Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers/discussion archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

How long should requests stay?[edit]

Lately requests have been closed after one day. I find that to be very worrying. Legitimate concerns may never get through. After all we have no rush, right? Why can't applicators wait a minimum? Possibly two days? I find two days to be quick. Before, requests were closed usually after a week, now it seems to be under 24 hours. A big change. Legitimate concerns may never come through, because of a really speedy close. I am strongly in favour of having a minimum of two days (which I find to be quick), but less than 24 hours is just wrong, IMO. I understand this is not a big deal in general, but it's possibly a big deal if possible legitimate concerns never get through. I don't want that to happen. As such I'm in favour of having a minimum. Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 12:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I disagree with Kanonkas here, I do not think that this is such a big deal. If need be, the flickrreviewer status could be just as easily removed, if there were a serious concern. Have there been any instances where the flickrreviewer discussion was closed too soon, and then the status by that user was abused? I cannot recall any. Cirt (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
That's not an excuse for speedy approval. The community should have sufficient time to raise any concerns they may have. 24 hours or less is barely enough. Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 13:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe Kanonkas is referring in part to my closure of Daniel Case's request for flickr review status, so let me explain my reasoning beyond the joke edit summary. A lot of flickr requests I've closed only get one or two comments, if that, and after a week, it's often a default promotion. In Daniel's case, he had already received four endorsements, three from Commons administrators. This is often more than the average request gets in a week. Given that flickr review is not supposed to be a big deal, closing them slightly early with this many endorsements from trusted users seemed perfectly appropriate. However, if the community disagrees, I will of course stop. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it slightly early. I would call it very early. The one example you pointed above is just one of many recent. We shouldn't be quick to close just because some administrators chose to support. Same if they opposed. For all you know, I could have been an opposer working with my text, reviewing the user, or possibly voting tomorrow? Next day, (with my possible concerns), I notice the request is closed. This refers to comments, support, and oppose votes. As I said above, let us have a minimum at the least. It's really confusing, and my concerns above stands. I don't find it to be appropriate. Requests should be open to the community for a certain time, to allow possible concerns to be brought up, and to allow possible further input. Requests shouldn't be speedy closed as early as they're being now (less than 24 hours!). Even Commons:Flickr images/reviewers#Instructions on how to become a reviewer encourages an administrator, or a reviewer to wait a few days. There is a reason why we wait for such things, and I have outlined some of my concerns above. This is not process wonkery/bureaucracy. Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 18:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Why a few days? Flickr reviewer isn't adminship. I suppose that link you provide can be interpreted in two ways. It could be interpreted as a few days if there have been few or no comments. I usually wait a week if there have been no comments at all, and then default to promote if I don't see anything troublesome, which is more than the week stipulated in that link. However, in this case, consensus quickly formed in less time than the link suggested, so I promoted early. I did not, and still don't, consider this a big deal. The "what ifs" can be applied at any time, even if a request was open for a week or more, so I don't find that argument convincing. Again, this is such a trivial matter, so if there are any significant objections, I will wait the "few days" written...I still don't agree with treating clear consensus flickr review requests like that at all. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I never said this was a request for adminship. You don't get a clear consensus in a matter of hours. No, you leave the request for an appropriate matter of time (e.g. 2 days, which is quick enough as it is). Yes, the "what ifs" bit can be applied as such, but as I pointed above, you don't get a clear consensus in a matter of hours for this. I stand by having a minimum, but less than 24 hours is way too quick. The community isn't being given enough time to voice their opinion over an applicator in mere hours, and quickly closing it as such would be inappropriate IMO. Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 20:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
How much clearer consensus do you want? What would those extra days have achieved? Look at the archives. Most requests get around 2 or 3 comments, some one or none at all. I have to disagree with you that the "community" (which obviously does not frequent this page very often) will have any different say whether it's open for 24 hours, 48 hours or a week. The suggested time is not a policy, nor was it written as one. We grant rollback to people within minutes with no endorsement: why is this user right a bigger deal if the person clearly has clue and is being endorsed by several other trusted people? Yes, both have different functions, but I give every candidate a final review before promoting them, so again, what's the deal? I still don't see this as a big issue. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is a bit pointless in my opinion. Daniel Case is an admin and oversighter at enwiki, and an experienced user here; he's obviously trustworthy. What's the point in forcing the discussion so stay open? Seems counterproductive to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree wadester16 04:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I've outlined my concerns above. I find your argument a bit moot because of that Juliancolton. Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 12:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I would honestly propose that any en:wiki admin be given Flickr review status upon request, no questions asked. This is a popularity contest just like RFA here or at en:wiki. Votes don't necessarily (and usually don't, IMO) indicate knowledge of copyright. Why not just skip the middle man? wadester16 21:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I see both sides of this. Your own instructions say "after a few days", which is rather vague. Over on PD review we auto approve people who are commons admins and flickr reviewers. In the case of Daniel, I see no point to holding it open for a week or even several days. However, I agree with Kanonkas that for someone not an admin should have their request held open somewhere in the 2-7 day range. One day for that is way too short. RlevseTalk 00:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Well there appears to be a large variation in how long requests are left open. I am also an administrator on the English Wikipedia and my request was open a month and a half, but it still only got three comments (excluding the closers and my own). The length it was open was probably due to inactivity, which is a problem here. I agree that four to seven days is a good time for most request, though more established users who we should be able to trust, such as admins, should be speeded through more quickly in my opinion. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree partially. Admins from other projects were speedy approved before, see the archived discussion for more information. Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 16:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Re. admins from other projects. They should not get auto review status. I am an admin here on Commons (though extremely inactive) and I don't know the first thing about reviewing. Yet somehow, I am allowed to do so automatically? Bear in mind, some enwiki admins were promoted years ago, and aren't necessarily trustworthy. A bad idea really. I'm not happy with how quickly the request was processed either, but it isn't the end of the world. Majorly talk 22:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also be against auto-promoting admins from other projects as well, since yes standards for adminship vary greatly between projects and some kind of review would be helpful. Though I do think users clearly trusted with copyright e.t.c. from other projects should be passed through more quickly than normal e.g. two days. Thank you for the link Kanonkas, I can understand why the original clause was removed, if the reviewer page is to be made more specific I would prefer a less vague and a softer new clause. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I think Kanonkas is on the right track. A wait of 6-7 days to be a trusted reviewer is not unreasonable. Even a respected Commons member (or Admin) can surely wait this long. What I'm saying is that its not overly burdensome. (unlike say 1 month) As an aside, I have seen some bad Admins in action on Wikipedia and sometimes I wonder how they ever became an Admin there. Perhaps they became Admins in the early days of Wikipedia...when standards were somewhat lower. Luckily this isn't a big problem on Commons but just to be safe, it may be better not to waterdown Commons minimum standards here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm being bold here. See the bold edit. Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 18:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
That seems to fine to me, though I was also like to see an advisory maximum time such as seven days. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)