Talk:Global rollback

This page is for discussions related to the Global rollback page.   Please remember to: Sign posts using the four tildes (~~~~) Remain civil and polite during discussions. Place new text under old text (start a new post)   Archives: 1

autoreview

The Flagged reviews extension is already enabled on a couple of the wikis SWMT applys to (and more ar going to follow), so I suggest adding the autoreview right to the global rollback group. It would mark their reverts etc. as reviewed, so there is no need to have it reviewed per hand by the local community. - Hoo man 11:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am not too sure about this - it's normal edits (if any) would also get autoreviewed. If a SWMT member is a trusted member of a comunity that has on its project the flagged_revs extension activated then it should not be hard to get that permission locally. On the other hand, according to Special:GlobalGroupPermissions there is no 'autoreview' permission to set; only 'autopatrol' which is already granted to the global rollback global group. — Dferg ☎ 10:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  The problem with the "usual edits" is the same with every user right (e.g. autopatrol works on wikis with own policy for autorepatrolers, too). But you always have to see the time it takes for local users to review all changes done by SWMT members... Btw, the right could be set at enwiki, or any other wiki with installed flagged revisions 1 - Hoo man 11:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'll be thinking deeper into this proposal. — Dferg ☎ 13:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This might be the wrong page for this, but you should think about giving this right to global sysops and global bots (especially to bots, which can make a large amount of edits in a short time) - Hoo man 11:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that this can be discussed here, however I'm adding a note to our noticeboard for higher visibility. Regards, — Dferg ☎ 12:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Now further comments? Just Dferg? - Hoo man 10:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Global sysops and global rollback is intended for small wikis; are there any small wikis that have enabled flaggedrev? Laaknor 12:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are some (the following might not all been so small, but they are all monitored by the SWMT): alswiki, mediawikiwiki, mkwiki, ruwikiquote, tawikinews, eswikinews, srwikinews and severall others... further I think that FlaggedRevisions will be enabled on more small wikis, from time to time - Hoo man 13:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think any global group should have rights like these. They deal with content in a way that could include much more than just vandalism. Therefore, projects should decide for themselves who to hand these rights to and being a global sysop etc. should make no difference. --Erwin 20:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so I think that in this discussion we have to talk about autopatroled as well, because it has a similar target and the impact is comparable as well. In my opinion global rollbackers etc. should have these rights, cause they are usually just used to identify non constructive edits as such, but they aren't their to mark content as quality (there are other things in development for that). So I think that a user who has GR (etc.) is enough trusty that we can say he wont do nonconstructive edits like vandalism or copyvios. Furthermore some projects have a huge backlog with not reviewed edits, which grows even higher with edits to review which are just similar to the last reviewed version, because of a rollback. - Hoo man 17:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that autopatrol is obviously needed, but looks like it's already implemented for global rollbacker, sysops and bots. Autoreview is a different issue because you can revert an abvious vandalism in a language you don't know, but you can validate the rest of the page. --Nemo 19:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, autopatrol is already activated, but I wanted to discuss it again, because it seems similar to autoreview. And I don't think, that autoreview is that different, because it only marks your edit as reviewed when the last edit has been reviewed before or the version you are restoring has already been reviewed. That means that someone (a local user with review) has to review the version before the rolback or your edit isn't reviewed. - Hoo man 19:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's true, the edit is autoreviewed only if the version that we're reverting to is a stable rev, so is harmless if GR has it --by Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 21:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't understand this. So I think that this is a bug: if you restore a previous revision via rollback, the status of the new revision should be the same of the restored one and this shouldn't be considered a review action because the rollbacker does not review the revision, which has already been reviewed by another user. With patrolled edits, if you rollback an edit that edit is automatically considered "patrolled" simply because it's been reverted and so you don't need to patrol it, even if you won't find any patrol action for that edit in the logs. But anyway, autoreview right would be a good (not perfect) workaround. --Nemo 06:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14074 and https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13751 are both marked as "WONTFIX", so I would say that a steward should just set autoreview. The disadvantages should be really small (cause global rollbackers are trusty) and the advantages are bigger (taking work from the local communitys) - Hoo man 18:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

'autoreviewrestore'

Since MW 1.19 there is autoreviewrestore. That is exacly what was discussed above: auto-review one's own rollbacks. This is a light version of autoreview, which auto-reviews one's own edits including rollback. Merlissimo (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just for info: I can not find such a right in the page for changing permissions to a global group. Thanks. —Marco Aurelio (audiencia) 18:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Edited: can → can not. —Marco Aurelio (audiencia) 19:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

So, what about assigning it to GR/GS? It would only be useful when reverting edits on wikis that use FlaggedRevs (and it's also unproblematic, it only saves work for the local reviewers). --MF-W 19:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean can not instead of can. However it is not a problem. The 'unblockself' permission was not in the list but after I submitted a bug it got added. Regards. —Marco Aurelio (audiencia) 19:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It is only shown on wikis having flaggedrevs extension installed. metawiki does not use this, so you have to visit e.g. dewiki: de:Spezial:Globale Gruppenrechte/Global rollback. Merlissimo (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment If someone gives this right to GR and GS, please also give it to stewards as well. (No, we don't have it either.) Trijnstel_talk 21:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As there seem to be no objections, could anybody add the right please? Thanks and regards --Iste (D) 22:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to wait for a few more weeks. I'll inform the other stewards. Trijnstel_talk 22:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea, imo. -Barras talk 22:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. —DerHexer (Talk) 23:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Makes perfect sense to me that where the rollback functionality has been utilised under a global right that such a rollback is patrolled. It fits within the understanding of the purpose of the global rollbacker/sysop/steward where that right is activated., including where flagged reviews have been implemented. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that's definitely a good idea. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 07:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• I have no objection. Ruslik (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• No objections. -- Avi (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Good idea indeed - Hoo man (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Sounds good. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed with above, good proposal. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• There aren't many places I think it would be used (at least not often given the wikis with FR) but I do think it's useful so +1 Jamesofur (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

What about also adding the movestable permission? On FlaggedRev wikis every autoconfirmed user can move pages with stable versions, so it might be impossible for a GR user to revert move vandalism there. Regards --Iste (D) 11:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Support for that as well, doesn't seem like a big deal - Hoo man (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• everone who's got autoreview and rollback should get autoreviewrestore as well! a×p_de^Hello! 09:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Inactivity

Previously discussed at:

• 1
• 2

As the requisite for granting the tool is to be very active in reversing vandalism globally I think it makes sense that users who are no longer active or no longer interested should loose this permission. It's just a tool to be used, not a badge. I do not know how to measure activity. Making global rollbacker's confirmations as it is done for stewards seems excesive for me; but maybe we can use a criteria of edits, etc. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 15:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that if the rights aren't being used at all, and haven't been for quite a while (6 months?), then those would be good grounds to remove access to this. However, if the user is on an extended wikibreak as a result of something out of their control (deployment while in the military, a very busy work schedule, large amount of schoolwork or exams), there is no reason to remove the rights. On that note, it shouldn't be too much to ask a user to put some sort of notification on their userpage in such an occurrence. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't there some discussion about inactivity/no usage about global sysops as well? I think we could simply follow the same process as for global sysops here. I'm not sure anymore, but I think there was an agreement of global sysops being considered as inactive after 6 months of no use and there should be some kind of "reconfirmation" or something. -Barras 22:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No further comments? - I think that only our comments does not constitute any consensus in the matter. I propose to continue discussing here or to raise the matter at RFC. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 12:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe RFC would be best, since nobody seems to want to discuss it here :) Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that GR should be removed from inactive people. I think that "inactivity" is difficult to define, particularly where GR is concerned. We could put a criteria of something like at least 20 edits outside homewiki not including userpage creation/content work/interwiki link addition in the last 6 months perhaps. Then again, "home wiki" is another term that needs to be defined. In short, I agree with Dferg's proposal, but I think it's difficult to define "inactivity". Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding permission to Global rollback

Recently, "abusefilter-log-detail" is added to global rollback. However, some wikis require autoconfirm to view the filter. So, I request adding "abusefilter-view" to Global rollback in order to let gblrollback to view the filter on the wikis they are not autoconfirmed and the wikis with this setting. I am also thinking to add "abusefilter-view-private" to global rollback but due to the 'private' setting, I don't think this is possible. So, I just request "abusefilter-view" for Global rollback, thanks. --Waihorace 05:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, abusefilter-view could be added, and I guess abusefilter-log would also be necessary on such wikis. But I don´t know if it isn´t a good idea to add abusefilter-view-private to GR. (But if we add this, abusefilter-private should also be added.) However, I´m not sure if all those permissions are really needed in small wikis. I guess they are only gadgets for fighting vandalism in large wikis. --FalconL ^?! 06:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

abusefilter-private should not be added as it gives access to the private data in abuse logs. Ruslik 07:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if even abusefilter-log-detail is really needed to revert vandalism. I also wonder if GRS really needs any of the abusefilter related settings. Global rollbackers have global autoconfirmed status via the global group fwiw. Adding abusefilter-view-private is definitelly not a good idea. Those filters are private. I do not see a need for it.

-- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 12:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

GRSs does not have global autoconfirmed status because such a status does not exist. Ruslik 12:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)!

Yes, they do: [x] «Edit semi-protected pages (autoconfirmed)» Ref. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 12:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Or, should "abusefilter-log-detail" should be remove from GR? It is added ten days before. --Waihorace 12:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There is kinda global autoconfirmed, but it is limited to only the autoconfirmed right itself, not the rights in the group for a specific wiki, which is what I think Ruslik was getting at. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

@Waihorace: I suggested adding this ´cause it may be helpful in some situations and it definitly isn´t critical in any way. I guess it´s no problem if there are some mostly unuseful rights, which may be helpful only in certain situations. But the abusefilter*-private definitly shouldn´t be added, as they are only for sysops. --FalconL ^?! 14:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant that it is important to distinguished between the 'autoconfirmed' userright, which exists both locally and globally and the implied usergroup called 'autoconfirmed', which is only local. It is unfortunate that they have the same name. 'autoconfirmed' userright would be better called 'editsemiprotected'.

I actually think that abusefilter-log and abusefilter-view should be assigned to GRs. They are assigned at most to 'autoconfirmed' usergroup and may be useful (together with abusefilter-log-details) when it is necessary to analyze contributions of a specific user including those that have been disallowed. All 'private' userrights are only for sysops and oversighters. Actually abusefilter*-private is disabled due to a bug. --Ruslik0 ^{I added your user name --FalconL ?! 14:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)}, 14:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So, if there is no objections I am going to add two userrights to GRs ( abusefilter-log and abusefilter-view). Ruslik 17:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• I actually object, as I've said above. But mine it's only one opinion. Regards, -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 19:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• I support adding the above rights, cause from time to time I get stopped by abusefilters myself and can't view them to find a workaround. Furthermore it's no big deal, cause it's in the autoconfirmed group usually - 10:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• I also object. rollback means rollback. fr33kman 00:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• I share the same opinion as Dferg and Fr33kman. -- Màñü飆¹5 ^{talk [es]} 16:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support from proposer. --Waihorace 06:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Add

How about we add a very new permission so that you could rollback from 1 edit to another. Not all of that editor in a row. Like if a user has made a good edit, and then he does 2 very bad vandalism edits. We would not want to rollback all the edits. It could be like this.

(cur | preview) 22:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Ebe123 (+45) (rollback | undo)

(cur | preview) 22:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Ebe123 (+45) (rollback just to here | undo)

(cur | preview) 22:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Ebe123 m (+45) (rollback just to here | undo)

When you select the revision, it will become deselect this revision. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and do that with global js (there are multiple scripts which can do this), but it isn't a feature that is currently available on any wiki. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I feel like if a user makes a good edit you owe him an explanation for reverting other edits. I don't think rollback would be appropriate in such cases. --Erwin 16:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)