User:Sario528/Draft:Global rollback

As the RfC for CVT reform was ambiguous on the creation and rights for the proposed Global rollback group, I am creating this RfC to try and nail down the issue. This RfC will break down the proposals to their individual pieces, to allow the community to specifically support or oppose each aspect. While I will endeavor to be comprehensive in my initial list of proposals, I welcome new proposals to cover anything I miss. Sario528 (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Global rollback

The base proposal; should the group exist?

The creation of a new group called "Global rollback". It is clarified that a Global rollback should only act where there is clear vandalism or spam 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.

Proposal 2: Rights

If Proposal 1 is passed, the following rights are given to members of the Global rollback group

Proposal 2.1

View the abuse log (abusefilter-log)

Proposal 2.2

View detailed abuse log entries (abusefilter-log-detail)

Proposal 2.3

Not be affected by IP-based rate limits (autoconfirmed)

Proposal 2.4

Have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol)

Proposal 2.5

Edit pages (edit)

Proposal 2.6

Edit pages protected as "Allow only autoconfirmed users" (editsemiprotected)

Proposal 2.7

Mark rolled-back edits as bot edits (markbotedits)

Proposal 2.8

Mark edits as minor (minoredit)

Proposal 2.9

Move pages (move)

Proposal 2.10

Not have minor edits to discussion pages trigger the new messages prompt (nominornewtalk)

Proposal 2.11

Not be affected by rate limits (noratelimit)

Proposal 2.12

Quickly rollback the edits of the last user who edited a particular page (rollback)

Proposal 2.13

Perform CAPTCHA-triggering actions without having to go through the CAPTCHA (skipcaptcha)

Proposal 3: Appointment and Revocation

If Proposal 1 is passed, the appointment and revocation criteria for the Global rollback group is the following

Proposal 3.1

If Proposal 1 is passed, the appointment criteria for the Global rollback group is the following:

To be appointed Global rollback 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 5 users share their view
• there is a support ratio of at least 80%
• a period of one week has passed since it started

Proposal 3.2

If Proposal 1 is passed, the criteria for removing some from the Global rollback 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 rollback, and it is not determined solely by the number of votes.

Proposal 3.3

In the case of a blatant misuse of rights or an abuse of power, a Steward may remove a user from Global rollback 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.

Comments during the draft review period

• I don't have detailed comments as I didn't participate much in the RfC you're clarifying. But a ballot on each separate privilege to be given to group members will get tedious. Propose a set of privileges, state your justification, and let's vote. I don't know what the right set is. Spıke (talk) 02:08 25-Jun-2020

There were several attempts to find an agreeable set of rights during the original RfC, without success. Rather than going through multiple proposals of various combinations of rights again, I'd rather just go through all of them one by one to ensure a clear consensus. It may get tedious, but it was a lack of agreement on rights that killed the original proposal. Additionally, I am also unsure of what the exact set of rights should be. Sario528 (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, @Sario528:, someone should get sure before the formal vote. It is clear what rights are required in order to be a Global Rollbacker. There is perhaps one separate voting proposition: "Shall we grant Global Rollbackers the following rights that are not required for their function, but seem to be warranted based on the implied level of trust?" Spıke (talk) 10:37 27-Jun-2020

• I agree with Spike that voting on a separate proposal for each user right would get tedious. Propose the slate of rights in one proposal; if you want to make an alternate slate of rights should that not pass, propose an alternate slate in a sub-section of the main proposal on "rights." From looking at this, it's not clear that the move and markbotedits are needed for a Global Rollback permission. For the former, that's typically included in either the autoconfirmed local user group, and since you're proposing to add editsemiprotected, should be included in that as well. In very rare instances of disruption does move vandalism occur; vandalism often occurs by editors who are not autoconfirmed users. The latter seems like a way to hide the edits from peoples' watchlists, which reduces transparency, so I wouldn't support that. Also, you should specify whether this is a truly global permission like on Wikimedia or whether it is opt-out based like Global Sysop. Personally, I think it should be truly global, but shouldn't have as extensive of rights. I also am not a fan of strict support ratios; it's not supposed to be a vote, and strict ratios encourage straw voting. There should be no minimum percentage, as someone should be able to pass with, in theory, as little as 45%, if there was one other participant who opposed on a weak rationale like "we don't need any more". Rationales, substantiated by diffs, should be given preference in closing. It also doesn't make sense to have the community revoke rights with only 50% support, but require the global rollbacker to obtain 80% support for a permission that is a lot less than Global Sysop or Steward. If an actual support ratio is included, make it a range, like 50-70% (80% is too high), with explicit instructions for the steward to consider at close.

As an aside, I'd like to know if you and/or Spike would support a separate global permission that I'm thinking of proposing. It would be a Global Contributor or Global Patrol group that would include less rights than Global Rollback, to reduce the local patrol backlog for constructive cross-wiki contributors. Main rights would be suppressredirect, patrol, and autopatrol. This would not have access to the abuse log detail and rollback permissions of Global Rollback, as it really isn't dealing with cross-wiki vandalism, but rather, provides an ability for cross-wiki contributors to constructively contribute and to volunteer by marking those edits needing patrolling as "good." They could also "undo" bad edits or revert by manually editing. In this way, it would be a good "feeder" for Global Rollback in the same way the latter would be a good feeder for Global Sysop. Requirements would be something like experience on a minimum of 3-5 Miraheze wikis and having at least 500 mostly unreverted edits across those wikis. Dmehus (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Leaning against, @Dmehus:, because I keep hearing about how Miraheze volunteering is at such a low level that we're getting undesirable cross between committees we'd want to be independent. Your idea is good brainwork, but could be slicing-and-dicing it too fine. Spıke (talk) 10:37 27-Jun-2020

@Spike: I appreciate your reply; apologies for my delay in following up. I don't think that the reason to oppose should be because "Miraheze volunteering is at such a low level." One could probably argue one of the reasons cross-wiki volunteerism is because we've arguably set the participation level too high (thinking about Global Sysops). That's not to say I think the 80% ratio of relative support is too high or anything, but rather, the number of participants (i.e., 10) is too high relative to the participation we get on Meta. Look at poor Zppix; he's had to go through two Global Sysop confirmation votes (hopefully this one will pass this time). We probably need to take a second look, via another RfC, at our minimum level of expressions of interest in any candidate; otherwise, we could end up in a situation where the few stewards we have aren't replaced (let's say in 3-5 years, one of them is hired on full-time with a major software development company and they no longer have any time for Miraheze volunteering). One can, in theory, request additional user rights locally on each wiki on which they want to combat vandalism, fix wikilinks, fix lint errors, help categorize, correct spelling and grammar, and the like, but that's a lot of work, especially if they want to be involved in a lot of wikis. Though I'd prefer Global Rollback and Global Patroller to be truly global positions with no opt-out mechanism, if such global groups could gain your support with an opt-out provision (like Global Sysops), is that something that could at least move you to "leaning support" if not "support"? Dmehus (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)