Talk:Global rollback

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Proposal to add deletedtext/deletedhistory[edit]

LTAs are often on the go in several projects, and is it necessary sometimes have to look at contributions from multiple wikis to see whether it is an LTA or a simple vandal. Local sysops sometimes delete posts without other actions because they do not know every LTA, which makes it difficult to identify crosswiki LTAs in projects without a GS. That is why I proposal the GR also get access to deleted content.--π–π’π€π’ππšπ²πžπ« πŸ‘€πŸ’¬ 19:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like overkill. For rollbacking, you don't need to know whether something is mere vandalism or very bad LTA vandalism. --MF-W 21:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MF-WThis is for the initiation of further measures, i.e. request on SRG, checkuser request etc.--π–π’π€π’ππšπ²πžπ« πŸ‘€πŸ’¬ 23:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like overkill to me too. Rollback should be sufficiently determined by the content, not by the history. Β β€” billinghurst sDrewth 06:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeΒ Oppose Huge overkill, if you want to be a sysop, apply to be a sysop - rollback is meant to be a simple and quick content fixing tool. β€” xaosflux Talk 14:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeΒ Oppose per xaosflux; it would mean an increase in the review and granting; let us keep it simple. If this was to progress I would want it to be via a RFC where the big wikis could see and comment. The impact would be upon them, and I don't think they would favour it. They definitely would want an opinion. Β β€” billinghurst sDrewth 16:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeΒ Oppose This is clearly out of scope of the group. * Pppery * it has begun 14:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment if this is approved, stewards please confirm with WMF legal that this is allowed before adding the rights, given that it allows viewing deleted content --DannyS712 (talk) 09:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeΒ Oppose Generally, these features are given to groups such as admin, checkuser, oversighter and member of the arbitration committee in local projects. For some this roles, you must be a trusted user and approve confidentiality agreements. Of course, global rollbackers are also trusted users. However, some deleted content also contains personal information such as home address, credit card number, phone number. At this point, globall rollbackers will also have possible liabilities. Imho, viewing deleted contents isn't a good idea for the global rollbacker group. --Uncitoyentalk 09:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DannyS712 + Uncitoyen you are confusing the rights with "suppressrevision/suppressionlog" --π–π’π€π’ππšπ²πžπ« πŸ‘€πŸ’¬ 14:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, sometimes when the oversighters aren't active, the admins can hide these contributions with revisiondelete on the Turkish Wikipedia. Then, when oversighters are active, they suppress to these contributions. This allows global rollbackers to see this on the Turkish Wikipedia. Perhaps there are other local wikis with such situations. This is a concern for me. --Uncitoyentalk 14:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, see the second quote at w:Wikipedia:Viewing deleted content DannyS712 (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ClosedΒ no further action, no consensus to progress Β β€” billinghurst sDrewth 22:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Local policy on jawiki[edit]

The jawiki community discussed rollbacker group. At that time, we set the rules for GR. (See also ja:Wikipedia:ε·»γζˆ»γ—θ€…#γ‚°γƒ­γƒΌγƒγƒ«ε·»γζˆ»γ—θ€…) This rule means the local administrator can ask GR to stop using rollback and other additional features.

I suggest adding this jawiki rule to GR#Local policies section.--mirinano (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will presume that a jaWP admin will come along and add it when they so choose. Β β€” billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeΒ Oppose There is little practical difference between the JAWP policy and the global policy, so there is no need to provide us with further information.--Infinite0694 (Talk) 16:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I think GR take a casual glance at this policy but it may not be as much as we would add it. I want to withdraw this suggestion.--mirinano (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Later?[edit]

Is there some consensus on whether it can be resigned and then continued on at some point in the future? Or, like Commons' notice "stating that they will be away for a period"? ~Lofty abyss 17:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not from my understanding, you need to file a new request. Leaderboard (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if it's two years with no edits at all then that seems long enough... ~Lofty abyss 18:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove autopatrol?[edit]

Previous discussion: Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2020-06#Why_does_global_rollback_include_autopatrol?

Please forgive me to bring up the conversation again. I believe this right is primarily added to autopatrol GR’s reverts to ease the burden of recent changes patrollers. However, Recent changes patrol is now disabled by default (wgUseRCPatrol) and most (~700+) wikis only patrol new pages, usually as a means of new article quality control, which is irrelevant to identifying vandalism and spam. It really isn't about trust. It's just not relevant. (Side note: English Wikipedia removed autopatrol from admins)

From another perspective, reverting vandalism isn't the norm, content contributions are. Autopatrol is unlike suppressredirect that can be turned off when GRs contribute to the content. For wikis still with recent changes patrol, if a GR is not an active contributor on a project and only occasionally reverts vandalism, their edits wouldn't impose a burden on that wiki's patrol workflow. If they are active enough to impose a burden, they can be granted local autopatrol when eligible under the local policy. (If they are not eligible for autopatrol, why should we override that just by their "occasional reverts"?)

In short, I feel that keeping this right in the GR toolkit can be of little help, and may contradict the local policy on a significant number of projects. -- 94rain Talk 00:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solution in search of a problem. What is the issue of autopatrolling GRs? When the wikis bring up clear issues, and they show that it is a problem then we can address it. It has been this way for years and there has been no evidence nor abuse, so I think this is an argument in search of a purity. I still think that having GRs edits patrolled outweighs these theoretical issues. it is not about feelings. It was discussed and not actioned. Β β€” billinghurst sDrewth 01:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing this because an article created by me was brought to attention on English Wikipedia, though they didn't complain much about the content and later I unreviewed the article myself. Later there was a serious case when a GS/GR got their permissions revoked. Eventually they approved a bot task to automatically unpatrol pages created by global rollbackers on English Wikipedia. All these incidents and countermeasures can be avoided if autopatrol was not bundled in the GR toolkit in the first place. English Wikipedia can handle this by unreviewing articles with the page curation extension. But other wikis are not able to "turn off autopatrol". 94rain Talk 03:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stick with my original assessment. The numbers of creations in this situation that need the work are orders of magnitude smaller than the benefits of patrolled reversions. An unneeded purity and as the comment in the wiki said, any GR is pretty certain to be granted local patrol with minimal effort. Also many wikis do not have an AP so the burden that is created is higher than necessary. Β β€” billinghurst sDrewth 05:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the fact that the English Wikipedia cared enough to write a bot to disable that behavior indicates that there is a real problem. * Pppery * it has begun 06:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia is NOT the measure that I would apply for a real indicator of all wikis, especially when one reads some of the commentary. Show me we have a holistic issue for all the wiki sisters. Show me that we have a real problem with the right, and not some perception to which someone applies bot scripts. Show me that the right is abused. Β β€” billinghurst sDrewth 08:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does User talk:Tulsi Bhagat/Archive 3#Global rollback and global sysop rights revoked count then? * Pppery * it has begun 15:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to write about, its not working anyways. Its working as autopatroll but not as patroller. earlier it used to work as patroller. I was able to mark pages as patrolled.
  • Isolated incidents and puritanical cautions by enwiki community or few active editors there, shouldn't be guiding our global policies and technical transformations.
  • Global rollback group is for small wikis and wikis where there are less active editors who can perform antivandal work or patrolling in general. We look after small wikis and if needed large wikis like enwiki, but again most of the active cross wiki vandal fighters who have gr also have local rights and importantly good standing on large wikis too. thats how we allow them to have gr/gs in first place.
  • I see nothing wrong in having patroller/autopatroller permissions in gr set.
QueerEcofeminist [they/them/their] 05:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing Edit Patrol: Assisting Rollbackers on the Wikipedia Android App[edit]

The Mobile Apps team has recently released a new feature in the Android app to assist rollbackers in patrolling from their mobile device without leaving the Android app. Edit Patrol is a suggested edit that allows users with rollback rights to view the recent changes feed, with access to undo, rollback, thank, and post talk page messages.

The feature is currently available on Indonesian, French, and Spanish Wikipedia. We hope to make it available to English Wikipedia rollbackers in the coming month.

You can learn more about the feature and its development on our project page. Edit Patrol does not intend to replace existing patrolling tools, rather fill some gaps that have been highlighted in the mobile space. Prior to writing a single line of code, the team conducted interviews with patrollers and conducted a comparative review of existing patrolling tools. Throughout development, we have continued to incorporate feedback from members of the community. We prioritized collaboration with communities that have traditionally had difficulty utilizing existing tools, specifically folks using mobile devices.

After initial release, we heard requests to add access to user talk warning templates in the talk page message flow. Users are now able to search and use user talk warning templates as part of the tool. For languages that do not have user warning templates, the team reviewed messages across languages & created 10 example messages that will be preloaded into the app: you can learn more about those messages and leave feedback here.

The feature currently allows users to view the feed of recent edits for only one language wiki at a time (the primary language set in their app), but we are interested to hear if there is a preference from multi-wiki rollbackers to have the ability of patrolling multiple languages in a single feed.

Please check out this presentation with more information, and a demonstration of the feature to learn more. If you have any questions or feedback, we welcome it on the project’s discussion page, or please attend our open demonstration hours for this feature on Google Meet on the 26th of April 2024 at 18 UTC (You can determine the right time in your time zone using a time zone converter tool).

Looking forward to see you all.

--ARamadan-WMF (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add apihighlimits to GR[edit]

Hi all, I am suggesting to add apihighlimits to the GR-set. Steward EPIC suggested to discuss this addition here.

The idea came up in this discussion, because many Global Rollbackers use tools and scripts to fight spam and vandalism which need to use the API. Global rollbackers are highly trusted users who mostly use scripts, so in my opinion there is enough trust and a valid usecase for all GRs.

Thanks, --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 09:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]