Wikipedia talk:Importers/Archive 1

import-flag

Proposed. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible changes - I think that a percentage threshold would be best to include over many of the other standards (over 60%, over 70%, etc.). Also, I think it should be noted that instead of 1,000 edits, etc., weight at the discussion will be given towards issues of trust, content editing history, and intent, with a possibility of temporary import rights given. How would that sound? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I think the trust is taken care of with the RFP... they still need a RFP. But, could you edit the proposal to what you mean with percentages, so I can see it visually. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I oppose treating the importer flag like the flood flag, why waste a 'crats time?--  † CR₉₀  02:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Because people who aren't using it for a set purpose don't really need it. -DJSasso (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Ant to be honest, it is not the most benign safe tool. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because someone is not uploading all the time doesn't mean they will never use it again. It's a waste of a 'crats time to grant and take away the flag. If the community trusts them with the flag in the first place with a discussion, why take it away? It means the community trusts them to have and not abuse the tool. Excuse my being blunt but i find it stupid to treat it like a temporary flag.--  † CR₉₀  03:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh but it is a temporary flag. Should have a task and purpose, then it should go away. I wonder if we are really wasting their time. We are being totally lax in this flag. Did you know that if the incorrect setting is used, you may actually override *many* site templates and screw things up? We must be careful with this one. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree to a point, but to treat it like a temp flag is stupid. The RFI is to ensure that trusted users get it so there is a minimal chance of those mistakes happening.--  † CR₉₀  03:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm an experienced editor... I made a huge mistake. To minimize mistakes, use it with a clear plan, and give it back when you are done. This makes sense to me that we should not encourage this flag, encourage the continued holding of the flag. Unless of course, this flag equates so some kind of status/trophy. We should encourage quality control. Alternatively, we can set up a "request for import" page where import requests can be listed and executed. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the proposal, overall. I do not think there will be an undue burden placed on bureaucrats here. Going through the import logs, there have been 11 imports by non-admin users in the last 2000 imports which dates back to October 18, 2009. I think bureaucrats can easily grant temporary assess here without it being a "waste of time." Either way (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

How about someone writes a 'how-to' about the importing features and whatnot of the importer flag? Seeing as some users here have had some mistakes with the tool, it would be best to use their experience to create a help page on using the importing functions (for people first learning to import). I would find that effective, rather than just the temporary flag. You can still potentially create a mistake with the pressure that knowing your rights will be removed after doing the task. Also, I would rather stick with a RFI, then keeping the tools until someone proposes that they haven't been active or misusing the tools. Nifky^{^} 07:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The percentage threshhold would merely be the same as an RfA where there is a minimum percentage for attaining adminship (not that it is necessarily followed, but there exists an idea of what the percentage of support should be). Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it sounds like a good idea to make it temporary because even if somebody is trusted, there is a possibility that one could later become disgruntled (or hacked) and do real damage to the site. Kansan (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

They could do the same with the admin or 'crat rights. Again, i stand by my words, making the flag temporary is ridiculous.--  † CR₉₀ 

Not really. NonvocalScream brought up the use issue. Import should have a specific purpose and be removed once said person is accomplished. You're not going to use import every day, whereas I use my admin buttons on a daily basis. Cheers, Lauryn (u • t • c) 00:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you figure "not really"? A person no matter the flag is susceptible to abusing the tools. They're just as human.--  † CR₉₀  00:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Calm down. I was referencing " making the flag temporary is ridiculous". Lauryn (u • t • c) 00:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That was calm, that wasn't yelling. And you now my feelings on this from below.--  † CR₉₀  00:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

With respect, the back and forth is not helping here. There is a general agreement on the points that this temp setting, is the way to go. And without anything new to add to this, then I fear it may be settled as consensus here. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat, as there's only three maybe four editors out of a community of 20+ active editors who have commented regularly. I personally see this as a lack of input from the entire community.--  † CR₉₀  01:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll

Need to gauge consensus. This poll is not to determine community approval of the process, but will give an idea of how much support, and what else need discussing.

Please let us know briefly why you oppose, so we can make a new thread and work it out.

Support

1. Kansan (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
2. We can work it out... --Diego (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Agree with 200 mainspace edits, not 500. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Lauryn (u • t • c) 00:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
5. 500 seems too much; but yes, agree. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose - As as I said this is ridiculous to make the flag temporary, I like the policy other than that. So I strongly oppose per my comments above and my words in discussion with Dj and Scream on IRC (which I can provide the logs of if anyone wants it <link removed>).--  † CR₉₀  00:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
2. If import is a temporary tool, so should admin, crat, and all other flags be also temporary. IMO, the only time any flags should be removed is from long-term inactivity. Also the requirements for import are too high. Why would this be treated like adminship? —§ stay (sic)! 03:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy needs adjustment

I did vote support, but I would think it was even better if we dropped the minimum editing threshold as per the earlier consensus that if the community trusts someone enough, it seems redundant. If somebody were an admin over at the English WP and had been here for a month and the community trusted him/her, I think it would be counterproductive to withhold the tool over this. Kansan (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. What if users work on articles off-wiki? They're mainspace count will be lower. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not think about this. Well, I can't control off wiki activity... but is there a better idea? I'm open. Warmly NonvocalScream (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

For fairness for me and everyone else who had the tool before this gets implimented, I'd really like to propose a grandfather clause.--  † CR₉₀  02:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Er, I don't really think this is going to work like that. How is it unfair to remove the flag from you? I mean, everyone else has to comply, yes? NonvocalScream (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Scream beat me to it. When policies change they affect everyone, not just certain users. Lauryn (u • t • c) 02:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've stricken my last comment. Your right was given by valid community discussion. So for the purposes of this proposal, I'm not expressing a need to deflag all accounts, which means, as far as I'm concerned, your rights are not in jeopardy. I can't speak for others. But, as an aside, I think we have found the root of your objection to this proposal.  ;) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not hiding that my one reasons was my flag, but it was not my main reason, I would gladly give up the tool to prove that.--  † CR₉₀  03:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing threshold

I started this thread in response to Kansas... The threshold was not to determine trust... but a way to determine "Does this editor know what they are doing". More of a technical check... need to have at least some experience before importing. A bit like the bot requests... we would like to know about prior botting experience if possible. Thought? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a certain number of edits would be a better way to measure it? (Although that's not perfect, too.) Still, I do think that experience elsewhere could count for something, since we do allow people who have rollback rights on other Wikipedias to automatically inherit it here. There is no good and hard way to measure experience in a fair way, and I think that the community, with approval of bureaucrats, is best to decide that, which is why I personally think that community approval would cover both the trust and "do they know what they're doing?" faster.

I'm not trying to be difficult. I think this is a great policy that will make the site safer, but I think that it would be more efficient if there weren't as many hoops to jump through, if that makes sense. Kansan (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree here, compromise at 200 mainspace edits? NonvocalScream (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Kansan (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Works for me as well. Lauryn (u • t • c) 02:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Temp flag status under proposed policy

I think this is ridiculous and think this should be adjusted. My thoughts have already be expressed in whole on IRC. YOu can download that discussion [link removed Lauryn (u • t • c) ].--  † CR₉₀  00:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm not downloading anything. I will not accept IRC logs. You need to discuss here if you want to make a difference. Also, the temp nature is discussed above. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Then don't download it, you were actually part of discussion so you know what was said, so you don't need to, the others on the other hand should see what was said.--  † CR₉₀  00:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Keeping as much of the discussion on wiki, where everyone can see is incredibly important. I believe this has been brought up to you before. Lauryn (u • t • c) 00:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not give you permission to repost logs that include me. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes Lauryn, but it doesn't change the fact the discussion happened off-wiki, so it needs to be seen. This is true, Scream, but would you hide my opinion just because you're IRC nick is shown?--  † CR₉₀  00:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I would like you to express your opinion here... instead of directing others to go read logs. Now, please redact... I've also placed a caution on your talk page. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This ^. Policy discussions that affect the entire Wiki, need to take place on said wiki; not in a chatroom. Lauryn (u • t • c) 00:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine.--  † CR₉₀  00:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed my links, but still for the sake of being fair, what said needs to be seen, IMO. I mean, there was true things said on that discussion that might never come up on this page.--  † CR₉₀  00:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this is hard. Just post your thoughts. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  Yet another reason to keep policy discussions on wiki. Lauryn (u • t • c) 00:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok we'll try it your way. The reasons for the flag being proposed to be temp (avoid an accidental upload of hundreds of files at once) can still happen even with the flag temporary. The only way to truly solve this is to teach the person how to use it correctly. You have to trust the user to use the Tool responsibly. The other reason, that a user may upload the wrong thing, this is silly as well, if you vote to give the user the tool it should be because you trust their judgment to upload only the correct things. And even if you didn't and they got the tool cause the majority of the community voted to support. The community, by consensus, trusts the user. Again this is silly.--  † CR₉₀  00:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This flag is a tool, that is not used all the time. Rollbacker for example, is used all the time. And less risky. Now with the t-importer flag, we don't want to leave it on the account for that reason. Also, because of the massive damage that can be done, we need to vet those tasks one would like to do. So you should have a task firstly when you want to use the tool. The tool is not a trophy, or an award, or even a litmus paper of "I'm trusted now". So, we establish trust on the first grant. Subsequent grants don't need enw trust, so they don't need any new RFA (barring changes in the user circumstance)... but, the tasks need to be vetted, and perhaps community approved. What happens when an importer goes "Ok, I think I want Romanian rivers"... this is something we would need to approve. So, have a task, get the flag. Finish the task, return the flag. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This "set a task" thing is not a reason to add an extra burden (even though quite small) to the 'crats. Either you trust the user or your don't. Can you tell me what harm is done to the wiki while the tool is not being used by a user?--  † CR₉₀  00:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Crats already said it is no extra work for them. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) Yes...

• The "import all minor rivers" example above.
• NonvocalScream messes up sitewide Citation templates.
• This. Need more? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No, those are misuses by a user when it's being used. I said when it's idle.--  † CR₉₀  01:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I see this as no "extra burden" on the bureaucrats. In the last 2000+ imports, only 11 were from non-admin importers. It's been a year since there was a non-admin user who was very active with the tool. Either way (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, fine, point conceded, still see making the tool temporary silly, I honestly don't see the harm done to the wiki while it's idle, and I honestly don't see the harm that can be done to the wiki they can't accidentally be done while it's a temp flag. I still say the only way to solve the problems you have stated, scream, is to teach a user how to use it correctly, even then mistakes may happen, but mistakes are apart of life. But teach a user will reduce the mistakes in the same way that making the falg temp will without having all these extra steps. Ever heard the saying "practice make perfect"?--  † CR₉₀  01:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

When it is not being used, it is not being used. No harm comes when there is no clicky of the button. Now, if the button is clickable, then there is no need to approve a task. But if you have to *get* the button enabled, then that would give us a moment to review the task. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be more about doubting the judgment of those with the tool then it is prevention by that statement.--  † CR₉₀  01:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My own version

I have written my own version of the policy to be considered by everyone. It's located here.--  † CR₉₀  01:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I much prefer the proposal here. I think that handling this as a bureaucratic request rather than a "discussion" is much better suited for the importer tool, especially since we somehow turned the requests for importers into a "voting" based thing rather than a discussion somewhere in the last month. This tool should be task- and need-based rather than a permanent tool. Either way (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree if the user that requested it didn't have a need for it they wouldn't request it or the community would oppose giving it to them just like they have opposed giving me and many other users the admin tool on the basis of "I see no need for it with you".--  † CR₉₀  01:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

<insert Either way's comments here as I agree in totality with them> Lauryn (u • t • c) 01:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Then why have the tool activated at all? I mean the point of activating such a tool is to decrease dependability on admin's and 'crats. By passing scream's proposition, it's like the tool was never activated.--  † CR₉₀  01:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see a need for importers, as there are 42 admins, but the community as a whole does. If we have to have them, NonvocalScream's proposal seems best. Lauryn (u • t • c) 02:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't though, IMO, I mean, if you're gonna have the tool activated, make it permanent, trust the users, if you're not deactivate it and leave importing to the admins and 'crats. Those are the two choices I see, no "third option".--  † CR₉₀  02:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

NonvocalScream's option is fine. The world is not black and white, there are shades of grey. Lauryn (u • t • c) 02:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, before people vote on Scream's proposal, I'd like everyone, not just Either way and Lauryn, to consider my proposal first.--  † CR₉₀  20:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no encouraged allowed here. This is not my proposal, since we have already added in other's suggestions. When you made your suggestions the solution was not for you to go fork off your own proposal, it was to discuss changes here. While anyone has the meatball:RightToFork, doing so here may not have been best, and is detrimental to this proposal. Suggest and discuss changes on this talk page to this proposal, best not to have multiple alternate proposals around. Know what I mean? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you mistook the meaning of "yours". I meant you wrote it and proposed it just like like I wrote mine and proposed it, I didn't mean it in the "own" sense. But still I think splitting my proposal off from yours was best in this case, you may feel different but then again opinions will differ.--  † CR₉₀  00:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Me 2p's worth

I have no issues with whatever standards the community wants to impose on importers in regards to the granting via consensus of the community, however, I think that temporary permissions (unless granted by a crat (without discussion) for a fixed period (say a week)) is without merit. Importer is not like bot, or bot user. fr33kman 06:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you thoughts regarding the tasks, and the community need to review the importation of articles? Please see my three examples above where import has already been screwed up. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I reread your statement twice... and I don't understand if your supporting or opposing the temp permissions. Because the initial grant has the discussion, but the subsequent grants, don't. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)