Sat 18:04:58 ‹Mono[EmailMe]› Good morning everyone. Let's get started.
Sat 18:05:01 -!- Mono[EmailMe] is now known as Mono
Sat 18:05:24 ‹Mono› Some technicalities:
Sat 18:05:51 ‹Mono› This meeting will be logged and posted to the Wikimedia Commons.
Sat 18:06:39 ‹Mono› We were planning to discuss voter eligibility, CentralNotice use, translations, and support plans. If anyone would like to discuss something additional, please bring it up.
Sat 18:10:06 ‹Mono› Beria: I believe you were looking for the email Philippe sent me. I've posted the conversation at http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/Bzw8Zmgt6m
Sat 18:10:18 ‹Mono› miya: perhaps it was you
Sat 18:12:17 ‹cakiki› Hello Mono :)
Sat 18:13:01 ‹Mono› Hi cakiki
Sat 18:13:22 -!- POTY2011PING [u1187@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-nvkqvkwklgtynije] has joined #poty2011
Sat 18:14:03 ‹POTY2011PING› Beria cakiki enhydra ladder3 miya Mono MrFishBot Odisha1 Platonides POTYBot POTY2011PING Snowolf Thehelpfulone THO|Cloud ToAruShiroiNeko YOLO - the meeting has begun
Sat 18:14:08 ‹enhydra› I see
Sat 18:14:11 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› hmm
Sat 18:14:14 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› WOW
Sat 18:14:17 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› PINGED
Sat 18:14:45 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› Mono yes
Sat 18:14:55 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› perhaps we should start thinking about a decade award
Sat 18:14:59 ‹Mono› heh
Sat 18:15:03 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› something like 10 years of commons
Sat 18:15:11 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› we have about 2 years for that
Sat 18:15:50 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› 7 September 2014 is the 10th aniversary of commons
Sat 18:25:59 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› wow, this meeting is intense
Sat 18:26:08 * ToAruShiroiNeko panics :p
Sat 18:26:20 ‹Odisha1› but now i think we should discuss abt poty 2011
Sat 18:26:56 ‹Odisha1› so the 1st point to discuss is abt voter eligibility
Sat 18:30:46 ‹Odisha1› according to me a voter must have 100 edits on or before 31st december 2011
Sat 18:31:07 ‹Odisha1› to be eligible to vote
Sat 18:32:56 ‹Odisha1› hey, i am not reciving any massage.. Is my Internet connection is ok?
Sat 18:33:01 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› it is
Sat 18:33:10 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› we are just pretending to be quiet I suppose
Sat 18:33:40 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› I think we should forget about edit count and set the date further away
Sat 18:33:48 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› like 1 Jan 2011
Sat 18:34:33 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› we do not need a fixed edit count to determine if accounts are fake or not
Sat 18:35:00 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› My point is if you set an arbitrary edit count trolls will corcumvent it easily
Sat 18:38:38 ‹enhydra› one can say “editcount at the given date”
Sat 18:38:46 ‹enhydra› e.g. “100 edits before 2012-03-01”
Sat 18:39:59 ‹enhydra› accompanied by a requirement of registration date, it would serve us fine
Sat 18:41:49 ‹Odisha1› hmm yes
Sat 18:45:53 ‹Odisha1› Sorry all. i have to leave now.. :(
Sat 18:46:50 ‹enhydra› not much is happening here anyway
Sat 18:46:50 ‹enhydra› so
Sat 18:47:37 ‹enhydra› I think everyone agrees that “%d edits before 2012-%d-%d && registration before 2011-%d-%d” is sensible
Sat 18:47:46 -!- Odisha1 [~wikiodish@wikimedia/odisha1] has quit []
Sat 18:47:56 ‹enhydra› and exact values should be discussed onwiki
Sat 18:50:27 ‹enhydra› I’d suggest “100 edits on any wiki before 2012-04-01 && registration before 2011-04-01”, but these numbers are arbitrary and have no explaination
Sat 18:54:38 ‹enhydra› (reading the etherpad link above) ...75 might be fine too
Sat 18:55:10 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› enhydra right but I think making an assessment is easier without the edit count
Sat 18:55:39 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› if someones edits pile up in a single day or two
Sat 18:55:41 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› thats a red line
Sat 18:55:57 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› if it is distributed to a year, thats more reasonable
Sat 18:57:01 ‹enhydra› that is “at least one edit in each 4 months”?
Sat 18:57:38 ‹enhydra› seems complicated to me (there’s no problem to implement automatic checking, of course)
Sat 18:58:24 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› enhydra no I am thinking of the graph
Sat 18:58:42 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› If I see one or two spikes I would think thats automated
Sat 18:59:02 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› it can have 200 or 2000 edits fairly easily
Sat 18:59:44 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› our check in my view should be smarter than "at least 75/100/200 edits"
Sat 19:00:00 ‹enhydra› what will you say? “we reserve the right to disqualify spikey voters”?
Sat 19:00:14 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› more in the lines of "automated edits"
Sat 19:00:32 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› Users whom only have ''automated edits'' may be disqualified.
Sat 19:01:14 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› we shouldn't publish exactly how we assess automated edits as that invites fraud
Sat 19:02:37 ‹enhydra› the very fact of some “assessment” assumes intransparency
Sat 19:03:29 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› not really
Sat 19:03:36 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› we can publish the results
Sat 19:04:00 ‹YOLO› I'm out the door here in a second, but I'm curious why we need to change the voting requirement from last year? It worked just fine before...
Sat 19:04:16 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› "we disqualified this user as it was determined the edit behaviour is a bot"
Sat 19:04:21 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› or something like that
Sat 19:04:39 ‹YOLO› That is intransparent unless we tell how we determined it, thus making us look suspicious.
Sat 19:04:51 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› we can publish the graph
Sat 19:04:54 ‹YOLO› Otherwise we can go around arbitrarily disqualifying users if we want.
Sat 19:05:11 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› perhaps a toolserver tool would help
Sat 19:05:36 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› YOLO there is a mailing list post as to why a change was requested
Sat 19:05:41 ‹YOLO› I'd vote against doing anything with automated edits or determining something as a bot. Lots of enwp users use huggle or AWB and they're not bots and their edits should still count. There's too much room for mistake.
Sat 19:05:57 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› YOLO right
Sat 19:06:06 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› but they do not have all of their edits in two days
Sat 19:06:23 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› point is finding users who edited for a few days just to meet the edit number
Sat 19:06:40 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› its a simple calculation of edit distribution by day/hour
Sat 19:06:48 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› say for the past year
Sat 19:06:59 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› if edits concentrate on one week I become suspicious
Sat 19:07:09 ‹YOLO› That's way too much work to check all of that for every voter...
Sat 19:07:37 ‹YOLO› So what if they registered and left for a while and are back? They could have been very enthusiastic their first few days and then died off about it. You should always AGF.
Sat 19:07:48 ‹YOLO› I'm out the door now, but that's something to think about.
Sat 19:07:48 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› YOLO its trivial work for a bot
Sat 19:08:35 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› if someone made 210 edits, then disappeared for months only to vote, I would have no problem disqualifying him or her
Sat 19:08:47 ‹YOLO› And I'd have a problem with it.
Sat 19:08:52 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› that fine
Sat 19:08:58 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› this is why we will discuss this :)
Sat 19:09:00 ‹YOLO› Basically you're saying that you'd want to arbitrarily disqualify people...
Sat 19:09:13 ‹YOLO› Because that's what you're saying pretty much.
Sat 19:09:16 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› no I am saying we shouldnt arbitrarily approve people
Sat 19:09:29 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› otherwise we let the trolls determine winners
Sat 19:09:33 ‹YOLO› I'll get back to you later, I really must go. See ya!
Sat 19:09:36 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› ok
Sat 19:09:37 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› see ya
Sat 19:19:02 ‹enhydra› ToAruShiroiNeko, you have Toolserver access, right?
Sat 19:21:56 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› no
Sat 19:22:08 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› my access epxired years ago probably]
Sat 19:23:32 ‹enhydra› we could run a check on past year’s voting and see whether it was a problem
Sat 19:25:49 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› sure
Sat 19:25:52 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› that is a good idea
Sat 19:25:52 ‹enhydra› I guess it was not
Sat 19:26:16 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› you ran the check in 2 minutes?
Sat 19:26:24 ‹enhydra› “I guess”
Sat 19:26:31 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› you guess too easily
Sat 19:26:58 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› I wonder if there is anyone with toolserver access who'd be willing to code sucha tool
Sat 19:29:01 -!- Beria [~Beria@wikimedia/Beria] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
Sat 20:21:50 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› will there be a meeting?
Sat 20:21:56 * ToAruShiroiNeko stabs Mono
Sat 20:33:44 ‹enhydra› *sigh*
Sat 20:35:59 -!- ToAruShiroiNeko changed the topic of #poty2011 to: [[COM:POTY/2011]] | Preparation for the 6th Picture of the Year contest on the Wikimedia Commons. | http://twitter.com/CommonsPOTY | Sign up for the committee at http://bit.ly/wOB05t | Preliminary meeting was Saturday - log at http://bit.ly/A6Yqpe
Sat 20:41:30 ‹enhydra› no circus today, the tricksters are drunk
Sat 20:42:05 ‹ToAruShiroiNeko› so where is my havel
Sat 20:42:17 * ToAruShiroiNeko slams gavel on enhydra's head, meeting adjurned
Thanks for your participation! The 2011 winners have been announced!