Wikipedia:Administrators/Archive6

User:Dough4872

• Dough4872 (talk · contribs · count) (assign permissions)

I would like to be able to import templates from the English Wikipedia related to {{Infobox road}} in order to add to road articles on this wiki. Dough4872 (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment I don't have any objections. Jon@talk:~$ 03:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• No objections, user seems to be knowledgeable and does some good work. (Shouldn't importer requests have subpages?) -Barras (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes they normally have subpages and are run like Rfa's. -DJSasso (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Done in Jon@talk:~$ 14:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks. Dough4872 (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed this request....why was it given out within one day when the typical discussion for the importer flag is 7 days just like the other major flags? -DJSasso (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree; import can do a lot of damage. fr33kman 20:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the user has barely used it and there was no 7 day discussion I am going to remove the flag for now. -DJSasso (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If the user barely used it, it can be removed accordingly. Also, I admit to not paying attention to timestamps to ensure discussion took place in a length of time the was sufficient. That one is for my apologies. Jon@talk:~$ 02:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Beefball

• Beefball (talk · contribs · count) (assign permissions)

Would like to import articles relating to Singapore, List of Linux distributions and Office suite from English Wikipedia to this wiki. --Beefball ^Talk 14:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• This is a request for a flag. Did you know that? If so I would have to say no to the flag being that you are relatively brand new to this wiki. That being said if you want those two articles moved over just copy and paste the article here and then follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution to attribute the article to en.wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• I can copy and paste, but it's inefficient as I am only simplifying the article, especially the ones on List of Linux distributions.--Beefball ^Talk 12:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• That is how a great majority of the work is done on this wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but I want to them faster. --Beefball ^Talk 18:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are completely unwilling to take the extra 5-10 seconds to highlight text and hit copy and then hit paste. And add a small template in your edit summary saying it came from en. Then you are definitely not right for the importer tool where you have to actually spend many minutes after importing fixing things properly after you imported the article. Most of the time you need to spend 30-60 minutes after importing an article to fix it to simple standards. Those 5-10 seconds in the grand scheme of things take up little to no time. -DJSasso 18:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. fr33kman 20:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I am not just importing articles and then not doing anything to fix them, and just putting a tag on top of the article. I wish to import the great lot of articles on List of Linux distributions which require minimal editing. An example is w:NepaLinux and NepaLinux. Sure, I could highlight and paste repeatedly for all the articles I need to transfer over, but then I want to ask you - what is the proper use of "importer" in that case? --Beefball ^Talk 07:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

+1 I can support this request. Why are we giving him a hard time over this? Jon@talk:~$ 21:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Because importer is an extremely dangerous tool that we very rarely give out, its the most dangerous tool in the admin toolbox, everything an admin does can easily be undone such as deletes or blocks. But it is almost impossible to fix things that were imported incorrectly or maliciously. Usually its given out only because there is a specific hard to do job that the user has in mind that can't easily be done without the tool. Its a tool that is generally best left to admins. In fact its only been given to 3 people ever. One of which was done by you in a day bypassing the typical 7 day discussion and another one had to have it removed because he couldn't use it properly. Frankly I think we set a bad precedent when we gave it to Ottava and now people want it more often. -DJSasso (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• If import is the most dangerous tool, then why is it offered to non-admin users? From what I know, import isn't a very powerful admin tool, although I admit it's one of the most complicated ones. It amazes me how much scrutiny a user can get when applying for a single subordinate admin tool. —stay (sic)! 22:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• As I said it usually isn't given out to non-admins. Its an extremely rare case that we give it out to non-admins. -DJSasso (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth, historical revisionism, which was the most harmful risk, is no longer a concern. Direct XML upload has been disabled for this particular right. Unless DJ can tell us what exactly is harmful here, I'm inclined to grant the right, as the candidate meets the policy requirements for this. Respectfully, Jon@talk:~$ 02:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Importing articles over top of articles for example mixes the edit histories together when that is often not correct as it intertwines the edit histories making it look like it is one continuous history. Once this happens it can't be undone (easily) and makes a mess of the attribution by attributing the article to people who may or may not have had any part in it. Now there are times where this is ok and preferable but there are many times when it isn't. One single incorrect import in this manor can take days to undo if not weeks if they choose certain options during their import. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Why though? If I imported an article and its subs wrongly, wouldn't QDing the pages sort the history problems? Normandy ^(talk) 12:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

While completely losing both the new and old article. A malicious editor in a matter of minutes could destroy the attribution on hundreds of articles causing months of work to try and save the articles from loss. I am not saying this user is a malicious editor by any means but he is one with next to no recent history. I don't think its unreasonable to ask them to build up some current history/reputation here before asking for a major user right. We wouldn't give admin to someone who has no current history here so why would we give one of the powerful admin tools to someone with no recent history here. We have after all had issues with past users returning only to cause all kinds of trouble. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I was in complete agreement with you until that last sentence. It may be just my paranoia but who would that past user causing trouble be? Normandy ^(talk) 13:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I am forgetting the name off the top of my head but it was an admin who we ended up having to strip his rights away. Blockinbox or something like that. I would have to go look. I wasn't referring to you if you were worried about that. You've done well since being back this most recent time. -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah no problem. Its just that everyone is calling me paranoid. Well I think they are... Normandy ^(talk) 13:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Addihockey10 (removal of rollback)

Addihockey10 (talk · contribs · count) Misuse of the rollback tool. Used rollback here to remove a section of comments I made in good faith. While removal of comments on your own page is kosher, using rollback to do it isn't. When I warned him that that was a misuse of rollback to undo good faith edits, he then proceeded to undo my warning. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Also note that I do not have rollback on simple wiki. . If you want my global rollback removed, this is the wrong forum. --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 05:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done

...huh. Yeah, um, in light of that there's no rollback to remove, I'm not sure what exactly I can do. I can't say that it's what GR is intended for, but that's not a right I can remove (nor is this, as Addihockey comments, the right place). sonia♫ 05:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for assuming that you having rollback automatically meant you had it here. I probably will not request removal of global rollback unless I see abuse on multiple Wikipedias (and since I generally don't notice abuse anywhere but here, I probably won't). But remember that rollback isn't for such things as general cleanup of good-faith edits Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Do be aware that you are allowed to use rollback in your own userspace per WP:Rollback feature. Please make sure you read relevant policies/guidelines before jumping to action. Oh and since your "disagreement" was about IP votes. Do your research if you are going to attack another user Wikipedia:Criteria for adminship#Who can vote. Its a very strongly followed criteria that should be well known to anyone and it surprised me you did not know it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• To clarify the bit about global rollbackers, global policy allows them to use their rights on every wiki, so long as there is no local policy contradicting it. If a GR is abusing their rights in accordance to policy, then any admin can ask them to stop and per global policy they need to. If they continue using their global rights after being asked to stop, they can be blocked and the use of their tools brought up at an RfC on meta. Ajraddatz (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  That's under the condition that the rights were abused, which they were not. --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 01:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)