I took this to mean those with special rights, so everything beyond automatically granted standard access: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels
> In this paper, we analyze all 57 million comments made on user talk pages of 8.5 million editors across the six most active language editions of Wikipedia
I know that wikipedia supports granting special rights to some editors. I have those. That's why I'm stating that an editor does not have special rights, because everyone is an editor.
And by the way, in general Wikipedia's "special rights" granted to non-administrator user accounts aren't that special. They unlock some UI features like bulk editing to fight vandalism, move pages, mark edits as minor, etc. See for yourself, and compare the difference between the permissions granted to Administrator accounts, everyone in the world (all users, registered accounts), and other groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels#T...
Claiming that an editor posted a toxic comment has the same weight as claiming that a random passerby shouted at you in the street.
And I already edited the original comment, explaining that I misunderstood.
No, it really doesn't. Anyone can revert any edit, even if you haven't registered an account and/or you aren't logged in.
The only thing that the reversion permission capability grants you is access to a button in the UI.
Also, all you need to do to be granted access to that permission is a) have an account, b) ask for the permission, b) not have an abuse-riddled contribution history.