User talk:MarcoAurelio/Archives/2017-10

Add topic
Active discussions

Tech News: 2017-40

23:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Consulta sobre verificación de cuentas (el problema es en Wikinoticias en Español)

Hola. Tanto tiempo.

Última vez en cambios recientes de esa wiki (ver últimos 250 en total) hay una creación masiva de cuentas con un único propósito (crear talleres con resúmenes como "noticia con cita y referencias", etc) y cada página de usuario es la misma. Además el patrón es igual (por ejemplo, "fg" al final del nombre de usuario). La cuestión es que esa wiki no tiene ningún CU para verificar el tema, pues pienso que alguien podría estar abusando de cuentas para un único propósito o alguien conocido estaría detrás de eso. ¿Tienes idea si se puede intervenir siendo Steward?. Desde ya, un saludo. --Ks-M9 [disc.] 21:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC).

Por lo que puedo ver a través de las ediciones, al parecer se tratan de usuarios que participan de un taller de la asignatura de documentación de la Universidad de Murcia y que tiene un objetivo aparente de usar Wikinoticias para aprender a escribir artículos, voy a tratar de pedir en el Café de Wikinoticias que se presente el docente o persona que organiza dicho taller para que explique lo que piensa hacer con sus estudiantes en el proyecto. Lo que si me extraña un poco es que allí hayan podido crear 24 cuentas en 8 minutos siendo que el sistema solo permite crear 6 cuentas por IP (salvo que la IP de dicha universidad sea dinámica). Mientras no haya vandalismo y todo esté en orden con las políticas de Wikinoticias, no creo necesaria una verificación de cuentas en el proyecto por ahora. Saludos. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 21:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Hola a los dos. Si las cuentas no están vandalizando ni causando problemas la verificación no es apropiada. Si estamos seguros de que se trata de una actividad docente, contactar con el coordinador desde luego suele ayudar y sugiero seguir dicho camino y, caso de no funcionar, se podrían explorar otras medidas. Respecto a la creación de cuentas, sin ver las IP no puedo opinar, pero lo más probable es que las cuentas vengan de distintas IP porque de lo contrario, en efecto, tenemos restringida la creación de cuentas por IP a 6 por 24 horas. Un saludo. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
El coordinador de la actividad ya se presentó en el proyecto y dio a conocer su pauta de trabajo, por lo que no veo necesario tomar medidas ahora. Saludos. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 13:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hindi Wikivoyage

Hi, thanks for helping get Hindi Wikivoyage's creation process going. I just noticed it failed to showed up on the main portal (https://www.wikivoyage.org/). I remember you handled this back when Finnish/Wy was started so maybe you could take a look this time as well? Appreciate it Acer (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Acer - I've reported this to phab:T177763. Thanks for the ping. Regards. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Nahuatl Wikipedia 2

Hello; In this page, is over second closure for Nahuatl Wikipedia. Regards.--Marrovi (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-41

14:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Help design a new feature to stop harassing emails

Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to start develop of a new feature to allow users to restrict emails from new accounts. This feature will allow an individual user to stop harassing emails from coming through the Special:EmailUser system from abusive sockpuppeting accounts.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2016 Community Wishlist discussion or IdeaLab discussion about letting users restrict who can send them email.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

It is important to hear from a broad range of people who are interested in the design of the tool, so we hope you join the discussion.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Tech News: 2017-42

15:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hola Marco!

Por favor, could please populate this category? All the candidates present here are protected pages. :) Regards, Sturm (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sturm. I think either Base or Kaganer will be better to assist you there. I'm currently a bit busy. Sorry! —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Sturm: This is improved. Best regards :) --Kaganer (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Autopatroller

Hi. Would you like me to stop granting autopatroller actively while Meta:Babel#On_autopatrollers is continuing? --Base (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Base Not at all. Sorry if the thread sounded as a critizism to you. It was not. I am thinking that maybe we could sort of automate the process. Please feel free to continue flagging people you consider trusted and thanks for the big ammount of good job you're doing. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Not like criticism but considering the number of this sort of actions I did recently it did sound as referring to me a bit from my perspective :) Well, using the opportunity thanks for all your work too ^_^ --Base (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Meta:Bureaucrats reading

Hi. It seem that out readings of the rule differ and I would like to learn why it happens to be so. It seems that your reading of the policy is, using PHP styled pseudo-code (I assume you know the language a tad as you deal with #Site-Requests) something like this

if($candidate->is_admin() && ( $candidate->log_actions(six_months, !user_space) + ( $candidate->edits(six_months, !user_space) > 150))){
    if ($candidate->endorsed_by_two_bureaucrats()){
        sleep(48h); // wait for objections to be raised or something
        if($objections_valid){
            $nomination_result = start_week_nomination();
            if($nomination_result){
                grant_bureaucrat_flag();
            }
        }
    }
    else {
        $nomination_result = start_week_nomination();
        if($nomination_result){
            grant_bureaucrat_flag();
        }
    }
}

Or something like that, I have insufficient data to infer what your reading is exactly. My reading, and as far as I know not only my, looks something like that

$objections_process = start_getting_objections(24h); // in a different thread, whatever
if(
   $candidate->is_admin() && ( $candidate->log_actions(six_months, !user_space) + ( $candidate->edits(six_months, !user_space) > 150))
   &&
   $candidate->endorsed_by_two_bureaucrats()
) {
    if($objections_process->status == "done"){ // 24h since the beginning has passed
        if(count($objections_process->get_objections()) > 0) {
            $objections_process->sleep(48h); // gather further objections
            if(evaluate($objections_process->get_objections()) == "evaluated as valid") {
                $nomination_result = start_week_nomination();
                if($nomination_result){
                    grant_bureaucrat_flag();
                }
            } else{
                grant_bureaucrat_flag();
            }
        } else{
            grant_bureaucrat_flag();
        }   
    }
}

I think MF-Warburg's reading is somewhere close to mine too from what I see.

I understand your concern that with just 2 crats it might be difficult to evaluate objections impartially in case it comes to that (evaluate($objections_process->get_objections()) in my "code"), so I see a point into going directly to a week long vote if objections are raised.

But my reading's principal difference is that 2 bureaucrats endorsement is a prerequisite for that evaluation to even happen. So my reading is that in case there are no endorsements of 2 bureaucrats anything else does not even happen, it is a fail before even evaluating the objections, so no impartial judge is needed. So I honestly fail to understand your logic behind suggestion[1][2] that if Billinghurst were to run again it would be automatically the regular vote. Likewise as I see it if there are the 2 bureaucrat endorsements and there are no objections to evaluate at all, then after 24h it is an automatic promotion, so I fail to understand what 48h are you talking about[3] in Matiia's nomination. Could you please elaborate in detail how you come to your reading of the policy? Now I hope that Rschen7754 does not decide that I am imposing my reading of a policy too, and I also feel needed to say that I am absolutely open to consider changing the policy. But it is rather important for me to understand how you as a bureaucrat understand it in the current revision which is applicable to the recent RfBs. I also apologise for using rather obscure way applying pseudocode, I just thought that if we read human language differently perhaps more strict machine-like language would work better. --Base (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: I've edited the "my" part of initial pseudocode, as being focused on 48h in Marco's comment on Matiia's RfB I forgot to include the clause about 48h at all, while it is in the rules, only not on the stage where you interpreted, from my point of view. Not that it matters, especially applicably to the real recent nominations, though. --Base (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
The policy is poorly written, but also taking into account the text on Meta:Requests for adminship I have to agree with Base's interpretation. --Rschen7754 17:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I can't really read code yet I manage to do just fine on Phabricator/Gerrit with easy things. I'd however prefer plain language whenever possible.
The point is that, if we follow your logic, no one would ever be able to join the bureaucrat group if the bureaucrats don't endorse the request, which will be granting a pocket veto which I don't think it is in the spirit of the rule. The policy provides for an speedy approval rule: if no objections are raised and two bureaucrats endorse the candidate, the user can be promoted as fast as in 24 hours since the opening of the vote (mistake mentioning 48 hours on Matiia's RfB). If objections are raised and are considered valid, the user has the option to open a one-week RfB process identical to RfA and pass to become a bureaucrat.
The situation is a bit awkward because we're down to two bureaucrats and we both voted. Considering the objections valid (since there's no uninvolved bureaucrat to decide that and both comes from long-term community members) Billinghurst can still become a bureaucrat if he opens a new RfB using the procedure outlined in point 3 in fine. That's how I always read the policy, otherwise MF-W and myself could be playing Roman Consul intercessio between us not letting anyone be promoted to bureaucrat. Not to mention if we're down to just one bureaucrat.
Policy should indeed be clarified, and maybe just get rid of the speedy promotion rule if it's going to cause such headaches. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
There used to be a lot more bureaucrats, so I think the chances of a pocket veto were a lot fewer back then. --Rschen7754 18:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To mention an example. If we follow your logic, what if I don't endorse Matiia's RfB. Does it stay open forever? What if I oppose? Should it automatically fail because there are not enough endorsements? I don't think either scenario is to be wished. And I don't think it'll be fair. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
But on the flip side of the coin, I don't see any difference between requirements 1 and 2. So, under your reasoning, I could run for bureaucrat right now under point #3 and it should be allowed, right? (Not that I would, of course). And it might not be "fair", but it would be fair in that policy was being followed. --Rschen7754 18:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, it will automatically fail. That's what the policy is saying. I think we should be careful with ignoring policy just because circumstances have changed. What we can do, though, is rewriting the rules and then follow a new procedure, not the other way around, since that's what I'd call "unfair". --Vogone (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I would disagree that the intention of the endorsement rule is not intended as a "pocket veto". The assumption is that potential candidates who don't have the support of at least 2 current bureaucrats are unlikely to be good bureaucrats. Of course, the situation is a bit special right now because only 2 current bureaucrats exist, but we used to have around ten and having 2/10 bureaucrats endorsing your RfB is far less of an obstacle. --Vogone (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems my reading of the policy is not right apparently. I never suggested to ignore the policy. To me the rule of two bureaucrats endorsing was only intended for speedy approval, and if that failed, then a one-week RfB could be triggered. At least that how I always understood the policy. I'm still not quite convinced it was the desired result when they wrote the policy. In any case, I think we should indeed discuss if the current bureaucratship policy is appropriate for nowadays. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I may only guess the intent of authors of the policy, but I think the endorsements are resonate with the question to Billinghurst you asked before endorsing him. They, I think, serve to show that bureaucrats would be a homogeneous body which would be able to work as a team. This is both psychological, a guarantee that the new bureaucrat would be able to work with others, with at least 2 of them (a dog is a bad candidate to join a team of cats even if it is a very good and apt for it dog sort of thing). As well as related to assuring expertise — voters might not always know bureaucrat work, the inside judgement is precious. I see positive sides in the speedy promotion, from experience going through an RfP votes is stressful, but it might be best to get rid of it, it not always fair, imagine if someone runs on December 31. OK, we seem to have quite a ground for an RfC. --Base (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, when does Matiia's request close? 24 hours after MF-W started it? Or 24 hours after they confirmed the nomination? --Rschen7754 00:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I personally feel that it should be since his confirmation as I agree with Marco in part that it is unusual to have not self-nomination. The policy is written the way that it does not even consider being nominated by someone. This is clearly another thing we need to clarify if we are going to change the policy. Well, though as I write this the time is in 4 hours, so :) --Base (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I would agree. I don't think the policy was written to consider that scenario though, or what to do if the crats have not endorsed within 24 hours (as happened in this case). --Rschen7754 05:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • As a general comment, we should be about a common and sensible reading of the policy. The community when it set that policy would never have had the only means to appoint crats would be two 'crats required to approve to appoint other crats. The community would not have dealt itself out of the ability to appoint 'crats. Also to note that if that proposed interpretation was the case, then if we fell to one crat, then we would not have any more crats. I would suggest that the rule did not even suspect we would fall to two, as it then requires a neutral crat to act (which didn't/couldn't happen in this case). If the wording needs to be clarified, go and adjust and have confirmed by the community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
So what, the other interpretation is not "sensible"? And do you presume to speak for the community as it was then? --Rschen7754 04:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for expressing your opinion, and for allowing me to have mine. It looks as though you are picking fights rather than elucidate a response.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Replying on your talk page. --Rschen7754 04:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • As I read it per the current policy if we go down to just one bureaucrat then we do not have new bureaucrats, indeed. As I mentioned before, I am absolutely open to change the policy, so seemingly are most of participants of this discussion, and of course this is what community will definitely do if it does run to one bureaucrat. The policy is definitely not well cut for two-bureaucrats situation, but as it comes to endorsements it is pretty much boolean algebra, IMHO, the endorsements either are or are not there, it is very impartial a parameter. The problems start if there are the endorsements but also are objections though, but we did not come to it. --Base (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  Comment The current "policy":

  • came about following the discussion Meta_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archives/2008#Threshold_to_pass_a_RfO, and best it could be described as better practice to bureaucrats about how they would act in that time — many active admins and many bureaucrats, and reads more about speedy appointments;
  • was not a decision of the broad community (I see no discussion by the community where it has ceded its rights to appoint by vote qualified administrators)
  • did not really envisage any scenarios outside of the conditions of the time when it was developed.

No, I don't presume to speak as the community as it was then, though I do know many of them, and their ethos. I do know that the community then and now have tried to not be authoritative advanced rights holders and wish for the community to maintain control of their policy, which we are elected to implement.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

    • Reading through that discussion (which starts here), I would strongly disagree with that interpretation. Specifically note the following quote from Majorly: "I propose that for any new admin wanting bureaucrat rights, they request and they must have an endorsement from a current admin." and then later proposals by Cometstyles and Daniel. "I see no discussion by the community where it has ceded its rights to appoint by vote qualified administrators" is a red herring; the community still has the right to support or oppose nominations, and that particular discussion was not limited to admins-only. --Rschen7754 07:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

We have now three bureaucrats and it seems clear what the current reading of the current policy should be. While I appreciate all your comments, I feel that if people is displeased with the current wording of the bureaucratship policy we should perhaps have a conversation in a RFC or Babel where all can participate. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-43

18:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-44

00:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "MarcoAurelio/Archives/2017-10".