Jump to content

User talk:(RT)

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Xania in topic thanks

Global Sysops Vote - January 2010[edit]

Any comments on this are welcome here

You're doing a good job checking votes. Seb az86556 08:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Well, someone needs to do it! --(RT) 12:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
With about 5 hours left to run until voting closes, I've now checked (and rechecked) about half of the Yes votes and a similar proportion of the No lot, starting with most recent. As there was more checking going on to begin with, I guess most votes have been checked at least once by someone. --(RT) 19:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I found a lot of unchecked ineligible votes just before the close - so not all got done in time. --(RT) 00:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sorry about that I knew I'd catch you, feel free to keep checking and post ineligible votes on /validation or the talk page or something. There will of course be checks before anything I believe some people were considering a database script to spit out which ones are bad but don't know if it's written. Jamesofur Public 00:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
No need to apologise: You were quite right to close the Vote page promptly. I have nothing against using a database script to check the votes, provided it actually sticks to the eligibility criteria - perhaps flagging the contestable votes separately. However I note that the vote checker in use during the election was not infallible, so as per your suggestion, I'll continue checking manually over the next few days and post the full data as soon as I can. --(RT) 12:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I went through the no-votes again, fixing some formatting (some were struck but not indented). Looks like we're done with that part. Seb az86556 04:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree. the explanation/link giving evidence should remain. oops... I just noticed the information is retained... it's just very small in a link... hm... Seb az86556 13:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply


If you want, it's quite simple to find unlinked accounts: you need Firefox with Tab Mix Plus and Find in Tabs extensions; open and select these links (which have to be cleaned up a bit, I've generated them with regex) at groups of 2-300, right click, open all in new tabs (on Ubuntu I opened 400 of those tabs without problems), wait a moment, search "SUL account doesn't exist" in tabs, check those users. --Nemo 08:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - Very helpful list which has speeded up checking. --(RT) 19:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Login unified. Discussion page on metawiki updated. It's a nice job to have unified logins, now ! When I started to commit wp updates, there were only 6 or 7 distinct wikis… now it's a whole set of projects, with a unicity of accounts, processes and so on… Asr 19:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
And now, I have a problem. I tried to talk to the spanish user of "ASR" nickname, and created by error a nick "asr2" which have to be deleted. Who will I have to request to ? Thanks. Asr 11:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Duplicite vote[edit]

Oh, I'm really sorry for duplicite vote. It wasn't intention, but my mistake. I forgot the first vote… But I can't understand it, my memory is in fact not so bad. :) — Jagro (cs.wiki) 23:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Voter eligibility[edit]

Thanks a lot for all your work in this area. I must tell you, though, that it would be poor form to validate voters who have unified their accounts now, but were not eligible during the vote. I understand it was a petty requirement, but if we're going to say that it's okay for it to be met after the end of the vote, where do we draw the line? Plenty of people with too few edits might have enough by now. See what I mean? (By the way, it's quite possible I'm misunderstanding what you're doing. I just want to air my concerns in case my impressions are correct.) Cheers, —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

The thing is - that's not what is says on the vote page:
   * Must have had a registered account for at least 3 months
   * 150 edits on at least one project
No word about "unified"... Seb az86556 23:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it's not on the Vote page, only in the edit box (added part way through), which I have interpreted as meaning it's not part of the eligibility criteria. The question, as I see it, is a separate issue of finding out if an account belongs to a voter. --(RT) 00:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
My interpretation as well. Seb az86556 02:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Furthermore, if voters had already an account in weta.wikimedia, why would not they be eligible ? I could understand that you have to check the accounts, and verify that nobody is voting more than once. But dismiss a vote because a voter has'nt unified is account is just… too much. By the way, my account is quite unified, now, and have a comment on my differents pages to reach the mother account. Asr 13:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, and I think that's pretty tough, but it's okay and should be respected. If we must have unified account this is, and not difficult, see please Special:MergeAccount. Best regards, --DristeLet's talk 14:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Asr, thank you for unifying your account, so no problems there. I'll try to answer your question. Remember that to be eligible for the Global Sysop Vote a voter need to have 150 edits on a wiki and to have been registered for three months. Taking your example, look at the different Asr accounts here - the frwiki account had enough edits, the others did not. We needed to know that the 'Asr' on metawiki was the same user as 'Asr' on frwiki. It might have been the case that, say, the eswiki account and the metawiki account were the same user but the frwiki was someone different - now that you've unified your account I can see that the metawiki and frwiki account do belong to the same person and qualify; but the unattached 'Asr' accounts on eswiki, fawiki, etc are probably someone else. Also, an alternative to unifying accounts was offered - a metawiki user could provide a link on their user page to their other accounts (which you have also done). However not all voters knew about these options (especially those who voted before the edit notice was added on January 13), so I contacted them to let them know. I hope that helps! --(RT) 15:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sure it does ! Thanks. Asr 08:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply


Right. We notify people. I forgot. Thanks. Seb az86556 01:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, that's cool. If you think we're done, we're done. I was just trying to help out. So -- are we done? Just lemme know... Seb az86556 01:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Maybe not... see your user page. --(RT) 01:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Alright. It's your call. I'll notify User:Solicitr @ their home-wiki page. I see that was done on Feb 6 already -- how much time do they get to respond? Seb az86556 01:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Did read it. Thanks. Seb az86556 03:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

No reason to thank me; all the credit should go to you. Awesome job. Seb az86556 21:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply


Thanks for the heads up about the global_sysop vote. I hadn't paid attention to that vote for a few days as it was clearly indicated in the comments page that the vote had effectively failed. The outcome now is nothing more than a farce. I've added my comments to the comments page of the vote and to the talk page of the guy who added the "decision" to the vote page. I don't expect much to be done or a vote to be done again because that, unfortunately, seems to be the way Wikimedia projects work.--Xania 23:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply