Talk:Global rollback

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is for discussions related to the Global rollback page.

  Please remember to:

  Archives: 1

Wikimedia Community Logo.svg

RFC: removal of global rollback due to inactivity[edit]

Previous discussions on the subject:

In the last discussion it was mentioned the possibility to establish an inactivity policy for global rollbackers as well. By looking at the list of users with global rollback rights I see a lot of users that at some time were active in the SWMT and helped over there, but now they do not engage in such activities. Since for granting this right the policy says that the user must be demonstrably active in activities where this permissions might be required, I think that users that hold this rights should have, at least, some minimum use of this right or it should be removed.

In the past threads where this was discussed there was agreement that an inactivity policy would be fine, but a criteria was never set. This RFC intends to seek such criteria and enact it in the policy if the community agrees with it.

I'd say that if any user with global rollback rights does not perform a number of rollbacks outside the wikis where they have rollback or admin rights in a whole year will be demoted, with the posibility of re-applying through the regular way.

Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we have stats on how many go missing after one year and do not return within two? What is the means that we would be looking to measure when they last used the tool? Or is it just an editing presence?

In light of the proposal around advanced administrative rights, I am wondering whether you would consider a two year period. We prod after one year of inactivity, and remove no further notice after the second. I am wanting something low maintenance but effective. There is not a lot of risk of the right being held for too long, but it is needed to be removed rather than left drift forever. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

What problem is this proposal going to solve? Rollback only allows users to do an action, which any user can do with two click of mouse, with just one click. Rollback is hardly an "advanced right". Ruslik (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
It is not always technically possible to recognize whether a certain revert has been performed using rollback or not, as there are some scripts to customize the edit summary of rollbacks, so it would be impossible to consequently implement an inactivity policy for global rollbackers. I also agree with Ruslik. Regards --Iste (D) 19:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why rollback needs to have inactivity standards. It doesn't do much damage, it's granted to trust people and if they go rogue we can always remove it. Almost all global rollbackers have much more sensitive permissions anyway, and if they want to wreak havoc they'll use those. It is not an advanced right and there's no major harm in letting them keep it. Snowolf How can I help? 20:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that users that went inactive in the activities that lead them requesting this permission —primary SWMT— should continue to have it, as with any other additional rights. We even have formally retired editors holding this global rollback permission, and it respectfully makes no sense to me. If they returned they would be great but I think that additional rights of any sort are to be used, and when the need of them ceases, they should be resigned. Yes, it makes no harm to keep inactive people populating that list; but the same could be said of practically any other permissions.

Regarding the point Iste Praetor mentions, I agree that measuring the inactivity just based on the use of rollback would be difficult in some cases. I do not think that should be the standard. I was thinking more like checking if the user has still some activity in SWMT. I think that it would be very simple and easy with tools like "luxo". I think that there are reasonable doubts of inactivity in SWMT if the user has not made a single edit outiside his/her regular wikis in a year or in two years. It is unlikely that users that have some activity in the SWMT doesn't have a number of edits outside the wikis they're regulary active on IMHO.

I tend to agree with Billinghurst above that we do not need a complicated system but something simpler and effective. The discussion is open to propose methods. I'd propose that rather than setting hard inactivity standards like X number of rollbacks on Y time, I would, for example, message the users that seem to be inactive on their talk pages asking if they are still interested in doing SWMT and keeping the permission. If they do not respond in one month or say that are no longer interested, the permissions are removed; otherwise if the user say that is still interested in helping and keeping the permission the permissions can be kept. Result: in the worst case we will have an inactive user returning from inactivity and joining the SWMT sporadically just to keep the permission (which is help after all) or, in more happy cases, we will encourage users returning to activity because they have discovered the passion of doing SWMT activies again ;-).

Best regards and thanks for your participation. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this a vote? If so, I Support Support an inactivity policy for global rollbackers. No need to have them forever if people are inactive imho. Trijnsteltalk 20:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I think this is a solution in search of a problem. What kind of damage or inefficiency can an inactive rollbacker cause? Besides, we can't have an inactivity policy without a defined expectation for activity. As Iste Praetor said, it can be difficult to tell what is a rollback and what is not. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The question I have is, what if a global rollbacker leaves Wikimedia entirely? --Rschen7754 07:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I asked global rollback mostly for six small wikis I check every day (lbe, xal, sah, crh, os, cv). Some of them have very little or no activity, and vandalism is not that common. I believe I use my rollback there may be once in several months. I can easily imagine a situation when I have not used it for a year, and then according to the proposal I just lose it, despite the fact that I am active, and I believe I did not abuse the rollback. Fine, then I will have to roll back in two clicks, but I just do not understand what this proposal aims to achieve.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I believe this proposal is for totally inactive people, not for those who are still active somewhere. Trijnsteltalk 10:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd say that if a global rollbacker is still active (edits within the last six months) anywhere then they can keep the bit. Rollback isn't the only right in the package, there are other useful ones, and unless there is some reason that we don't trust someone anymore then we shouldn't be removing rights from them that they could still be using. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I would say that we could remove global rollbackers who left the Wikimedia projects entirely for more than 2 years in order to prevent a GR list full of retired Wikimedians. Anyway, I agree that the GR right doesn't particularly need an inactivity policy which governs the use of the right itself as it is a quite minor right and also not community-serving. Vogone talk 19:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Vogone. --Rschen7754 21:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Any progress here? Since there hasn't been any new input for almost 1 year, I'd suggest to close this with the result to apply inactivity removals to global rollbackers who haven't shown any editing activity (total inactivity) for the last 2 years. That seems to be a solution almost every participant here could agree on, at least that is my impression from what I read. Vogone (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It's been some time indeed, and I don't see strong consensus in adopting this, so I think it's better if I withdraw this proposal for now. Thanks. -- M\A 18:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Point about global sysops having global rollback on request[edit]

Hi all, a few months ago it came up that global sysops could have global rollback on request, but that was opposed because it was never added to the GS policy page. Well, if you look at the bottom of the GR page, it is on here. I personally think that this makes a lot of sense and no global sysop should need to be also elected a global rollbacker if they want those rights as well, but the argument last time was that the policy was invalid since it was never added to a page. It is here, so should we consider it legitimate? Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI the diff of the addition. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we should make this policy, if it is not already. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Not only is it a sensible, logical idea, but also received a lot of support four years ago when proposed. LlamaAl (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
If it is already mentioned on the GR policy page I don't think any addition to the GS policy page should be necessary. So I agree that we should consider it to be legitimate. Vogone talk 21:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree too, but perhaps this should be crossposted to other places to make sure people have had the opportunity to comment? --Rschen7754 22:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Done by PiRSquared17. LlamaAl (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Can the userrights be merged technically, or is it because the wiki sets involved are different? In local projects for example rollback, the userright, is commonly bundled with both rollbacker, the usergroup, and administrators/bureaucrats. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Because of the wikisets there is no way to merge them, unfortunately. They also have a different scope of activity. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, global sysops have rollback on all wikis that are opted into the GS wikiset. What global rollback does is allow for rollback on all (SUL) wikis, big and small. --Rschen7754 00:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Support Yep. No need to add it to more policy pages imho and I support global sysops to automatically give them global rollback on request. Trijnsteltalk 23:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Trijnstel.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 00:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems that this has already been decided, see [1]. --Rschen7754 04:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree (and thanks for digging up that vote as well). There was just some confusion/concern over it a while ago. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


Is it true that a global rollbacker needs to have vandalism reverts on approximately 100 projects? If so, it's really absurd.

It would be much more sensible (and productive) to grant global rollback to whomever is actively reverting vandalism in (say, something like) 10+ wikis.

With 100 being required, you see what we have now: candidates making meaningless edits on countless wikis, usually just 1 revert in each, that don't contribute anything of importance to the projects anyway, all just to meet this meaningless and absurdly high minimum (not to mention that no one has the time to adequately review these edits on hundreds of wikis). ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

100 isn't a requirement. I told that to George when he was wondering if he had enough experience based off of my own subjective opinion of around when I felt I was ready to request global rollback rights. So, don't be too worried about it :) Ajraddatz (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


Is there any reason why movestable isn´t granted to global rollbackers? I think this would be really useful, becuase global rollbackers have the move permission too, and movestable is the same on pages with flagged revs. --MGChecker (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason why it is not assigned, I think. Vogone (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
True, now that you mention it.--AldNonymousBicara? 14:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
When I added that right to the global sysop group, there was some backlash because people saw it as a "useless" right. I completely disagree with that position and agree that the global rollback group could have this right as part of it, but some sort of consensus might be needed lest people become upset over another "useless" addition. Why they would care, I really don't know... Ajraddatz (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Given there was no opposition over here and the right is part of autoconfirmed on all Wikimedia Wikis (that have the extension installed), I went ahead and Yes check.svg did it. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

upload and reupload[edit]

It think this would be useful to revert file vandalism. upload is needed because reupload doesn´t work without upload. --MGChecker (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Where has it been needed? Most wikis use Commons, this is predominantly not needed by wikis, and less so due to the infrequency of such abuse. Normal editing rights would seem adequate. I think that the existing ability to work on a wiki doesn't require a rarely, if ever, used right.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Reupload is a right commonly included within the user/autoconfirmed group, but I don't think it is necessary for the global rollback group, unless there is some demonstrable need for it. I definitely don't see it being used as much as others. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

abusefilter-view and abusefilter-log[edit]

I have seen some wikis where these rights aren´t granted do all useres, but sutoconfirmed users. Because global rollbackers already have abusefilter-log-detail, I think that these permissions wouldn´t be problematic. --MGChecker (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Content filter is different from results output. Tell me why you think that it should be granted, rather than it wouldn't be problematic. Rollbackers are not given views to abuse filters, so what makes global rollbackers get rights to abuse filters?  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Normally every user can view abusefilters. That is why every rollbacker cnn view them. On some Wikis, only autoconfirmed users can view abusefilters. And I think it isn't really useful to see, which abusefilter logs an action, if you can't view the abusefilter. Furthermore, many permissions assigned to autoconfirmed are assigned to autoconfirmed too, so I don't see any problem. --MGChecker (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


Related topic: Talk:Global sysops#Additional flags and name change

Hi all, I think it would be logical to include "autoreview" flag to GR permission as well as "autopatrol", since many times we perform "undo" function and "autoreviewrestore" is not enough. What do you think?--Syum90 (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this was previously discussed, but rejected because being a gr does not necessarily mean that all edits should be reviewed on those pages. GR doesn't imply any editorial knowledge, especially since it applies everywhere. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I've had doubt about that which does not include this permission to GR. I think it is useful for us to use GR permission including "autoreview" function as a patrol activity.--Infinite0694 (Talk) 08:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: as I mentioned above, it's the same case than "autopatrol" flag, I think, and this flag is included into the permission. Maybe "autopatrol" flag has to be removed from the permission.--Syum90 (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
According to Talk:Global rollback/Archive 1#Rights, throttle, it mentions that RC patrollers don't need to patrol our edits. So, I reckon that what Ajraddatz says about that and what "autopatrol" flag means are two different stories.--Infinite0694 (Talk) 12:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@Infinite0694: I don't think so; on wikis where "patrol" is enabled for edits (not only new pages) each edit has to be checked, and it's the same on wikis where flaggedrevs are enabled, where each edit has to be checked too. They are two different tools to do the same. I think it's a matter of consistency, I think the two flags or none should be included, but not one yes and the other no, I see no reason for it.--Syum90 (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, this is just a memory, but it makes sense: I seem to remember autopatrol being included so that all reverts are marked as patrolled, since there is no "autorevertpatrol". Since the review right is split up that way, global rollback has the one that has to do with reverting, but not the one that deals with editorial control. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Patrol and FlaggedRevs are not the same. Patrol is merely for countervandalism purposes while FlaggedRevs also allows judgement of content quality. Vogone (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@Vogone: "review" flag is only for check the revision, the flag for judgement of content quality is "validate". ajr's last comment has much sense.--Syum90 (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Like no one expects the Spanish Inquisition it seems nobody understands the Flagged Revisions. It can be tweaked according to the wishes of the particular community. For example the Finnish Wikipedia has "Editors" who can "review" changes to any level, and while they have a job title that is inferior to "Reviewers", they have more power than those "Reviewers" who only can review and cannot "validate". While I understand the point and favour the arguments, I still oppose the idea of granting a global right that simply does not mean the same everywhere. --Pxos (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)