Talk:Global rollback/Archive 1

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Scope of policy

Note: as the scope of this policy is the enabling of a user right which basically expedites a process (edit reversion, rather than actually creating an entirely new ability, primarily for use by the Small Wiki Monitoring Team, it only seriously affects the Meta community, of which the SWMT is a part. Any consensus should be developed among the Meta community. Cary Bass demandez 20:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Because you say that this will be kept entirely with the SWMT, why don't we just name the right "SWMT"? That way if we need to in the future, we can easily change the rights associated with the group without changing the name. It also formally associates it with SWMT, like you suggest here. Cbrown1023 talk 00:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, its one of those rights that everyone doesn't need and renaming it to SWMT will just make people join SWMT with no intention of helping out and only to get the Global right, we are not trying to create a cabal, this right is a bit like Checkuser, not everybody needs it. SUL helps a lot with Global rights and the SWMT is just a start and maybe in a couple of months, this will change and the rights will be given out to more people, but because most communities have their own policy on different rights, we cannot force it on them, and thus its better that it stays with a small group of people first in its initial stages before the foundation determines that it be given out to more people :) ...--Cometstyles 01:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
They Both seem like good ideas but I have to agree with Comets, we don't want to appear like a cabal and having "Global rollback" as the group name would be a bit more neutral. It also clearly describes the right being given. --Az1568 01:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Whatever else this would be very useful for dealing with cross wiki spamming too. It is something I would appreciate in the toolbox. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Assigning the right according to need does make more sense than giving it to a class of users. I think it should be emphasised that the right must be used to revert vandalism or spam and that using it for other purposes (e.g. in a content dispute) on any wiki would be seen as a serious abuse of the right which would likely result in it being revoked. Also, presumably those will global rollback would be bound to follow any local policies about rollback use that the wiki in question may have? Not that I can think of any likely ones apart from "just use to revert vandalism/spam"... WjBscribe 08:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Parallel draft

Please note the kind of parallel draft Anti-vandal fighter. --Thogo (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


Is the global rollback right subject to a maximum number of uses in a given time period (like that individually assignable on enwiki) or does it function like the rollback ability included in the sysop permission? WjBscribe 08:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a global throttle of 100/min IIRC. But it should be possible to configure that per-wiki. I think en.wb had the throttle removed entirely for a time (until the default throttle was upped to 100/min). That throttle would count rollbacks on a single wiki - not global.  – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 11:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


What about reanimating this proposal? Global sysops is very likely to fail and global rollback is a tool with very low abuse potential (*everyone* can do it, it just takes longer manually), but useful (timesaving) for the SWMT. --MF-W 14:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Make into a policy

I talked with some of the stewards and a staff member and they agree that this proposal is worth re-looking into and Global rollback to be introduced as soon as possible and unlike Global sysops, it will not have features which will effect bigger wikis so its not really worth discussing the impact it will have on those wikis because it will virtually have none, there has been a recent rise in vandalism levels in small wikis and since Global sysops proposal has failed sadly, this may be the only option to counter cross-wiki vandals and spambots since the only permission associated with this will be "rollback" and nothing else and if implemented, it will be given to SWMT members as that's what it was actually meant for and maybe slowly within months be introduced to all communities and they can make their own policies on that, and it will probably be nice if this happened before the end of this month...--Cometstyles 03:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Although it may require a little more insight from the reverters / rollbackers, it is a feature that is worth implementing. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes i do agree with comet and i think it will help Cross-wiki vandal fighters.--Mardetanha talk 10:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. All active(!) SWMT members should have that. (I'm not yet sure if we should make it as a condition that people must have sysop rights (by election) on at least one WM project.) --Thogo (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes your above mentioned point is really Good and care able i think it could one the requirements ,though i think most of SWMT members are wiki wide admins --Mardetanha talk 10:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, I don't think this needs members to be elected and no unlike Global sysops, being a sysop somewhere is not going to be a criteria, since the only criteria for now is being an "active" member of the SWMT..thats all :) ...--Cometstyles 10:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be about time :S --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 13:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Cometstyles. Yann 11:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, we have stewards support and since this feature has already been tested by a couple of meta regulars months ago, its time to roll the ball..I wonder which steward wants to start this "SWMT" or global group? :)..--Cometstyles 11:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok this seems to have been another failed proposal, since no Steward wants to implement it..thanks..--Cometstyles 03:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Seriously? We have consensus and no steward is going to implement it?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's implemented. Please file requests at Steward requests/Permissions. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:56:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Rights, throttle

Currently this group has the rollback and markbotedits rights. We were musing about adding:

  • noratelimit, which allows you to rollback as fast as you want - for prolific folk like us that will remove a major impediment
  • autoconfirmed, so we are always autoconfirmed when normally we wouldn't be (for those who don't already have old accounts on all >730 wikis)
  • autopatrol, so RC patrollers don't need to patrol our edits

 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Makes sense to me. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As per discussion on IRC, the first 2 are a priority and no it will not affect the bigger wikis in anyway so I don't see any problem really ..--Cometstyles 11:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Makes sense — vvv 12:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems like a good idea. —Giggy 12:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Added "noratelimit", because it does not make much sense to have rollback and not being able to rollback ;) best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 12:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems sensible that these extra functions be rolled in. Looking at these proposed additions, it makes me almost question whether "Global rollbacker" is indeed the best name for this user class... --Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
    • yeah Global rollbacker is a bit too original, its for those with global accounts, so why repeat Global twice ;)..apart from that and the ambiguity in your comment, I would like to remind you about Global sysops proposal which probably failed because of the name :) ...--Cometstyles 12:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Added "autoconfirmed", because swmt members could not revert vandalism on semiprotected pages where they had not yet been autoconfirmed. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


The suppressredirect right was added to the UI, but currently isn't assigned to anyone (awaiting bugzilla:14998). Global rollbackers, being vandal fighters who may often be reverting pagemove vandalism could revert those without creating bad redirects. Please add the suppressredirect right to the global rollback group.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Mike Baywatch, seems like a good idea once approved by the sysadmins..--Cometstyles 01:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Meh, those fat boys have already done it :( ..--Cometstyles 02:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The bug is a request to add it local user groups (sysops & rollbackers) - this request was to add it to a global group (global rollbackers). Someone may wish to add it to stewards too.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:59:28, 06 October 2008 (UTC)

Local policy

English WP is working up a local policy based off of this at en:Wikipedia:Global_rights_usage#Global_rollbacker, any advice or inclusion in this policy would be welcome. MBisanz talk 02:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice like "Let us do our job"?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
As usual, enwp takes it to the extreme without fully understanding the purpose of this. Ban indeed, how utterly ridiculous. Majorly talk 01:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It does say malicious use, y'know? Overreact much? Kylu 05:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
enwp manages to turn something so good, into something so pathetic by exaggerating it so much to make a good policy sound like a bad idea, I agree with Majorly and Mike above ...--Cometstyles 05:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Considering how freely rollback is given out on EnWP that was really over the top. Let's see if being bold helps... —Giggy 06:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Some projects are rather more zealous than others about protecting their perceived sovereignty. While I find such attitudes distressing, especially granted the lack of interest that most projects take in Foundation-wide affairs, belittling the other project will do little to resolve our differences. It is in our mutual best interests to attain mutual understanding, something which has sadly been lacking as of late. :( Kylu 06:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Giggy's edit..please be neutral about it and not to jumpy..--Cometstyles 08:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Why would anyone voluntarily expose themselves to the drama etc on en wp for the sake of rolling back the odd vandal :) --Herby talk thyme 09:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I did :)  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
And I thought you were normal like me...... --Herby talk thyme 15:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by "normal"? You're an admin there remember. Majorly talk 15:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the question just answered itself, Majorly. :) Kylu 15:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Enwp isn't just drama... some of us actually contribute to articles and improve the actual content, instead of fighting all the time. I got the impression that enwp people aren't "normal" according to Herby, which I find offensive. It's not perfect, but neither is Commons. Majorly talk 16:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
(several ec later!) Apologies - you need to be aware that my postings sometimes contain humour.
On a more serious note I fail to see why anyone would wish to use global rollback on en wp given the potential for drama and the number of vandal fighters. Personally I tend to avoid the place sticking to helping with link placement issues where I can (the drama pages have long gone from my watchlist). While I still can help with disruption I will retain the tools - if ever I find I cannot I will drop them as fast as I can. --Herby talk thyme 16:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
And having read Majorly's posting - nope I'm not suggesting all en wp people are not normal. They are some great hard working people there that are a pleasure to work with. It was more some humour with Mike - I apologise for any misunderstanding. --Herby talk thyme 16:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an 'in' joke between Herby and I and was certainly not meant to offend. If you want in, you may email me :D  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
THe sentence in question originally referred to malicious use of global sysop rights, yet got moved and edited improperly to refer to rollback rights. Daniel (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
When I updated it to reflect the changes here starting global rollback/bot/sysadmin, I just did a copy/find/replace, so yes, it would be stupid to ban someone for misusing rollback. Sorry for the confusion. That is the kind of advice I'm glad someone pointed out. Thanks. MBisanz talk 01:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Project opt out?

Is there such a thing? Emesee 19:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at this time. It is technically possible though.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I wonder what for, I mean it's rollback ... and if someone really abused it he would loose it _globally_. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 21:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
oh please, not again, no there is no such thing for Global rollback, it only applied to Global sysops.--Cometstyles 21:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
? Emesee 23:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Although it can be done, it would be silly to do. It is just rollback, and the users who have the tool are highly trusted.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Emesee: There was a fair bit of disagreement over the lack of an opt out for Global sysops, but this is nowhere near as big a deal; all rollbackers do is revert obvious junk (rather than delete/block/protect). —Giggy 00:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
This really is silly. I could achieve the very same with a script in my monobook or in my browser. This just makes things easier. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 20:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


How "active" is an "active member"? Microchip08 20:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Very. Majorly talk 20:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, you can judge by looking at those who have it currently. In more general terms, we are looking for people with a strong history of cross-wiki vandal/spam fighting who are reasonably active doing such work on a regular basis. Users are probably an administrator on at least one wiki, if not more. Does that mean an average of one revert per day? Ten? I would say trying to find a number is counterproductive. In general those who do this work know each other, making selection easier. If you're doing work where you would benefit from the tool, then you should have it.
In short, Majorly is right - we want very active people (hence the low number of global rollbackers).  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 20:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


I guess I kinda assumed we would remove users who are inactive. I'd suggest using more-or-less the same process as for Meta admin confirmations.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

lets wait for Luxo's tool to work at a 100% otherwise there is no real way of telling :) ..--Cometstyles 22:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean right now - I just meant in general. I don't think there are any users with global rollback who are inactive, however we should have some mechanism for removing them once the issue crops up.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry... issue? What's the issue? Majorly talk 01:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that it would be ok to remove inactive ones after a year of inactivity, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 04:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to add the "skipcaptcha" right

I've talk to Pathoschild about this and he said it was ok to propose this. Sometimes, a Global rollbacker might have to roll back a edit the reqular way because the vandalism was kept for many edits. When they try to save it, if the person has not been there for 4 days, they need to enter a captcha. Captcha's are annoying when you try to do stuff like that. This will make sure the Global Rollbackers don't need to enter a captcha. If there are no objections, Pathoschild will add the right to the group. Techman224Talk 03:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Global rollbackers already have autoconfirmed. I'm not sure if there are cases where skipcaptcha is needed because autoconfirmed isn't enough. If so, the right should be added.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
autoconfirmed does not stop the captcha. It's there so that people can edit semi-protected pages. It's the skipcaptcha that actually stops the captcha, meaning that Global Rollbackers don't have to be annoyed by entering a captaha. Techman224Talk 13:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but in what situations is that applicable? There is a captcha for adding links when you are not autoconfirmed -- but global rollbackers are autoconfirmed. There is a captcha for creating accounts, but that's not relevant for global rollbackers. I'm just trying to find a use case for this.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Mike_lifeguard, lets say that a person went to Wikipedia, and vandalize a article. Then another user (not knowing it was vandalize) saves an edit after that. The vandalism is still there, and the rollback function doesn't work (because you can only rollback the latest revisions of one user). So you went to the history and picked out a revision, click on the time of that revision, click "edit this page", and saved that revision. If you haven't been there for four days, you would need to enter a captcha to continue. Techman224Talk 19:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
No you wouldn't. Global rollbackers have the autoconfirmed right already.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Mike, with "autoconfirmed", we don't need "skipcaptcha"...--Cometstyles 21:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As a developer, I can confirm that techman224 is correct. While the autoconfirmed group has the skipcaptcha right, the autoconfirmed right only gives the ability to edit semi-protected pages. If you want global rollback people to be able to skip captchas, you should give them the skipcaptcha right. Werdna 23:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I had global rollbacks, there has never been a time when i got halted by captcha in relations to removing or adding blacklisted urls, I remember i used to get those before global user groups were introduced, not sure if wikimedia wikis actually have that anymore..--Cometstyles 01:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Per Werdna, add it then.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Seconding. I've not run across this issue yet, but since the discussion is here, perhaps someone would like to make a section on any problems we've encountered using GR so far? Other than a vague wish that my language preferences were global (except for a few languages I'm very comfortable with) and a wish that I could have some sort of global userpage/js/css, I'm quite comfortable with the tools we have so far. Kylu 02:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not really a problem with people that have reverted vandalism on many wikis already. But for everyone that's new, they are going to get the problem. Techman224Talk 14:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Pathoschild/Scripts/SynchCrosswiki!!!  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. —Pathoschild 04:04:38, 03 November 2008 (UTC)


The ad hoc system put in place at the get-go was

Stewards will review the request. The request will be approved if at least three stewards endorse it and there are no objections after a short period (typically approximately three days). If there is steward opposition, the discussion will require at least one week and 75% steward approval. Non-steward users are welcome to discuss as well, though stewards will make the final decision. (It is appreciated if non-steward users use {{comment}} instead of the yes/no templates to reduce confusion among those who do not have all the stewards memorised)

I'd like to suggest changing that to

The request will be approved if consensus to do so exists after a short period of consideration (typically approximately 3 days). If there is significant opposition, the discussion will require at least one week and 75% approval. All input is welcome, however when stewards determine whether consensus exists, it is expected that the weight given to the input of stewards will be highest, and that given to the input of those uninvolved in global affairs will be lowest. (It would be appreciated if non-stewards use {{comment}} instead of the {{yes}}/{{no}} templates to reduce confusion among those who do not have all the stewards memorised)

I think this is more in line with the ideology we share. Reviewing the requests from the beginning to now, I don't think the change in wording would have affected any outcome (which proves that the community is at least as good a judge as the stewards in these matters). If there is agreement to do so, this should be added to global rollback as well as SRG.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 05:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm uncertain as to why the community's voice isn't as important as the stewards in your proposal. I'm happy for stewards to determine the consensus in the end, but everyone's voice is, in fact equal. It's what is said that matters. Majorly talk 17:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
That's not true. In most discussions, established users' opinions are given more weight than new or anonymous users, for example. That said, it's perhaps not needed to spell this out. Opinions on that question are more than welcome.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I changed it to

The request will be approved if consensus to do so exists after a short period of consideration (typically approximately 3 days). If there is significant opposition, the discussion will require at least one week and 75% approval. This is not a vote, and all input is welcome. Stewards will determine whether consensus exists; when doing so it is likely that the weight given to the input of those involved in cross-wiki work will be most influential.

Further tweaking may be needed, but I think that is at least better.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Move right

To fight move vandal swmt members won't be able to revert vandalism where you are not in autoconfirmed group. This right is not included in autoconfirmed right ( see Special:ListGroupRights. I think move right may be usefull for global rollbackers --Melos 13:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Added Added, "Færa síður (move)", best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 17:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

tboverride and uboverride

I think both these overrides need to be added to the Global rollback, and the uboverride be added to the Global steward rights as well. The (tboverride) right allows a Global rollbacker to override the wikis local blacklist or the global one here when reverting articles which contain items in either blacklist and the (uboverride) right which was suggested by Kylu which she believes is also needed to work with tboverride...--Cometstyles 00:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure when this would present a problem. Can you describe a use case?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


I suggest adding the markbotedits rights to the global rollback group. It would allow them to mark rolled-back edits as bot edits, useful on small wikis where one vandal could flood recent changes. Maximillion Pegasus 19:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't already? - I actually can mark rolled back edits as bot edits. --Dferg 19:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
See Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/Global_rollback :). Regards, --Dferg 19:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I will update the page accordingly. Thanks, and Regards, Maximillion Pegasus 19:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


Since we only give out GR to users who are "(very) active" in CW antivandalism, I was wondering whether we should remove the GR of any inactive user. Agreed, it is not a big deal, but even then, as is often mentioned in SR/G, the tool is given after seeing whether it'll be used and not on the basis of trust. If someone has no use for the tool, they may as well not have it. Pmlineditor  12:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to remove it. For most groups I can't really be bothered about activity, but I feel like the SWMT groups (GR, GS, stewards) should consist of active members. --Erwin 18:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I think <25 edits in all projects outside home wikis in one year should have their rights removed. What do the others think? Pmlineditor  07:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


I see that in a previous discussion, it was agreed upon to add autopatrol to this group. Any reason why it was not added? Pmlineditor  14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Qusetion about Global Rollback

I am a rollbacker at, does global rollback interfere with local rollbacker rights? Also, could someone explain what the difference is between local rollbacker rights and global ones (besides the obvious)? 20:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, global rights do not interfere with local ones. I have global sysop, for example, but my locally assigned admin flag at enwiki remains unaffected. To answer your second question, the main difference is that local rollback rights are granted to active contributors upon individual request; global rollbackers don't necessarily have any contributions to a given project. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


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) and 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)



Previously discussed at:

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)


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~~ talkContribs 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)

Point about global sysops having global rollback on request

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

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

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)