User talk:MarcoAurelio

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
User page Welcome to my talk page Archives (current)→
Please, write your messages at the bottom of the page, use descriptive headers and don't forget to sign adding --~~~~ at the end of your comment. I will answer all messages left to me in this talk page so the conversations are not fragmented. Please note that:
  • I am human and I can make mistakes. If you think I did something wrong, tell me and we will discuss and review the situation.
    • That said, communication is a two-way street, and good communication requires civility.
    • I reserve the right to remove, archive, ignore or leave unreplied messages addressed to me or left on this talk page which are insulting, provocative, disruptive or otherwise not helpful, at my own discrection.
  • Requests to add or remove domains to the spam blacklist should be addressed at Talk:Spam blacklist.
  • Requests for help from an administrator or bureaucrat should be addressed to Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat for wider attention.
  • Requests for CheckUser information for Meta-Wiki should be posted at Meta:Requests for CheckUser information.
  • Please see Meta:Oversighters for how to request permanent removal of content from this project. Please do not make your request in public.
  • Requests for CentralNotice banners and campaigns are only addressed at CentralNotice/Requests.
  • Older discussions on this page are kept in the archive.
Click on the link to start a new topic.
Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} and sections whose oldest comment is older than 7 days.

Hola Marco![edit]

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)

Tech News: 2017-42[edit]

15:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


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[edit]

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
            $nomination_result = start_week_nomination();
    else {
        $nomination_result = start_week_nomination();

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
   $candidate->is_admin() && ( $candidate->log_actions(six_months, !user_space) + ( $candidate->edits(six_months, !user_space) > 150))
) {
    if($objections_process->status == "done"){ // 24h since the beginning has passed
        if(count($objections_process->get_objections()) > 0 && evaluate($objections_process->get_objections()) == "evaluated as valid") {
            $nomination_result = start_week_nomination();
        } else{

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 though that if we read human language differently perhaps more strict machine-like language would work better. --Base (talk) 14:19, 21 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)

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)

  • 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)