Wikipedia:Requests for importer/Ottava Rima

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Successful per clear consensus, my vote notwithstanding. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima

Ottava Rima (talk · contribs)

End date: 02:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am requesting importing rights because of the usefulness they will serve in my work (simplifying various pages that I have produced in the past). I have importer rights at Wikiversity and I know how to use them. By importing over various documents and pages, I will be able to preserve the histories of pages that I have "simplified" in order to help create more pages at simple.wikipedia in the field of literature. The secondary ability, to suppress redirects, is very helpful as I tend to work in user space and have to deal with change page names, or with complicated naming issues where a long series of redirects would be problematic (I clean up double-redirect problems at Wikiversity).

Right now, I have 5 articles on my list to simplify (with the help of Juliancolton to import some histories). Having importer tool would allow me to have some independence and allow others to concentrate on their own areas more effectively. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I eventually plan to import and simplify most of the pages listed here, which represents the my FAs, GAs, DYKs, and some other pages that I saved or worked on. I will be importing them to my userspace and simplifying them per the word list, grammar guidelines, and readability tool to ensure that users of beginning English and younger English speaking audiences can read articles on notable works of literature and notable writers. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: self-nom Ottava Rima (talk)

Support

per my whynot. I trust Ottava to use the tool well and it is much preferred to import and simplify then it is to copy and paste (whether he wrote most of it or not). The biggest danger that the import tool can do to the wiki is when the person using it does not know what they are doing, this is not the case for Ottava and therefore I have no worries and look forward to his work. James (T C) 02:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Intends to work on articles. Such people should be encouraged. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly. Per Juliancolton. Lauryn^☆ 03:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per Juliancolton. Kansan (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diego (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support After some careful thought, and looking over Ottava's articles, which seem pretty good in quality for Simple Wikipedia, I've decided to move my vote. Classical Esther^♣ 03:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Juliancolton and Jamesofur. They're both very right, and also Ottava Rima seems quite trustworthy, she/he (I'm not sure which^u^) talks quite kindly, and her edits seem nice. Belle (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as he is happy to contribute here and elsewhere by content creation I don't mind him having import. Nifky^{^} 07:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I trust Ottava. Per JC. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent content builder, no reasonable argument to object to this whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple needs articles. If somebody is willing to make them, I see no reason to discourage them.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 12:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fr33k man 15:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
why not? —§ stay (sic)! 18:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - he wasn't banned for importing pages wrong. f o x (formerly garden) 19:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support What ~~Jossu~~ Fox said. NW (Talk) 20:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I still have some concerns over the recent one year ArbCom ban on enWP, but I think I've heard enough to support. I would still work on your commitment to the community as the gaps in your username editing still look bad to me.-- † CR ₉₀ 21:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, what's the big deal? That he might start doing something useful? Oh and the ban on enwiki is a farce. Majorly talk 23:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly said! Let's not judge people here based on what has happened elsewhere. If we did, quite a few good editors here would not be allowed to even edit (one or two of them admins), and that'd be a shame. We need an active community. This user is an EXCELLENT content editor at enwiki; we should make use of his enwiki ban and let him add to our article base massively during his enwiki ban. fr33k man 06:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we judged him based on his content work at en...that would be judging him based on what happened elsewhere... Just a thought... -DJSasso (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava Rima at enwiki is still Ottava Rima at simplewiki. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So then he is the banned user who shouldn't edit here?... see my point, you can't have it both ways. Either we ignore his editing at en or we don't. Freekman went on to say we should ignore what the user did elsewhere, and then proceeded to talk about how good a content editor he was at en. It was a contradiction I was pointing out. If he was bad enough to be banned at en he is still the same user who is bad enough to be banned here. Or we give him a clean slate here and make him work a new reputation here like we did for those other banned users that edit here. We don't just give him something based on what he did on en. Or we would have to give him a ban here. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't banned at en for his editing, nor his importing skills. He was banned for alleged behavioral issues, which has no bearing on his ability to use this feature. His content work is up to par. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The right to use tools, directly reflect peoples behavioral issues. You don't behave, you don't get access to tools that require trust. -DJSasso (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing--Sinbad (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can be persuaded. Editor has an acceptable plan to me. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--vector ^_^ (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - I'm willing to trust Ottava with the tools here, as his contributions are constructive. The en.wiki incident is not enough to persuade me to oppose, as long as it doesn't happen here (which I trust it won't). Airplaneman ^talk 01:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No issues here. Tiptoety ^talk 05:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Weakly oppose sorry but I'd like to see a little more activity out of you first.-- † CR ₉₀ 02:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC) (Striking my vote as I'm gonna take more time to think-- † CR ₉₀ 02:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose I would like to see some commitment to the community first, relatively few edits here for such a powerful tool. Yes, I know they have experience on other wikis however, that is tempered by the fact he is blocked for a year on it. I want to see some local trust built up first. -DJSasso (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't really that powerful of a tool, but if you want, I can show you many IP edits I have made to many of my comparable articles. 75.105.13.17 was one of my IPs on my range, which can be confirmed by IRC. I made probably over 300 edits to various literature articles as an IP mostly because I never felt the need to consistently log in for a long time here. However, importing and the rest would require the name to stay the same. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. on that Wiki, I created over 210 DYK, had 10 FAs, over 40 GAs, and 156 pages. All highly notable literature pages and all things that are missing here (except for the ones I put stubs on Simple English for under IP addresses). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that has what to do with import? They banned you for a reason and it wasn't hard work. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Import is all about content. Nothing more nor less. And did you look to see that 6 out of 18 Arbitrators banned me, for of which two had significant conflicts of interest and should have been recused? Or did you even see what "evidence" they used to justify it? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I probably have a COI too, since (IMO) you would have been blocked here for the attitude you had on AN. Do you really need import here? You mentioned above that you're creating stubs. You don't need import for that. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noooo, I mentioned above that I created dozens and dozens of stubs as an IP since 2008. I am using my account and importer so I can bring over and simplify -real- articles. An example of where I am simplifying a page that was put up at FAC and almost passed. Having the history imported allows for a preservation of the original text, allows it easier to see where it was taken in the history, who were the contributors to the text that is being simplified, and preserves the history here for GFDL requirements. These are very important things. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're just too new, sorry. I haven't even seen a GA (here) from you yet. Just too sudden. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A GA is your threshold? If you want, I can finish quite a few articles that are far superior to GA level by this weekend. How many do you want? 5? 10? I had 10 FAs at Wikipedia but also 37 that were FAC ready. I have some of the top FAs over at Wikipedia. My rate of creating GAs was one every 5 days with the slowness of the GAN process. However, I produced 18 pages for DYK with 8 of them being GAN ready in 2 days at Wikipedia. Content creation is nothing. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are a very good article writer on enWP, but I have yet to see that here. You requested import the day you became active. That's too fast IMO. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Sorry, Ottava. I do not think you will abuse the tools, and I believe you shall use them well, but I don't feel comfortable with giving my support just yet. A little more activity here, as DJSasso said, (and preferably in your user name) and then I will be happy to give you my support. Classical Esther^♣ 02:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, being an active user since mid 2008 was not enough activity? That is actually far more than most people around here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A year and a half before you started editing here from what I can tell. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wasn't exactly meaning the time, but the edits... Classical Esther^♣ 03:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've probably made over 300 IP edits over my time here by creating various stubs based on literature pages that were missing. I already revealed my IP above. If you can find a way to check the range you will see many more. That range is part of my satellite internet connection. My IP at Catholic University is different but also contains edits. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Esther meant time & edits here. Use your account more often because we can't see stuff that you created on IPs. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous. When we started giving this out, I didn't want it to become a free for all. Just request an import on IRC. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already do so. The idea was so that I could stop bothering people with stuff that I can do myself. There are already 4 admin I bother to do stuff, their time could better be spent on admining - blocks, deletions, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol I almost wish I had something to do, we never have much to do. Bother me as much as you want. Although, I see why you want it, we have 40+ people (which here is a lot) that can do this. We have very nice admins here who shouldn't mind the occasional bother (or just bother me). Griffinofwales (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm in the IRC room and I don't see you there. fr33kman, jamesofur, and Juliancolton, and all have a lot of other jobs to handle besides just importing various pages for me. Like them, I also work on many different projects (I work on 6 different projects), so trimming down time by giving a minor function out is definitely a way to streamline processes. I already proved at Wikipedia that I was capable of making 10 FAs, 40 GAs, and 170 DYKs in an 10 month period. The rate of my editing and work is something that would only get bogged down by messaging someone who may or may not be online, waiting a few hours, and possibly having them do the wrong thing or not being able to get it at a time that is convenient. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You must have just missed me. Bsadowski1 is an admin and is around after 0400 for a long time (he's also very lazy, so giving him something to do is good :P). Next time I'm on (I try to make it daily), I'll give you a list of times when certain lazy admins are on. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Must have missed you? I've never seen you on IRC and I've used it since 2008. Everyone who is an IRC regular knows of me and knows how often I am around. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I saw you once on wm admins. I don't think we hang around in the same channels though. I can be found on -simple most of the time. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Not enough edits and has a one-year ArbCom ban on English. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 05:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And many admin here are indef banned at English wiki. I also help operate Wikiversity and have since 2008, you know. Did you bother to look at my ArbCom case? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) I can't think of a single admin here who's currently or ever has been banned on EN-Wiki, if you can name them, please do; 2) I skimmed it. I didn't like what I saw. I didn't like it at all Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 05:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read this part: "Ottava Rima is a productive and skilled editor. Since September 2007 he has been a primary or significant contributor to 210 "did you know" entries (DYKs), approximately 42 good articles (GAs), and 9 featured articles (FAs)." That was before a FA passed. Ottava Rima (talk)
And I agree. But what does this have to do with import? I replied somewhere else on this (on this page). I'm losing track of all the comments, so I'm trying to reply to all of them. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: There is at least 1 admin who is currently banned on en, I don't know the entire history of all of the admins there may be more who have been banned in the past. Also: for god's sake it's IMPORT......... whats he going to do get so raged at the someone he tried to import en:WP:Sandbox just to spite everyone else? Even if he did.... it wouldn't be THAT bad. He's an amazing content creator and it would benefit him to have the tools and will most likely benefit the wiki if his job is easier over here. I would almost argue that having import is ALMOST less dangerous then having rollback. James (T C) 06:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I would say Import is the most dangerous tool an Admin has. Worse than even delete or block, both of which can be undone with a single click whereas if you import something bad, and end up merging our history with the history from en for example then you have to go through the article edit by edit trying to decide which edit is ours and which edit is ens and delete them edit by edit. Far more dangerous than rollback, not even in the same league. On some articles one such edit could cause a month of work undoing. -DJSasso (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted about 500 pages in my time and played around with various history aspects. I've also worked with many imports and the such. I've never seen such a problem as you describe and I don't really think it exists or would even matter. I've also been able to merge histories and unmerge histories within about a minutes time. That is a rather easy thing to do once you know how to deal with histories. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just about a week ago you supported Christianrocker's request for importer rights. He's indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. WHy'd you support him then? Either way (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While a valid point, please don't drag me into this. (And I don't plan on being banned from enWP much longer.)--  † CR ₉₀ 10:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you feel you're being "dragged into this" but it's a clear double standard on his part to support one banned user but use it as his claim against another. Either way (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I also agree to taking it on a case-by-case basis. But that's just me.--  † CR ₉₀ 10:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What has Ottava done to be distrusted here? Pmlineditor ∞ 10:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IDK, I'm just an innocent bystander.--  † CR ₉₀ 10:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The counter of that is, what has he done here to be trusted. -DJSasso (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was here when you voted for Juliancolton to be an admin. Being a member of this community since mid 2008, creating many stubs of pages that exist in en, and now wanting to use a feature that would only allow me to preserve histories of pages that I will be translating to meet the guidelines under GFDL should be more than enough to show the use of the tool. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have {{enwp based}} (which isn't as good, but better than nothing), and IMO you just became a member of the community (well technically you still aren't one IMO). Griffinofwales (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been an active member of this community longer than you. Remind me next time a discussion ever comes up when it deals with experience, because I will make sure to point out that since you think I have none, then you have far less. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Which community are we talking about? Griffinofwales (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
CR90 has been around much longer than Ottava, so there is no comparison. Ottava just got here, and as such there is no track record, so the first thing we look at is other wikis, and we see a 1 yr block. While CR90 is banned there, he has been here a year+ and so we know what he's like. I'd like to see more community participation before you get powerful tools like import. Sasso says it best in the comment above me, "what has he done here to be trusted". Griffinofwales (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may see a one year block, but I look at Ottava's enwiki contributions and see 210 DYKs, 10 Featured Articless, and at least 40 Good Articles. While the one year block is perhaps troubling, the exceptional content work that Ottava has done far outweighs that negative. It's my opinion that you should by default support any candidate unless you have reason not to, so I have a hard time finding validity in the argument "what has he done here to be trusted". Cheers, Lauryn (u • t • c) 14:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Few here have been around since 2007 so talking about CR90's record here is rather unfair, as, when put to the same test, many of the admin, crats, CUs and potential OS would probably not be able to get their privileges. Being from mid 2008, a year later, should not be that big of a difference. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Lauryn: None of which require the import tool. If you want one oppose reason: 1 yr very recent block on enWP. @Ottava: I don't count infrequent edits as being a member of the community. We get a lot of users that visit monthly or less frequently. I don't count them as members of the community. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A community is made up of people who work hard and are decent to each other. Based on your standards, how can anyone say you are a member of the community? You are just looking for excuses to tear down other people. You can't just go around dismissing people because they don't live up to your numerical standards that neither reflect the dedication nor work. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. However you just got here. Your first edit is not the beginning of your membership within the "community". It's when you become active within the processes of the wiki. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then most editors and the core of simple wiki are not "members of the community" according to you, as there are many more than 30 users at simple and rarely do these votes get around 30 people. Your statement is rather elitest and cliquish. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What? There are about 30 active users (registered) who edit here. I consider them the community. It might be more than 30, but 30 is usually the accepted estimate. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those "active users" are those who I talk to on a regular basis every day and have had dealings with dating back to 2008 and I still talk to every day. If you want to use that as your basis, then it would seem that I am more of the community than you are. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of this argument, let's keep IRC out of it. While you may claim it, I can't see anything on-wiki, which is what we're supposed to be using. You do not have many contribs within the wiki, and it has been very irregular. I am an admin and have been consistently active for the last 8 months. I'm not sure where you got the idea that somehow you are more of the community than I am, but apparently you do. While I can see why you would know some of the other users better than I do(I'm not very active on enWP, unlike some other editors here), throwing around baseless claims like "then it would seem that I am more of the community than you are" don't make sense. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Oppose There is not enough history on this local project for me to make an accurate judgement. Spend some more time here, then we can see. Please do not be discouraged and keep up the good work. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I have not seen you in the recent changes very often; The promise that you will do more here, provided you get this flag is a promise. The basic problem I see with it that imported pages are pretty useless, unless they are adapted to suit this audience. Personally, I do not care what other projects think of you; all I say is that Give me this hat and I will collaborate more is probably the wrong approach. First collaborate more, and then start the discussion about getting the hat. --Eptalon (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC) I withdraw my opposition, user seems to be a good faith editor --Eptalon (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

First things first: It appears I was mistaken about the currently banned admin on enWiki, I mis read and interpreted some things. We do have current admins (who I support as such) who have been banned on En but not ones who currently are. Secondly, and I'm going to break my "usual composure" for this with apologizes to Classical Esther, CR90 and anyone else who doesn't like swearing, HOLY FUCK PEOPLE. I'm not going to comment here any more but the above rantage is a disgrace to this community and I'm disappointed in a few of you (yes that includes Ottava to some extent). I've already said the rest of my piece so I won't repeat it here. James (T C) 23:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will take Jamesofur's statement as true and admit that I was wrong about them currently still being banned. I tend not to be able to keep up with cross wiki editing privileges too much. I just remember it coming up sometime before. I am sorry for assuming it was still true. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to apologize a second time for my participating in disputes above. I separated this out as I believe they are two separate issues. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry if I've disappointed you, Jamesofur, as certainly it was not my intention to do so. It's simply that I'd like to see Ottava participate a little more in his user name so the community can get to know him better first. I have, however, already moved my vote after some thought. Classical Esther^♣ 02:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't worry Cleassical Esther you didn't disappoint me you were much more composed then other conversations and you (and anyone) can of course vote how they wish. It was some of the discussions that frustrated me the most. James (T C) 02:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear me, am I one of those "Holy F--- People?" I'm so sorry! :( I didn't know Wikipedia was uncensored at first. '♥ Belinda ♥ 02:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No don't worry, you are one of the people I was apologizing to before I used that language. I don't like doing so unless I feel it is the best way to get my point across and I felt it expressed the frustration I had after reading the long discussion above the best. While Wikipedia is not censored we should of course try to be as understanding as possible to people who do not like language like that. Jamesofur Public (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, sorry anyway. I just don't like swearwords in Wikipedia because it makes it sound like all the common, un-trustworthy, bad, evil sites that I can't really edit or use information with a light heart. :) Thankyou for such a kind reply, James! ♥ Belinda ♥ 07:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]