Requests for Comment/Global rollbackers


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * The RfC is closed as follows:
 * Proposal 1: Successful.
 * Proposal 2: Successful.
 * Proposal 3: Successful.
 * Proposal 3.1: Insufficient Consensus.
 * Proposal 3.2: Successful.
 * Proposal 3.3: Successful.
 * Proposal 3.4: Successful.
 * Proposal 3.5: Successful.
 * Proposal 4: Unsuccessful.
 * John (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

As a current Steward, I've been able to more closely see the needs of the farm and a big part where we need a lot of help in is in the field of countervandalism. We do not have many users who assist in countervandalism globally which really hinders the Counter Vandalism Team. While the current CVT can only do so much, there are times when an extra set of eyes would've helped us a lot. Presently, we only have 1 Global Sysop and 5 Stewards of which only 2 are really around the entire week. I believe that by adding Global Rollbackers to the Counter Vandalism Team, we will be able to increase interest in helping countervandalism globally and will be able to give trusted users the tools needed to assist CVT. Unlike Global Sysop, Global Rollbacker has its eligibility and appointment criterion lowered as this role does not entail as many rights and technical responsibilities (such as locking, blocking, etc.) as Global Sysops. GRs will be composed of trusted users and we will give them the needed tools to help Global Sysops and Stewards globally so that we can focus our efforts somewhere else that requires more attention. A GR who is able to help rollback vandalism while I lock and check an LTA would be fantastic and I also hope that this group serves as a stepping stone for future Global Sysops to gain the community's trust.

Signature of initiator: Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Signature of co-initiator: Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (Establishing Global Rollbackers)
A new group called "Global Rollbacker" (whose group name shall be ) is established. Global Rollbackers are trusted users with a track record in countervandalism who help Global Sysops and Stewards revert spam and vandalism across all of Miraheze and assist the Counter Vandalism Team in monitoring wikis for spam and vandalism. Global Rollbackers should only act where there is clear spam or vandalism and should leave any more complicated matters to Stewards and Global Sysops as well as alert them of any offending users that need to be locally blocked or globally locked or local pages which may need to be deleted along with other actions. Global Rollbackers form part of the Counter Vandalism Team.

Support

 * 1) This is already done at Wikimedia and is pertinent. Although Rollbacker only adds a simple button, we are tired of seeing users using Undo against vandalism. It would also serve as a statistic for the user to become Global Sysop in the future. —  Pixial  [Talk] 01:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per my opening statement and the proposal.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Per the initial RfC statement Universal Omega (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  I think it's useful to have an intermediate group to allow some volunteers to help out with reverting vandalism without having to immediately give them all the rights that Global Sysops have which require more experience and trust. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) MacacoKouhai (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  After having read the arguments which were provided during a previous request on this topic I have decided to weakly support this proposal. I point out that on the topic of the actual usefulness of this group I agree with the opposers in that I do not believe that it would be of too much use because a global rollbacker would only be able to undo edits and would be engaging in an edit war with the offending user until someone with blocking power arrives. The reason why I am supporting this is because as RhinosF1 and Dmehus pointed out in the previous RfC cited it can be useful in order to allow someone to build a countervandalism reputation which could later help them advance to a role such as Global Sysop. By having a title users will likely be more encouraged to monitor and combat vandalism even if not as effectively as Global Sysops. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Per above, but especially ’s comment. -Cheers, Matttest (talk | contribs) 05:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) per above. Startus (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  Per above. ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 10)  I agree.  1108-Kiju /▶talk  12:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  I think our global groups shouldn't like WMF too much, like global renamers. We can also add move global sysops to do counter-vandalism behaviour to wikis.
 * Why? MediaWiki comes from there. — Pixial  [Talk] 01:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * While I do agree with that, unlike with Global renamers, there is a legitimate reason to have this group. Speaking as a Steward, we need a lot more support with countervandalism and this group would help and serve as a stepping stone to Global Sysop while Global renamer was just an overly blunt solution to a problem that was fixed. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Specify your position. Here is a vote, but number of votes is not enough to pass, but level of arguments. As it stands, it's hard to understand. — Pixial  [Talk] 15:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Rights)
The Global Rollbackers group shall have the following rights. Note that these are the same rights as the Global rollbackers group on Wikimedia (except ):


 * abusefilter-log - Allows users to view the AbuseFilter log, important in order to investigate potential vandal attacks and alert GS/Stewards / Normally part of the default  group
 * abusefilter-log-detail - Allows them to see general details within the AbuseLog / Normally part of the default  group
 * autoconfirmed - Very useful to allow users to bypass IP-based rate limits. Many AbuseFilters too check to see if a user has autoconfirmed in their toolset and if they don't, it thwarts them from doing some actions which may be detrimental to reverting vandalism. / Normally part of the default autoconfirmed group
 * editsemiprotected - Allows these users to edit pages that are protected at an 'autoconfirmed' level, useful to revert vandalism on those sorts of pages. / Normally part of the default  group
 * skipcaptcha - Allows users to bypass CAPTCHAs which may slow down their vandalism reversions. A lot of AbuseFilters also check to see if a user has skipcaptcha in their toolset so this right is very important to them. / Normally part of the default  group
 * move - Allows users to move pages / Normally part of the default  group
 * rollback - Allows users to quickly revert edits with the click of a button. They wouldn't be Global Rollbackers without the rollback tool now would they? / Normally part of the default  group
 * autopatrol - Automatically marks all their revisions as patrolled. Since they are trusted, there should be no need for local admins to patrol their edits, especially since the ones where they reverted vandalism / Normally part of the default  group
 * patrolmarks - Allows users to see patrol marks only (the red ! next to edits) / Normally part of the default  group
 * minoredit - Allows users to mark their edits as 'minor' / Normally part of the default  group
 * nominornewtalk - Prevents GRs from being sent welcome messages automatically if they perform a minor edit
 * noratelimit - Allows GRs to do mass actions without tripping the ratelimit. Very useful if they're running scripts that mass revert / Normally part of the default  group
 * suppressredirect - Extremely important to undo abusive moves. Some vandals love to move pages to abusive names but if a GR / Normally part of the default  group
 * markbotedits - Allows them to mark their rollback edits as bot edits. Very useful as they can't assign themselves local  in case they flood the RC undoing revisions. / Normally part of the default   group
 * welcomeexempt - Allows GRs to be exempt from HAWelcome's automatic welcome message as they may be on occasion be reverting vandalism on another wiki and we don't want them to be distracted and confused if they see a new welcome message on their talk page.

Reasoning: As stated initially, these rights are the same as on Wikimedia (except ). While some have in the past said they'd rather see the group with  only and that's it, I think these additional rights would help Global Rollbackers help CVT out a lot. GRs will be composed of trusted community users who are elected by the community with overwhelming consensus (>80% if the following proposals pass). Additionally, these rights aren't anything too advanced. There is no locking, not even local blocking or deletion in their toolset. Just a small amount of rights that will help them help the community and CVT.

Support

 * 1)  Seems reasonable, they are not being given advanced tools like blocking or locking but instead, small tools that will aid reasonably with countervandalism.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  These all seem like a good idea and can be useful for the group. Universal Omega (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Seem reasonable, per above. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) MacacoKouhai (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  --DeeM28 (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  The given group works well on Wikimedia. —  Pixial  [Talk] 01:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  This should've been done by default anyways. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)   1108-Kiju /▶talk  12:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  oppose only for welcome message exempt, others are support.

Comments

 * I am confused by the  right. It only allows users to see which changes aren't marked as patrolled? If so, why do GRs need this right? Or it allows users to mark changes as patrolled? Startus (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This categorizes the priority of reviewing the recent changes, as unpatrolled edits is more likely to be nonsense/vandalism. As for adding the patrol right, I would oppose to such a proposal, as global rollbackers is designed for countervandalism. -Cheers, Matttest (talk | contribs) 07:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (Appointment and Revocation)
If Proposal 1 is passed, the appointment and revocation criteria for the Global Rollbacker group is the following:


 * To be appointed Global Rollbacker, a request needs to be made at Requests for global rights. The community can discuss (support/oppose/abstain/comment) the request. The request will be considered successful if:


 * at least 7 users share their view
 * there is a support ratio of at least 80%
 * a period of one week has passed since it started

Support

 * 1)  I see no issue with this. This is slightly less than the requirement for Global Sysop as the roll doesn't entail as many responsibilities.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  This is reasonable. Universal Omega (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Reasonable threashold. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) MacacoKouhai (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  --DeeM28 (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) I support to follow the pattern of other permissions. Even with the heavy strictness of the community in relation to permissions. —  Pixial  [Talk] 01:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) . No issues with this. Startus (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  This approximately equals Fandom Vanguards, but Fandom Vanguards are invited by staffs and it isn't a position can request. I think Miraheze's global rollbackers should also selected and invited by Stewards, and will NOT requestable.

Proposal 3.0.1 (Alternative comment threshold)
"7 users" in Proposal 3 is amended to "5 users".

Note: By supporting this proposal, you also support Proposal 3, in an amended state per this proposal.

Proposal 3.1 (Steward appointed right)
To be appointed Global Rollbacker, a user must request the right at the Stewards' noticeboard. The community can discuss (support/oppose/abstain/comment) the request. Depending on the results of the request, a Steward may decide to grant, or not to grant, Global Rollbacker to the user in question.

Note: This is an alternative to Proposal 3.

Abstain

 * 1)  I literally don't have an opinion on this alternative option as it currently stands right now. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3.2 (Eligibility)
Global Rollbackers are voted by users. However, the following conditions must be met in order for the user to be eligible to be voted. If these conditions are not met, the user may not be a candidate for Global Rollbacker and any support votes will not matter. A candidate must:


 * Have at least 500 total global edits on Miraheze (on more than one wiki, unless that wiki is Meta Wiki) (Note: These edits may not consist of directly copy/pasting content from other wikis, they must be edits done by the user);
 * Have had their Miraheze account for at least 2 months; and,
 * Be involved in some way in community matters (in discussions on Community noticeboard and Stewards' noticeboard, etc.)

Reasoning: I believe this is very fair. This is half of the current total global edit count for Global Sysops and the same as GS in regards to account age and community involvement. This will prevent NOTNOW requests for GR from occurring and will allow any GR to gain the trust of the community which is essential for any global rights holder.

Support

 * 1)  No issues with this. The latter two clauses are the same as for Global Sysops and the first clause is half of the requirement for Global Sysop.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Seems like pretty reasonable requirements. Universal Omega (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Like interwiki administrators it seems fair to have these kind of requirements for smaller groups (i.e. not GS and Stewards) as it's harder to evaluate them otherwise. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) MacacoKouhai (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  per arguments given above --DeeM28 (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  —  Pixial  [Talk] 00:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  in accordance with w:WP:NOTNOW
 * 8) . Startus (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  Sounds like a good plan. Hopefully this can mitigate the chance of seeing a bunch of not now and hat-collecting nonsense requests going forward. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3.3 (Revocation by community criterion)
If Proposal 1 is passed, the criteria for removing some from the Global Rollbacker group is the following:


 * The global community can initiate a vote of no confidence or a request of removal at any time. In order for it to pass it needs to:


 * at least 5 users share their view
 * there is a support ratio of at least 50%
 * a period of one week has passed since it started

A vote of no confidence or request for removal must include a reason for why users are requesting the removal of a Global Rollbacker, and it is not determined solely by the number of votes.

Support

 * 1)  It's important for Global Rollbackers to be accountable to the community for misuse of their tools.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per Agent above. Universal Omega (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  In line with the other global groups. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) MacacoKouhai (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  --DeeM28 (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  —  Pixial  [Talk] 00:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  per Agent. Startus (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  per the statements by everyone else. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3.4 (Temporary revocation by Steward criterion)

 * In the case of a blatant misuse of rights, abuse of power, or repeatedly using rights against the scope of this policy, a Steward may remove a user from Global Rollbacker at their discretion without a community vote. If this happens, the user must undergo a no-confidence vote while their rights are temporarily removed, and their rights may only be added back if the no-confidence vote does not pass. This should only be used in extreme cases and should not substitute a no-confidence vote in non-urgent situations.

Support

 * 1)  This clause is very important to allow Stewards to temporarily remove the right during emergencies, no issues with this.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Universal Omega (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Per the other groups. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) MacacoKouhai (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  --DeeM28 (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)   —  Pixial  [Talk] 00:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) . Startus (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3.5 (Inactivity)
Global Rollbackers who do not participate in Global Rollbacker duties in some form (countervandalism, reporting, etc.) for 3 months will be deemed inactive and have their Global Rollbacker rights revoked by a Steward.

Once a Global Rollbacker has their rights revoked for any reason, they must make a successful request that satisfies the criteria above in order to regain the rights.

Support

 * 1)  No issue with this clause.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Universal Omega (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  per the other groups. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) MacacoKouhai (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  Please see my vote for 3.5.1 --DeeM28 (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  LisafBia (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Startus (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3.5.1 (Alternative inactivity timeframe)
"3 months" is amended to "6 months" in Proposal 3.5.

Note: By supporting this proposal, you also support Proposal 3.5 but with the amendment made in this section.

Support

 * 1)  The idea of Global Rollbackers is that they are to be very active and engaged in reverting vandalism as soon as possible. Someone who has not been active for more than 3 months is probably not doing the job effectively. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  I support for 3 months.

Proposal 4 (Opt-out)
Wikis may choose to opt-out of Global Rollbacker intervention through the CVT opt-out wiki set.

Support

 * 1)  First I would like to point out that I do not very much believe in the opt-out concept that exists for Global Sysops because of the fact that Global Sysops also enforce global policies so by having an opt-out wikis are able to restrain the people who are able to enforce policies. It is as if a city could "opt-out" from national police and only allow local police to enforce laws - it does not make much sense. The only reason why I am supporting this here is because I think it would not be very logical to allow global rollbackers to rollback on wikis where Global Sysops would not be able to use the tools. Otherwise I strongly support any proposal to abolish the strict opt-out concept and instead replace it with a system where wikis can opt-out from enforcement of local policies (such as vandalism, local blocks, etc.) but cannot opt-out from enforcement of global policies under any circumstances. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  per
 * X mark.svg PERABOVE — Pixial  [Talk] 15:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Because Global Rollbackers can't do anything advanced like blocking and such, I don't feel that this is necessary, as is the case with Wikimedia. If a GR misuses their rights, Stewards can revoke them or the community can.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) . I think the GRs will only be beneficial to wikis and I can't see any harm they'll do, unless the right is misused in a disruptive way like reverting content addition to the articles or other similar things, chances of which are very much low. I think there is no reason to create an opt-out group. Startus (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Per above. It's not really necessary. ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  because the arguments for this - dealing with GR overreach and misinterpretation + 'we can handle it' - should be resolved differently. In the former, guidance against overzealous use and if necessary removal from the position should be done. In the latter case GR should avoid by practice if local management is active and handling. Otherwise this role will simply help until someone with stronger powers to block, lock or otherwise address/warn becomes available. A wiki otherwise has no justification to keep vandalism/flagrant abuse live and so this can only help. Aside from this I feel opt-out as a mechanic on the platform is simply not useful at this stage and should be abolished, replaced by better defined practices for intervention as strictly necessary. --Raidarr (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) wikis can be free to choose or remove, however I believe that the global rollbacker has no weight and it would be redundant to remove them, as well as leaving it on —  Pixial  [Talk] 00:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)