I requested rb about 2 weeks ago and it has been on hold ever since. I would like to receive a Done or Not done and just get it over with. Thanks. A203:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: Yes I did. I am not as active but still semi active. I would just like my request to be granted or declined. I don't care at the point what the outcome is since twinkle is working fine for me. That still doesn't mean I won't contribute here. A205:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Patrollers and rollbackers who haven't edited in a long time
We have patrollers and rollbackers who are not blocked but haven't edited in several years. The most I've seen in spot checks is this rollbacker who hasn't edited in 6 years. Since we've been known to deny these rights on the grounds that a user hasn't edited enough to need them over a period of weeks or months, do we want to consider removing rights from editors who have no edits for even longer? We prune inactive admins, and we could do the same with these lesser rights. Please give your comments, which could be different for the two different rights. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For me, it depends on the individual case. The example you chose was someone who never did edit much. But how about BG7? He was a valuable editor with huge experience. We never had a problem with his general edits, just (occasionally) with his action as a mop. He has already visited us once with good effect. All we achieve by taking away rollback rights is to make it less likely he will visit again. The situation is not a mirror image of granting rights in the first place. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense that if patrollers are not active for a long period of time the right should be removed. It also makes sense to do this on a case-by-case basis as Mac pointed out. I would suggest that when it is determined that these rights are to be removed due to inactivity, that a notice be placed on their talk page to acknowledge the user's service and invite them to reapply, should they resume regular activity in the future. Rus793 (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rus on that. It's especially true because to the extent that the culture, rules and approach here may evolve over time, someone absent a long while may or may not be in touch with that. With respect to rollback, on the other hand, that is really a tool for fighting vandalism. I see no reason for that to be removed, even from people who have generally gone inactive, unless (a) it's abused, or (b) there is evidence that the account has been hijacked. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Steven makes a valid point that rollback should not be removed from accounts unless abused or hijacked. I think that rollback flag isn't a huge deal if left on an inactive account since the undo button is given to every editor anyways. As for patroller rights, I agree with the comments above. eurodyne (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While we are at it, we might also want to think of an inactivity threshold for removal of rights. 1 year of inactivity (zero edits, zero log entries), perhaps? ChenzwTalk03:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree that 1 year time length is a valid time frame. No edits in that time, and they should be removed. Also as a matter of housekeeping, users with rollback, should we consider, that if they are part of the Global Rollbackers group that they don't need to have the local right since the global right already has more, and should we clear off the flag? Enfcer (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) The one thing I don't like about removing redundant rights is what if they lose their global rollback? Then they will lose the ones they locally earned too. Krett12 (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1) I agree with Krett on that. 2) Rollback is the only right that would apply to, anyway. Stewards and global sysops are only supposed to use rights otherwise available locally in an emergency. Global rollback is the only global permission that is allowed to be used "normally" notwithstanding its availability locally. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to User:Chenzw's idea, I think that's about right for patroller. After one year of inactivity (zero edits, zero log entries), an administrator or bureaucrat here can contact the user and notify him/her that if the person makes no contributions in the following 30 days, s/he will be deflagged. If the person even responds, that's an edit, and it will stop the clock. I think that's more than fair. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with one year on patroller, and with it being unneeded on rollbacker. Because of recent changes to notifications, if the user is active on any Wikipedia project, they will see the message if it is posted to their talkpage here. Etamni|✉|✓13:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Patroller is only meant to be a case of we don't think their edits need to be watched. That was the reason we were originally giving out that right. It wasn't so much about the active patrolling and really it still isn't. It was really do we trust this persons edits to not need to be patrolled. We wanted to make sure that the truely new editor edits stood out in the patrol log so people who actually patrol (The maybe 2 people) don't have to wade through the edits of trusted users. And I believe that is the case until the point they show that trust is no longer warranted. Rollback should definitely not be removed. Only reason we prune admin accounts etc is for security issues. Those don't really exist for rollback and patroller. Neither of those permissions do anything that can serious harm the wiki. Rollback is easily enough reverted and someone marking a bad page as patrolled doesn't really hurt anything as it will likely be noticed anyway. I also don't think policies change so much that people can not tell the difference between an acceptable new page and a non-acceptable one, that hasn't really changed in the 10+ years I have been doing this. -DJSasso (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If our right were autopatrolled rather than patroller, I'd fully agree with DJSasso. But the actual right is patroller, and that's different in some ways.
As to whether policies change much, that's also a good point. There is a difference between our wanting to make sure people are experienced enough to patrol here in the first place—the general reason we are selective at all—and worrying about whether people need to continue to use the rights actively. We might be able to find a middle ground on this question in the following way: Make the no-edit period two years, and allow a deflagged patroller to regain his/her rights on request. This way, if there have been any changes in policy, the reflagging admin can point them out in the process. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I wasn't talking about autopatrolled. That obviously we wouldn't take away. The patroller right actually had some visual changes to the logs as well. Whether or not that still is the case I don't know. I was thinking it was Osiris that asked us to start giving it to people but looking back the first search result is BG asking that we add it after he stopped being an admin. That being said I don't really care that much, I just think its silly taking away a flag just cause. If we trusted them before we trust them now. -DJSasso (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
<-I found this discussion randomly while also going down the same rabbit hole as Auntof6. At this point, these same editors (of which number over 100) have over 10 years of inactivity. While there is no necessary harm in keeping them, there also isn't really much harm in removing it, as rollback is already scripted through Twinkle. The true question is do these editors have the knowledge/trust to use the rollback tool after that many years away. While our policies don't change much, they do change, as does general practice. I don't think it's too controversial to say that after 10 years away, rollback should be removed and you should go through the same steps to get it back. While misuse or a compromised account is a remote possibility, so is the harm to the project from a user having to select undo instead of rollback, and will also flag to other editors that this user is newly back with us. This also applies to patroller, which as noted above, is different from autopatrol. Our standards (from personal experience) have changed a lot in that time, and users should be expected to show they are aware and can follow the new ones. Griff (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I propose adding about requesting in the #simple-english-wikipedia channel on Discord for flood at #Flood. While Discord is still less used than IRC for off-wiki discussion, use of it is growing and it seems to be the more popular choice among newer editors, probably because it is a little easier to use in general, especially with creating an account, usernames etc. and is much more popular outside of Wikipedia. According to this page, you can already request flood on IRC so I find this relatively uncontroversial with requesting off-wiki as there is another off-wiki option, and the benefit with Discord: simply joining the server will give you access to every conversation that has happened on there, but with IRC you cannot see what happened before you connected. Thoughts on this? --Ferien (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see only one issue with off-wiki requests. Accountability. I know chat logs are there for IRC and email leaves a paper trail that can prove it happened. As long as it can be proven on discord, I see no reason to not accept it as a valid form of communication. --Creol(talk) 22:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it could be convenient.
Concerns (may also apply to IRC):
Not all admins are on Discord, so possibly fewer admins would be available to respond to requests. However, this could be a risk an editor takes when they decide where to make their request.
Requests and replies would not be in one place for historical purposes, even short-term historical purposes. In the case of short-term purposes, for example, an editor could be denied on Discord, then ask on-wiki where some admins wouldn't have seen the reason for denial. (The reverse is probably also true, but I think on-wiki is a default.)
Yeah, there are certainly downsides with requesting off-wiki. I'm not sure where the consensus for having flood requests on IRC was but if we have IRC requests right now, my opinion is why not Discord too? --Ferien (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not an Admin, but I'd like to express my thoughts here. reflecting to what Auntof6 mentions above, doing these requests off Wiki makes it hard to log them, or view past requests for historical reasons, etc. While most Wikipedia users nowadays use discord or IRC, it is important to note that this does not apply to all Wikipedia users. --Tsugarulet's talk!:)00:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF policy regarding granting this right allows an individual admin to grant it on request but also allows local sites to have more restrictions of the granting. Because of the admin-like and checkuser like power this right grants I feel we should have a RfA like process or at the least the endorsement of the request by 2 or 3 different admins. Thoughts? fr33kman02:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really necessary, this right I believe only allows selective viewing of temporary account IP information and as stated in Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy, most of the actions with this right is logged. There is also a minimum requirement of 300 edits and 6 months of account age, so this right would only be given out to experienced editors. Plutus💬🎃— Fortune favors the curious06:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, if such a process of endorsement is needed, 2 supports from admins? (It may be open for quite some time though) Plutus💬🎃— Fortune favors the curious06:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should be treated the same as rollback IMO, it's not as dangerous as CU since you can only use it on unregistered editors (thus not tying it to a named, registered account) and having knowledge about the IP address is helpful for antivandalism. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page11:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @Fehufanga. It's not as the people would see more than before the temporary accounts. Let's not make the process needlessly complicated. Those with need for the right should get it if they need WMF requirement. There's a huge difference between that right and CU right. -Barrastalk11:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we can trust admins to give the right out on their own opinion but I still don't think it should be given out wholesale to whoever meets the criteria and asks for it. There should be a recognised need for it. It is similar to checkuser in that there is now privacy restrictions tied to it. The WMF has decided that IPs should be hidden and there are now restrictions on disclose of this private information and they are taking it seriously; as shown by the section in the policy regarding revoking of the right. fr33kman21:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-vandalism work accounts for a lot of the members of the community. I think were this new right will be of most use is in block/ban evasion and sockpuppetry investigations by non-checkusers (which will prove very useful). fr33kman21:31, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does. IPs are still useful in anti-vandalism work, for example, in finding if it's registered to a typical school vandal through WHO IS, along with requesting range or IP blocks to an administrator. Justarandomamerican (t • c) 21:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that we should leave the decision on whether to give the right to be on the admin themselves. Plutus💬🎃— Fortune favors the curious09:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a much bigger deal than Rollback. It's hard to do damage to someone with Rollback. The WMF has now decided that IP addresses are private information and has placed strict restrictions on disclosure of them. They have even foreseen the needs for, and the reasons for, revoking TAIPV rights; something that is very rarely done with rollback. The Ombudsman Commission has given further advice to the checkuser community so that also shows how serious they are taking the usage of the right. Before temporary accounts IPs have always been shown and so there was no way for a patroller to cause damage to the anon user as they had already disclosed their private data themselves. TAIPV has many new rules that must be understood and obeyed to the letter or there can be consequences. Just my opinion:) fr33kman21:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ Given the fact temporary accounts are now live on our wiki, I am going to make adjustments to the guideline and start giving the right to users. I have no strong opinion, but consensus is that the minimum WMF requirements are sufficient for our minimum requirements but there should be a demonstrated need. So we are not just going to start giving it to editors with 800 edits and 6 months experience who want it but haven't ever interacted with a temp account or IP sort of thing. We can make more adjustments later if needed. --Ferien (talk|join TBA!) 15:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done or 
Not done and just get it over with. Thanks. A2 03:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree with one year on patroller, and with it being unneeded on rollbacker. Because of recent changes to notifications, if the user is active on any Wikipedia project, they will see the message if it is posted to their talkpage here. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 13:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Disagree Patroller is only meant to be a case of we don't think their edits need to be watched. That was the reason we were originally giving out that right. It wasn't so much about the active patrolling and really it still isn't. It was really do we trust this persons edits to not need to be patrolled. We wanted to make sure that the truely new editor edits stood out in the patrol log so people who actually patrol (The maybe 2 people) don't have to wade through the edits of trusted users. And I believe that is the case until the point they show that trust is no longer warranted. Rollback should definitely not be removed. Only reason we prune admin accounts etc is for security issues. Those don't really exist for rollback and patroller. Neither of those permissions do anything that can serious harm the wiki. Rollback is easily enough reverted and someone marking a bad page as patrolled doesn't really hurt anything as it will likely be noticed anyway. I also don't think policies change so much that people can not tell the difference between an acceptable new page and a non-acceptable one, that hasn't really changed in the 10+ years I have been doing this. -DJSasso (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
