Board Thread:General Wiki Discussion/@comment-5619531-20140815212156/@comment-5619531-20140815215333

ScrewYouDinkleberg wrote: I believe that rollback rights are removed if the user is not active for 2 months,  but I'm not sure about the B'rcrats, admins etc. I  this anyway. That wasn't really the case throughout November - today. Throughout that time period, we had a lot of rollbacks who were inactive. Peppers? He had got rollback, then just dropped off on the site's activity. Same with a few users who had applied. They either went *poof* from the site completely, or just edited whenever they felt like it. Rollback was the right that no one showed any care about on activity levels; it was just handed out and months passed without the 'crats demoting them.

Maulle wrote: 2 months seem a tad bit short to me but nonetheless we need the inactivity guidelines. I feel that it would be necessary for for it to be two months. Rollbackers are similar to regular users, except that they can bypass the abuse filter, change titles to stories, and have a button to revert series of bad edits on a page that one user had made. So it feels necessary.