Talk:New wikis importers

Because the thread on Wikimedia Forum was long with a lot of off-topic discussion, I'm re-starting here a sane discussion/poll about this. Especially the opinion of users who have experience with importing new wikis (see the log), and admins of Incubator (or BetaWikiversity/OldWikisource, for that matter) is important. SPQRobin (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Poll

The following discussion is closed:

Support

1. Would make our lives easier. I have imported at least 26 new wikis so far without any trouble (using XML upload). SPQRobin (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

   What's the big deal about stating what wikis? I imported the Asteriano Wikibooks to the incubator but I didn't like announce it. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

   I just wanted to point out that I successfully imported many times using XML upload. SPQRobin (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Sounds reasonable and makes it more clear who can do this task. Romaine 16:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
3. Ruslik 17:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
4. -jkb- 17:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC) (experience with new wikis like frr.wp oder cs.wikisource, experience on other projects with importing)
5. Merlissimo 17:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC) (importer on dewiki and experience on helping many local admins of small wikis to set up initial config)
6. --MF-W 17:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC) (regularly importing from and to Incubator)
7. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
8. --minhhuy ^(talk) (WMF) 07:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
9. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose until language similar to this is added to ensure that there is a clear vote to determine trustworthiness of an individual and need, until language like this is added to ensure that these individuals can be removed immediately if they are causing problems, and until the community as a whole is able to discuss this matter to determine the definition of a new Wiki, what materials can be imported, who establishes when material can be imported and from what Wikis, and clear and rigorous regulations put in to ensure that there is no abuse with XML files. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

   Futher discussion moved to section #Oppose Ottava Rima by Merlissimo

2. Oppose: Seems unnecessary and was wrongly executed. I really don't like this idea in general. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 12:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
3. Oppose: Per above --Mohamed Aden Ighe 02:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions, comments, discussion

Oppose Ottava Rima

All issues addressed, insofar possible using common sense. SPQRobin (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I would still like some kind of vote but you did make it far, far more palpable than what it was. PeterSymonds has stated that he would create a page that would log which wikis would be deemed "new" and being imported to so that we can have a more easy to monitor list and follow the activity, which is one of my primary concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"Consensus" more or less implies a vote. And there is already a log at incubator:I:SCL where you can easily see what needs to be done, what has been done, which wikis will be created soon, and so on. SPQRobin (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. One other thing - someone has pointed out that wikis created by the Foundation or for Chapters probably shouldn't be included as new even if they are newly created. How will this be handled? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

In the technical sense, they are new wikis. But they don't need importing because they weren't started on either Incubator, BetaWV or OldWikisource. SPQRobin (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. So would it be best to have an exception? This would give delete rights and edit protection rights on those Wikis if not. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

They are de facto excluded. I added them as an exception since you prefer it to be written. SPQRobin (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You will find out that I prefer a lot of things to be written, but I am also a defender of tradition and like to codify it for everyone to know. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It was already written in the original text (quite obvious, given that it was written by the same person who reported this problem): "new wikis created per the language proposal policy" excludes such wikis, "will be active only on newly created wikis which need such import" clearly says that the group won't be active on them. Nemo 10:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't read the first sentence thoroughly :). SPQRobin (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiSet

We need a little discussion to establish this little important detail: can we switch to option 3 for the WikiSet, as last commented here by myself and MF-W? Nemo 11:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I am a proponent of option 3 as well. However, I talked to a few stewards and they do not want us to have the "globalgrouppermissions" right because it can change sensitive stuff (global groups & rights). Without this, however, option 3 requires more steward action than the current set-up. SPQRobin (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It's true that "globalgrouppermissions" is an important right, but its usage is logged and very controlled: if a new wikis importer abused it, the action would be reverted and his flag removed in a few minutes. Option 3 gives better transparency and therefore reduces the room for abuse, IMHO. I'd like some stewards comments here. Nemo 14:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Currently only stewards and system administrators have 'globalgrouppermissions' right (not even staff). But if you had it, you would effectively have all other userrights including checkuser and oversight. This in turn would require (at least) identification to the foundation. It would be more acceptable if 'globalgrouppermissions' were split into 'globalgrouppermissions' and 'globalwikisets' userrights. The latter could be given to 'New wikis importers'. Ruslik 14:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be overdone then to give globalgrouppermissions to new wikis importers. We could stick with option 2 and change to option 3 if the right would in the future be split up. --MF-W 15:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Option 2 seems the best given the discussion above. Requiring NWI to identify to the foundation would make it rather inconvenient. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Access

I'm not very passionate about it, but I've removed some useless and strange clauses about access and removal which produce instruction creep and weird effects.

• Nobody (wiki or subset of a wiki) has a veto/endorsement right on any request for global access, currently. I don't think this is worth discussing, but if we really needed it, Incubator bureaucrats should be put on the same level as BetaWikiversity and OldWikisource 'crats; or, the LangCom should be used for such an assessment, given that it has a global role and this group gives execution to its resolutions.
• Let's avoid inventing a specific (non-)process for removal. Almost no other global group has it and it's useless to repeat what's generally valid in many places, with the risk of mistakes and misunderstandings.

Nemo 11:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This sentence for removalal was copied from Global sysops#Removal. What is the "usual process"? Merlissimo 11:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

For the first point, what about mentioning that "the opinion of LangCom members, and bureaucrats of Incubator/BetaWV/OldWS, is extra important" (or some better formulation)? SPQRobin (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is acceptable. In the interests of making sure access is given only to those who know what they're doing, the opinion of those active in these areas should be given extra weight. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The usual process is consensus, basically. Consensus can be determined in many ways: it can be obvious, it can be a discussion, a RfC, a poll, a petition, a specific process for removal with clear quorum, some general formal process which might be added in the future to request removal of global rights, etc. I don't see any benefit in choosing some particular process now. For instance, that sentence I removed is only part of the process for global sysops and could be interpreted as excluding other systems. Nemo 14:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

We could add such a provision, but is it really needed? Steward requests are not polls, so it's obvious that not all !votes have the same weight. For instance, we don't state on Global rollback that SWMT members' opinion is more important. Just for the sake of consistency, Nemo 14:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal for a global group like this should -never- require consensus and should be automatic. There are times where these people need to be shut down without any second guessing because of the damage that can happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I was being bold and added what I proposed above. Nemo, if you still really feel it is unneeded, feel free to remove it, it's not that important. Ottava, the sentence is about granting access, not removing. Removing can obviously happen without prior discussion/consensus. SPQRobin (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I was refering to Nemo's statement "a specific process for removal with clear quorum". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Re-reading now, I see that we are really mixing two discussions here :-S SPQRobin (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for mixing indentation. Ottava, I don't see why that statement should be problematic: it's just one possibility for access removal among others, I'm not proposing to use it here. Nemo 16:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I just want to make sure that if it comes to an emergency (i.e. any real reason to remove the bit) that there is a clear procedure put in place - i.e. Steward does it automatically as soon as there is a problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to write it, that's what stewards are for and do even for emergency removal of local flags which follow local (non-Global, non-Meta) policies. Nemo 14:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that the clause about incubator 'crats getting more weight is unnessesary. The entire point of the discussion is to allow points to be presented in either direction - if incubator 'crats truly are more knowledgable in this subject then I'm sure that the quality of their arguments will prove it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion

I suppose it is now accepted as policy. Most people support and the concerns of Ottava are addressed. SPQRobin (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Go prod the stewards who haven't said anything and see what they say about closing it. Meta doesn't really have set times for RfCs, proposals, etc. It pretty much ends whenever the stewards all seem to agree to end it. I'm sure there was at least some discussion on the steward list about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a clear consensus for this policy, so I've removed the template. It's now time to request the flag for interested people. Nemo 21:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added a section to SRGP, and added the group to the user groups template. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)