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)

Autoreview[edit]

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)

2016[edit]

Hi, look this page - Requests for comment/Inactive Global rollback users--6AND5 (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

suppressredirect[edit]

I suggest we clarify that use of suppressredirect for anything other than non-obvious pagemove vandalism is also subject to "local policies". Any objections? xaosflux Talk 19:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

All user rights included are subject to local policies. --Vogone (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I tweaked the wording - to specify that ALL of these permissions are primarily subject to local policies not just the "rollback" permission - what led me here in the first place was a discussion about specific suppressredirects on enwiki made by a globalrollbacker that was not also an enwiki sysop. xaosflux Talk 03:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)