Requests for comment/Inactive Global rollback users

The following request for comments is closed. Excluding my own comment and considering the median of suggestions[1], it turns out there is consensus for removing the global rollback flag from all accounts which have vanished for more than 24 months, i.e. 2 years. --Vogone (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

Now to obtain the global rollback flag requirements become more stringent, and many have received the flag a few years ago, when everything was simpler.

There are participants who for years did not do the edits, maybe they left the project, and may be a worse option.--6AND5 (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested solution

Offer, those participants who were not active in all the wikiprojects more than 2 years or 3 years to remove the global flag.--6AND5 (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal and think that 2 years of total inactivity (no logged edits or other actions anywhere) is reasonable for GR flag removal. --Vogone (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As someone that have proposed to modify the global rollback policy so that inactive users loose the flag, I totally support the idea that inactive users loose the flag if they're totally inactive on our projects for 2 years. It is not fair that we demand candidates to meet a series of requirements to get access to the tool, such as high activity, and not a certain level of compromise or commitment to keep it. So while this is not a dangerous tool, it is a tool, and my personal views on tools is that either they're used or should be removed. Regards, —Marco Aurelio 23:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Rs chen 7754 19:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: Perhaps you might want to add what you are supporting here. The proposed "more than 2 years or 3 years" seems a bit too vague for a policy to me. --Vogone (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support anything >= 2 years. --Rs chen 7754 20:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pokéfan95 (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2 years sounds fine. Matiia (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Holder (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2 years as said above (just for clarity). —Marco Aurelio 14:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2 years (just for clarity)--6AND5 (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2 years seems ok for me.--Syum90 (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2 years is good. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1 year, -jkb- 00:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It seems reasonable to me. RadiX ∞ 01:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 2 years is better. Érico (talk) 02:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2 years for me. eurodyne (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1 year but 2/3 is better than nothing. Natuur12 (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nastoshka (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2 years, but would agree to 1 year too. —Ah3kal (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree Archi38 (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2/3 years --Gratus (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]