overglorification next to things actually requiring a lot of work like admin or thingies. Also bananas. --Psykolog, who won't eat this banana. 17:22, August 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Support — It's not needed. -Cidem1324 (talk) 08:24, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
- Why would rollback need a hilite? It's just a pretty button. ajr 14:37, September 15, 2012 (UTC)