Module:UserLinks/config/doc

Configuration used by Module:UserLinks

Exploring the pending changes reviewer and rollback permissions

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In a strictly binary sense, the outcome of this decision was no, the two perms should not be combined. There were some interesting ideas floated about the perms and maybe even having the requests for both on the same page, but nothing actionable. Primefac (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the permissions of the pending changes reviewer and rollback user groups be merged into one?

• Option 1: Yes
• Option 2: No

Anarchyte (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Original post from 09:39, 20 October 2021

Pending changes reviewer and rollback exist to serve the same purpose: ensure the integrity of the encyclopedia by removing vandalism and bad faith edits. Currently, I have two ideas that could improve the process of granting these permissions for both applicants and administrators: Idea 1: Merge the pending changes reviewer permissions into rollback and increase the black letter threshold for being granted rollback. All existing pending changes reviewers would be grandfathered into rollback. See above. Idea 2: Introduce a new permission that merges pending changes reviewer and rollback, and also grants the ability to assign both PCR and RB to other users. Leave it as the status quo. The bars for entry into both of these permissions are the lowest that we have across the board and share similar criteria. Typically, if an admin trusts the user with one of the permissions, they can be trusted with the other. Option 1 would simply reduce the backlog and make it easier for editors to apply for counter-vandalism permissions. As it stands, from what I've seen in patrolling WP:PERM/RB and WP:PERM/PCR is that despite PCR technically requiring more out of the applicant, an administrator is unlikely going to grant rollback without the user showing an understanding of content policies. At a policy level, merging them would only need an update to the threshold requirements. Idea 2 is more advanced, seeing the introduction of a new permission with the capability of granting rollback and pending changes reviewer. In theory, editors would be able to apply for this new permission in a manner similar to edit filter helper in that it would require a small amount of community input instead of one admin unilaterally granting it. This would be a form of unbundling (albeit limited), and would need greater community development and discussion if the concept is well received. The idea was mentioned in passing at the ongoing RfA review. I would appreciate the community's opinions on these ideas. Regards, Anarchyte (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

@Anarchyte: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I've attempted to fix it. Would this work? Anarchyte (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, see this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: I don't think what you've said is what you really mean. Permissions grant specific access to functions. User groups contain collections of permissions. Users are associated with groups. I think you are saying you would like to merge the group: reviewer (pending changes reviewers) with the group: rollback (rollbackers); correct? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Yes, in part. I'd like to condense the permissions of the rollback and reviewer groups into one (i.e. people ask for one permission and get the ability to rollback and review pending changes). I've modified the text above again. Anarchyte (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Meh, it is easy enough to apply for both of these if someone wants to - and I don't really want to have our permissions/group specialized just for this. That being said, on the PERM process I don't mind if we combine the requests for these to PCR+RB in one place and have the normal close be "grant both" - leaving in place the ability to grant or remove one or the other should their be a need. As far as giving such an entry level group group management access, I don't think that is a good idea. The one place I'd maybe support that would be for pa rollers to be able to add autopatrol. For PCR/RB groups, I'd also be open to perhaps using autopromoteonce similar to extendedconfirmed for editors that reach some sort of edit threshold, leaving it open for revocation for cause if needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• It's simply not true that RB and PCR are similar tools with similar granting criteria. The requirements for PCR are so low that in essence it is granted to any established account without prejudice. RB on the other hand is granted to experienced and competent anti-vandalism workers only. Every Rollbacker qualifies for promotion to PCR, but absolutely not every PCR applicant qualifies for Rollback. IIRC, when PCR was implemented, it was meant to be treated as nothing more than a restoration of an ability the community had by default, which was to engage in basic New page patrol. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Swarm: Interesting. If that was the purpose of the original reviewer usergroup—being an easy and efficient way of returning permission—what about giving extendedconfirmed the reviewer toolset? 500 edits and 30-90 days is probably the average applicant. Anarchyte (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @Anarchyte: if we want to go that route, I'd suggest not adding the reviewer tools to the extendedconfirmed group, but just also setting reviewer to have autopromoteonce to automatically grant it to people (and the threshold could actually be anything combination of edits and time). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I would oppose that; we've had issues in the past where COI and UPE users have obtained NPR privileges and abused them, creating a significant mess to clean up - I don't think we want to increase the risk of that. However, it may be worth holding a discussion on reducing the barrier to obtaining NPR. BilledMammal (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
        • @BilledMammal: pending changes reviewer and new pages reviewer are much different, this discussion is about the former. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) To add to Swarm's comment above, I'd say PCR only requires the editor to know WP:COPO. RB misuse can be more sweeping especially if using tools like huggle. PC edits awaiting review, have always been low whenever i've checked the dashboard. I'd be in favor of granting an editor pcr if he is accepted for rollback but not vice versa. I can't say whether we should update the threshold for granting the rights. If someone can show that some editors have misused or have been otherwise incompetent with their access and thereby we must increase the threshold, that would be worth considering. Update in the threshold requirement needs a separate discussion preceding this imv, and we shouldn't conflate the threshold issue and rights merge issue, in one single rfc. - hako9 (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Hako9: I definitely agree that rollback is more powerful than PCR, which is why if we're going to get rid of any user group I'd like it to be PCR. In hindsight, it probably would have been better to phrase this RfC as "Should editors still have to apply for the PCR user group" with options like "Yes", "No, it should be automatically granted", and "No, it should be merged into a different user group". Given the low amount of input so far, maybe it's not too late to change it. Anarchyte (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
• Idea 2 sounds kinda cool, but I don't think it's necessary to change anything bop34 • talk • contribs 18:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UserRightsDiff user script

Hello friends. I created User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/UserRightsDiff.js today, a user script that may be useful to people working around WP:PERM. When viewing Special:UserRights, it analyzes the log entries and concisely summarizes what perms were added or removed. See screenshot for example. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh thank fuck. It's a PITA to parse out diffs for users with a bazillion perms. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Haha you're welcome. It was bugging me too and I don't even work in this area :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

musikbot

Hi. A user has been renamed so musikbot is throwing out the error. I forgot how to handle this :-/
—usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Give more specifics please? If it's AWB, the bot updates things automatically, otherwise the bot shouldn't have an issue. Primefac (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

"Unless you are requesting confirmation for a legitimate alternate account your request will almost certainly be denied."

"Unless you are requesting confirmation for a legitimate alternate account your request will almost certainly be denied."

...almost... certainly...

Why not just delete those two words so that it reads instead as, "Unless you are requesting confirmation for a legitimate alternate account your request will be denied." ?

Seems to me that there ought to be no reason to include the "almost certainly" if it is truly a near certainty, then just make it a certainty. If the purpose of this request form here is to approve "legitimate alternate account[s]" then why not just make the text reflect as such? Thanks! ♥ Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 00:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue: it is meant to be a strong discouragement, but we have made exceptions before. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough then. If there are exceptions, then I suppose that makes sense to leave as is. Thanks! ♥ Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 00:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Idea lab (preliminary) discussion over adding a new permission

Here: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Adding "AfD closer" status. Participation welcome. No benefit to writing in this thread here I don't think.