Requests for Comment/Autopatroller group split

'''Note: This RFC only affects Meta and does not apply globally. ''' It has been recently noticed and discussed that it doesn't really make sense for the "Autopatrollers" group to also be able to patrol others' edits as that defeats the purpose of its name. Therefore, I propose that a new group called "Patrollers" is created, any existing autopatrolled users would lose the ability to patrol others' edits, and the existing autopatrollers group would be renamed as autopatrolled. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 15:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1

 * The current Autopatrolled users group on on Meta are users who have ability to have their own edits marked as patrolled automatically.
 * Patrollers on Meta are users who have ability to have their own edits marked as patrolled automatically as well as the ability to mark other users' edits as patrolled as well.

Support

 * 1)  Per the name, it only implies that users can patrol their own edits. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 15:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Conditional  per above, though we could also rename Autopatrolled users to Patrollers and add   to autoconfirmed users, as is the case on other coordination wikis. I strongly support either proposal, though. It is conditional upon the group names being autopatrolled users to Patrollers (if keeping a separate autopatrolled users group). Dmehus (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am a bit confused by your definition of "rename"? Do you mean that all currently autopatrolled users become patrollers? If so, there are proposals for that below. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 15:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. I just mean re-wording the group names to autopatrolled users and patrollers in terms of the MediaWiki interface message page names and the page names on Meta, and in this RfC. Very minor, innocuous change I hope you don't mind making above. Dmehus (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Per our conversation on Discord, I think it was just a misunderstanding, as you and I are completely in-sync here. My only issue was with the proposed name of the group as "autopatrollers"; it should be "autopatrolled users," since they no longer will have the technical ability to patrol others edits. With your assent on Discord to my tweaking the wording, which I've now done, I've struck "conditional" from my support. Dmehus (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  Per Reception123  16:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * 2)  If this proposal doesn't pass at least, I think other discussions will not proceed.--松•Matsu (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 14:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)    SANICANIC -_- (Fanonpedia) 15:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  per Reception.  CircleyDoesExtracter  ( Circley Talk  |  Global   |  Email the Cloud ) 19:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  HeartsDo (Talk || Global || Wiki Creator) 18:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Conditional  This makes sense and I support it as long as proposal 6 below passes as well. Bonnedav (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments

 * I don't know much about the discussion before this RFC, but is there any reason that do we need to split the group other than group name problem? I do not feel any inconvenience under the current system and rules. Is there any reasons why we need to split the group other than that the role of the group and the group name are different? I would oppose this if there is no other reason to split. --そらたこ (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question. I wouldn't say there's a strong reason to support this, necessarily, other than the fact that by splitting the  and   into two separate groups, administrators can more readily grant the former to users who know Meta's scope and purpose, understand Meta's noticeboards, and follow talk page guidelines, among other things, which reduces the unpatrolled edits backlog, whereas they can be more selective in who they grant the latter to (i.e., those that typically are also autopatrolled but who want to actively patrol and know what to patrol without action or otherwise remediate). Patrollers who also have need for the   tool can also apply for, or be granted, rollbacker (should there be a need; in most cases, Twinkle's pseudo-rollback works fine, though). Dmehus (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ideally, the admin should not see the edits that have already been patrolled.However, by inferring that this RfC was proposed by a user who belongs to the administrator group, it seems that the members who belong to the administrator group have confirmed the edits that have already been patrolled for the management work.It is patrol authority to reduce the confirmation work of the administrator, but maybe it is not working well.This is my personal guess and may not be true.--松•Matsu (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1.1

 * The current Autopatrolled users group on on Meta are users who have ability to have their own edits marked as patrolled automatically.
 * Patrollers on Meta are users who have ability to have their own edits marked as patrolled automatically as well as the ability to mark other users' edits as patrolled as well as quickly rollback the edits of the last user who edited a particular page as well.
 * Note: If Proposal 1 passes, this proposal 1.1 becomes moot and, thus, cannot pass.

Oppose

 * 1)  per my comments at Administrators' noticeboard. Users with the   may not need, or may not yet be trusted with, as applicable, with  . I would support adding   to Rollbackers. Dmehus (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) * This vote again is related to whether current autopatrollers get moved to the new patrol group. Personally I am considering whether this proposal would make more sense than mine, but of course that would mean that current autopatrollers wouldn't be affected. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 16:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) ** Per my conversation with you on Discord, there are users I'd trust to help with patrolling, but not necessarily,, so favour, strongly your Proposal 1 and Proposal 5 as an alternative to this. We do need more trusted volunteer patrollers; by including  , we limit our available pool of patrollers. Dmehus (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments
I suggest adding patrol privileges to the existing Rollbackers group.I'm still thinking about what to do with the group name.--松•Matsu (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say I'd be opposed to this, to simplify the number of user groups added to rollbackers, but I still think we should have a separate Patrollers group because  is a serious user right, and shouldn't necessarily be granted to the same users capable of patrolling revisions. So, I'd favour a separate group, however that works itself out. As to group names, I favour autopatrolled users, as is currently the case, and patrollers as they are users that would be patrolling other users' edits. Dmehus (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Moved from Meta:Administrators' notice board.--松•Matsu (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1.1.1

 * The current Autopatrolled users group on on Meta are users who have ability to have their own edits marked as patrolled automatically.
 * Patrollers on Meta are users who have ability to have their own edits marked as patrolled automatically as well as the ability to mark other users' edits as patrolled as well and quickly rollback the edits of the last user who edited a particular page as well.
 * This proposal is only valid if Proposal 1 is defeated, and Proposals 1.1 (the alternate proposal) and 2 (Transfer) are passed.

Support

 * 1) Proposer vote--松•Matsu (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Conditional  per my comments below. We need more patrollers, not necessarily patrollers with rollback. If a Proposal 6 is added to bundle retain the Rollbackers group and add   to that group, I would support that. Dmehus (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments
Even if we rewind, we can easily revert the edit by specifying the version before rewinding.Therefore rollback is not that powerful.Also, I think that it is unnatural for the user who is entrusted to patrol not have the authority to undo the vandalism.Since the Autopatroller privilege is separated, it is expected that the Autopatroller privilege will be granted more easily and the need for patrol will be lessened. It is possible to have sufficient time to talk to grant this privilege. --松•Matsu (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But it's also not that hard to request a separate  permission via Administrators' noticeboard. And, if users are included within Rollbackers, they would have the   permission. We just need to have separate Patrollers and Rollbackers groups for the different levels of trust placed in users, and to be able to grant patroller more readily. Plus, many other wiki projects have separate Autopatrolled users, Patrollers, and Rollbackers groups. Dmehus (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd probably support this proposal, strongly, if you modify it to remove  from the list of rights. Rollback can be granted via the separate Rollbackers group, or we could add another Proposal 6 to add   to Rollbackers, so users who hold both Patrollers and Rollbackers can drop "patrollers," if they wish. Dmehus (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think a user who can't use the rollback permission correctly can judge whether another person's edit is correct.--松•Matsu (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're meaning here. The  is a more powerful tool than the   bit, and I don't want to limit our pool of potential patrollers by adding   to the proposed patrollers group. I would, however, support adding   to rollbackers (through a Proposal 6), so users who have both user group rights can just have rollbacker, to reduce the need for multiple "hats." Hoping that clarifies my position. Dmehus (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Please explain in detail why you think that the rewind rollback is strong.I don't think rewind privileges are a threat unless they are intentionally vandalized, so it's strange to grant patrol privileges to users who cause such problems.Also, I don't think it's so bad when it's not patroled.Rather, I think that the threat is to easily grant patrol privileges and accidentally patrol even incorrect edits.--松•Matsu (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. While it's true that we can rollback incorrectly rolled back edits, due to limited participation on Meta and the fact that patrolling users with rollback under this proposal would often have their edits autopatrolled (even though separate groups, expectedly, a patroller would often have autopatrolled before being granted patroller), the probability and likelihood that rollback misuse would go unseen is too significant, which is why I would strongly prefer to see the two user group rights unbundled. Plus, we have Twinkle, which has pseudo-rollback via "undo," so true  isn't really needed for most patrollers. It isn't that difficult to request both rights, either, since administrators can grant either right to trusted users with a clear need in their discretion upon request at Administrators' noticeboard. Dmehus (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this proposal is only valid if Proposal 1 is defeated, and Proposals 1.1 (the alternate proposal) are passed.I don't think users who agree with Proposals 1.1.1 oppose ‎Proposal 1.1. Also, Proposal 1.1 may be disagreed with fear of ‎Proposal 2 not passing.It is suggested to choose the most popular proposal among the branches of Proposals 1.The Rollback operation is tagged and this operation is not normally used except for explicit vandalism.I can't think of confirming this operation.--松•Matsu (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a good, and fair, question, but from my reading of the Proposal 1 and Proposal 1.1, both are aiming to split the autopatrolled users group into autopatrolled users and patrollers user groups, but both proposals specify different user group rights to be assigned to the patrollers group. Therefore, only Proposal 1 or Proposal 1.1 can pass. Proposal 1.1.1's wording is such that if Proposal 1.1 does not pass, it, too, cannot pass. Dmehus (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please note that Proposal 1.1 will be voted before Proposal 2 (Transfer) results.--松•Matsu (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the proposals are closed by a bureaucrat as a single collective RfC, so the proposals can't functionally conflict with each other, no? Dmehus (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1.1 and Proposal 1.1.1 I am thinking of withdrawing.It's unlikely that Proposal 1.1.1 will vote in the notes situation.I am not willing to refuse to pass Proposal 1, so if I have to oppose Proposal 1, I will withdraw the proposal.--松•Matsu (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Transfer)
Current autopatrolled users are no longer able to  other users' edits and must request patroller rights if they would like to be able to patrol others' edits

Support

 * 1)  I believe it is the best way for administrators to review who is also trusted enough to patrol others' edits. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 15:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Waffled on this one, but since it's granted with administrator discretion, we can review recent patrollers, and re-grant patroller to recent, active patrollers, notwithstanding users who have recently retired. Dmehus (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)   16:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * 4)  --松•Matsu (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  I will feel fine for it.  CircleyDoesExtracter  ( Circley Talk  |  Global   |  Email the Cloud ) 19:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  HeartsDo (Talk || Global || Wiki Creator) 18:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 7)  That's the idea. Bonnedav (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (Transfer)
Current autopatrolled users are transferred to the patroller group if Proposal 1 is successful.

Oppose

 * 1)  While to some this may make sense, checking Special:ListUsers I see there are loads of autopatrolled users who I would not necessarily also trust to patrol edits on Meta. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 15:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  per Reception123 above. Dmehus (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)   16:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * 4) --松•Matsu (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) per Reception Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 14:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  per Reception.  CircleyDoesExtracter  ( Circley Talk  |  Global   |  Email the Cloud ) 19:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 7)  The entire point of this is to restrict who can patrol. Bonnedav (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 4
Rollbackers group is removed and current rollbackers are transferred to patroller group if Proposal 1 is successful.

Oppose

 * 1)  per my comments above. There's a use case for this group, but it should not be bundled with patrollers, per my comments above, as I say. Dmehus (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)   16:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * 3) w:WP:SNOW Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 14:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Rollbackers are not considered to be bundled with patrollers.  CircleyDoesExtracter  ( Circley Talk  |  Global   |  Email the Cloud ) 19:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  No, rollbacker should include patrol instead. Bonnedav (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 5
Current rollbackers group is maintained. , but existing rollbackers will have their rights removed, and can re-request at Administrators' noticeboard.

Support

 * 1)  per nom. Current rollbackers haven't used   lately anyway. It makes sense to have separate groups. Dmehus (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Citation needed for the claim from Dmehus. I also believe that removal of Rollbacker should be meta sysop discretion. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 14:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This Proposal 5 was modified per discussion I had with on Discord. The thinking was that since it's an administrator discretionary appointment, they can easily be re-added. Perhaps it was a bit hastily worded, but in fairness, this RfC skipped the optional draft phase. Anyway, I did look through the Special:Contributions of all the rollbackers on Meta and the only two users have ever used , Dross and Hispano76. I agree with you completely, though, that it's still a useful group to maintain, but just thought this might be an opportunity to houseclean the group of users who have never rolled back any edits (tagged as  ). Anyway, I've struck that portion, in case you wanted to modify your !vote here. The proposal is only to maintain the group now. Dmehus (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  Strikethrough or not, what is the point of this? Bonnedav (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ideally, and I would've drafted this RfC in draft phase, but there was a need, I believe, to get this RfC out, so changes were made after it had already started but, crucially, before anyone had voted. Nevertheless, per the strikethrough and ' comment above, I think proposal 5 is redundant to proposal 4, as proposal is highly unlikely to pass per the rationale(s) provided. Hope that clarifies, and thank you for your comments. Dmehus (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  as redundant to proposal 4, now that proposal 4 seems highly unlikely to pass. Dmehus (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)   16:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC) ］ |

Move to Close Proposal 5 as Moot/Redundant to Proposal 4

 * , I propose that we move to close Proposal 4 as redundant and moot to Proposal 4, which looks highly unlikely to pass, to eliminate any possibility for ambiguity between the two when the full RfC is closed. This could be done by adding either a separate discussion top/discussion bottom or a collapse top/collapse bottom to this proposal's section. Please indicate your support for closing as redundant to Proposal 4 and thus moot. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  As proposer. Dmehus (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)   16:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * 3)  Close it, seems moot to me. Bonnedav (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 6
The  permission will be added to the rollbackers group.

Support

 * 1)  Sence rollback is a little bit more trusted, It should be given patrol as well, mainly so those already trusted with rollback don't have to request patrol separate and combining the toolset makes sense. Bonnedav (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per my comments above, it makes sense to have both a   group and add   to , to reduce the need for rollbackers to have multiple hats as it's highly unlikely a rollbacker would not also be a patroller. At the same time, we shouldn't give all patrollers  , either, as it's often not needed with Twinkle's pseudo-rollback feature and, at the same time, rollbacker is a more serious user group right to have. Dmehus (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  Since rollbackers are more trusted, we can add the patrol rights for their convenience.  CircleyDoesExtracter  ( Circley Talk  |  Global   |  Email the Cloud ) 13:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  Seems like a good idea.  16:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC) ］ |

Oppose

 * 1)  On a matter of principal. Trust for reviewing edits and trust for undoing a series of edits is an entirely different thing. Plus what would the group name be? Rollbackers is a clear directed name - like Autopatrolled. We're here fixing a naming ambiguity, why are we voting to introduce another one? I don't buy the argument of "lets merge roles and responsibilities", I'd prefer a community where roles are separate, clearly identifiable and more cleanly defined. John (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)