User talk:Okeyes (WMF)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

NPP survey

Hi. I understand your enthusiasm, but please do not publish links to this survey. The survey is currently under review by the WMF legal department before its final release. A list of targets has been preapared and all involved users will be notified in dues courser. Thank you for your understanding. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung, the legal team cleared it hours ago. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Oliver, I didn't realise who this was. I wasn't informed -about the legal authorisation, but I assume from your WMF hat that this is now official so, I'll run the bot with the invitation list. Please confirm the exact URL for the live survey. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Okeyes (WMF). You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 02:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Survey with questions split over multiple pages

Hi, thanks for the invitation. However, I will only complete the survey if all questions are presented on one single page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Any particular reason? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, suppose I enter the personal data on the first page and then go to the (or a) next page, where, looking at the questions, I decide, for some reason, not to participate after all. In that case I have wasted time entering and submitting (possibly partial) personal data into some database. In a survey I always want to know all the questions, so I have all the information to help me decide whether to participate or not. Hope this makes sense :-) - DVdm (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, I see your point. The initial reason for splitting it up was to avoid overburdening people with 30 questions in a row. The survey itself mainly covers things like your workload at Special:NewPages and as an editor, what you'd like to see change about Special:NewPages, and that sort of thing - most of it is optional, so if there are questions you object to after the first page you can ignore them. Partial answers with personal data but no answers to the "useful" questions is just going to be scrapped and ignored anyway, so it won't be floating around either the intertubes or the Foundation for long if you decide the survey isn't your cup of tea. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Feel absolutely free to overburden me with 30 questions in a row :-)

Cheers and good luck with the survey. - DVdm (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't :S. The survey will either display all on a page for everyone, or all on multiple pages for everyone, and you can't substantially modify it once people have started answering the questions. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand. Next time better time, as we say overhere. And by the way, as a Huggle user IIRC before today I had never used or even visited Special:NewPages, so my input wouldn't have been relevant anyway. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting; not sure why you were on the list, then :S. I'll talk to the guy who compiled it. Thanks for being so patient and considerate while we iron out the quirks in the new survey system :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. Oh, and by another way... it would also help if the surveys would originate within the WMF-domain as opposed to at surveymonkey.com. That monkey doesn't sound very reassuring to me ;-) - DVdm (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed; I think there are plans to try and host something locally, but don't quote me on that :). It's one of the first things that User:Kudpung and I brought up when we started working on this. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

We previously had a LimeSurvey setup at survey.wikimedia.org, but there were significant security and scalability issues in the LS codebase. We've temporarily taken it down; the use of SM for this particular survey is however only a stopgap measure.--Eloquence* 00:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Split pages is a feature of most online survey software. It helps to decrease browser loading time. Clicking to the next page does not save the data. The poll can be abandoned at anytime before clicking the final 'submit' button. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs)

Indeed it is a feature of most online survey softwares. Ever since my wife began receiving spam (throug email and paper mail) after having completed some partial survey, we decided not to trust (most) online survey softwares anymore. I'll gladly do it within the WMF-domain, but Surveymonkey is a definite no-no. Sorry. - DVdm (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• That's perfectly understandable; as said above this is a temporary measure, the survey just came at a bad time for us. Thanks tremendously, though, not just for initially trying with the survey but also for coming here and explaining your rationale for not completing it. Make no mistake, I've jotted down a list of issues, which I'll be sure to correct for the next one :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a bunch and keep up the good work! - DVdm (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Signing survey invitations

Hi Oliver, I've done the survey, but my perspective is a bit bizarre, as I haven't done new page patrolling for many years. How did I get selected for an invitation?

I think that all the invitations should've had your signature attached, primarily for archive bots ... not just because I'm a signature pedant, but archive bots will never touch a talk page section without a signature.

Also, IIRC "other then" should be "other than" on the first page of the survey (or something to that effect), and the link to your talk page on the last part of the survey doesn't work. Graham87 01:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Selection was made from:

• Category Users with with 'New page patroller' userboxes
• Category Users with with 'New page patroller using Twinkle' userboxes
• Users who have patrolled 10+ pages from 1 January 2011 to 13 October 2011
• A few random users (<10) who are not on those lists but have been patrolling pages from 13 October to 24 October.

Whether you have patrolled pages recently or in the past, your experience is valuable. Clearly anyone who has never patrolled cannot take part in the survey. In all computer generated lists containing thousands of entries, some minor errors are inevitable.Did you not notice this disclaimer on the invitiation: If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Did you not notice this disclaimer on the invitiation: If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it." - if this notice makes it permissible to mass-send such spam, then one could just as well start doing commercial advertisement on WP. One just needs to use the following explanation: "if this advertisement has been sent to you in error and you are not interested in buying our products, then please ignore this message." Nanobear (talk) 09:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, except that disclaimer is to cover the possibility that we've added names to the list in error. You've patrolled quite a few articles, although automatically or semi-automatically; we'll take that into account when making lists of users in the future. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. I didn't mind doing the survey ... actually I like these sorts of surveys! I was just curious about why I was selected. Graham87 13:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough :). Thanks so much for your answers! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wish you'd waited...

...until this new account had been around for a few more days. You're clogging up the Recent edits by newbies page. ;) 69.181.251.214 (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh crud! Sorry about that :P. I made sure to get myself all the pertinent userrights (confirmed and the like) - how is that page categorising "recent edits by newbies", just purely on account age? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea how the inner workings, um, work. 69.181.251.214 (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough :S. I'll try to be quick, then. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I give up. It's usually not that difficult to keep up with the pace of newbies edits, but you're definitely throwing a wrench in things. 69.181.251.214 (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• okay; I'm going to stop doing it, and instead go pester an owner of a (non-borked) Message Bot. Hopefully that will help. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Special:Contributions/Newbies shows edits for the newest 1% of accounts, which is basically those less than four days old, IIRC. Graham87 13:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Ahh, gotcha. Well, I've stopped running it and am having it run by an automated bot, so we should be clear on that front. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

NPP survey again

Oliver, I don't think I'm an NPP-er! Where did the data that showed I'm on NPP? Deryck C. 08:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a question for Kudpung (if he's around? Everyone needs a talkpage stalker as good as him :)). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The question has been answered hours ago above ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Deryck - here we are :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The only conclusion I can come up with my own log is that an autopatrolled user's own page-creation count is included in their patrol count. This probably isn't right but I guess it's better to spam some non-patrollers than miss patrollers. Deryck C. 16:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Argh! Yeah, I'll try to fix that in future - I can't see us needing to run another survey like this any time soon, but if we do it'll be taken into account. Thanks, Deryck :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Okeyes (WMF). You have new messages at OlYeller21's talk page.
Message added 14:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OlYeller21^Talktome 14:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Hi, I responded here. But you really need more context before discussions start so people know what the perceived problems and possible solutions are. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

Time to celebrate.

YAY! Let me be the first to congratulate you on joining the WMF. This is fantastic news as I believe that attracting and retaining high-quality new editors is the single most important thing this voluteer-driven project can do. Oliver, I can't tell you how pleased I am that you were selected for the role as you've been on the forefront of the new editor issue for quite a while. And your understanding of the related issues is better and more in-depth than anybody else I know of. I am really looking forward to any new ideas you may be working on and especially your future interactions with the community. I would like to thank you kindly for taking on this important task and I'd also like to thank the WMF for bringing you onboard and making the new editor issue a priority. Thank you so much and congratulations. You're the best. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :). I'll try to justify your faith in me in my time here - as always, if you notice anything you want brought up, do give me a shout, dude. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

First? I congratulated/consoled him ages ago. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but first on en-wiki :P. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Your official and professional now :P --Guerillero | My Talk 17:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Official, yes. Accusing me of acting professionally is unwarranted slander, my dear :P. I remain an editor first and foremost, I just happen to get paid for some of the edits. I'm most definitely not a professional ;). please don't shove me at ANI for legal threats Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey box

Please use a regular message. Your message is NOT more important than others, having a colourful box and a (deceiving) barnstar image does not add importance, it is spammy. If the message is important, it will get through even in a normal format. - Nabla (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Noted for future surveys; thanks for the feedback. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, the survey asks a few personal questions (agem gender, 'net habits, ...). Is it confidential? How do we know that? And how do we know who YOU are? I am not replying the survey. - Nabla (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's confidential, the survey states that " The information you provide will not be shared with third parties other then to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey", and my userpage makes it fairly clear who I am :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"will not be shared with third parties other then to" means it will be shared. And, I can write almost anything on my user page. I know I am highly suspicious of people claiming to be from above and asking me personal things out of the blue (and more so if using spammy boxes :-). But the general questions seems important to me: What guarantees do users have, other than your word? On the net, a newcomer's word is worth nearly zero, plus your account is 2 days old and so far it is a single purpose account, whose single purpose is asking personal questions! Look from an outside POV, would you trust that? How do we know you are not doing some kind of scam? Note, I do not think you are a fraudulent user, the point is, how will we tell apart a genuine WMF worker from a fraudulent user claiming to be one? - Nabla (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the fact that I haven't been blocked yet ;). More seriously, this identification and the mailing list posts - I agree we need some way of identifying when a WMF account is "Genuine". As a stopgap I'm going to link the mailing list posts confirming my appointment on my userpage. I think Jorm's plans for the new userpage design may go some way towards providing staff identification or classification. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I should block you then? :-) That's the point, will WMF wait until some scam uses their name before getting some sort of official ID? The category is good, but I could add it to my self at least for a few hours, I bet. BTW, I did end up replying the survey. Thanks. - Nabla (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC) PS is it technically possible for any user to have a "Xxx (WMF)" user name? Technically restricting the use of "(WMF)" in usernames woud be a simple and usual identification. - Nabla (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point; I actually assumed it was before creating this account and had a sort of "...you mean there's no ([A-Za-z0-9]+)$ (WMF) entry in the abuse filter? really?" moment. I'll suggest it to the folks. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Nabla, I think the fact that Howie's name (as one of the most senior people at the WMF) is on the project page, and his email is on the poll form, should be enough. Thanks for voicing your concerns, I'm sure the WMF people will take yours and all the other comments above on board. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung, I was talking with user Okeyes, and a nice talk it was. As far as I understood he was listening to my concerns and I was presenting them politely. What exactly do you expect to accomplish with your 'thank you, but shut up!' tone? Who are you? And who is Howie?!? No one ever talked of any Howie that I noticed... What project page?! If you have any questions or comments, please contact: Nabla #at# wikimedia #dot# org. - Nabla (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh ;p. Howie is User:Hfung; he's the Product Manager for the WMF, and my immediate superior (80 percent of the time. Gotta love matrix management). He's taking the lead on the Foundation side of this, although I'm doing most of the public talking (as you can see). I don't think Kudpung was intending to be rude. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you (probable typo: there is no such user at en, maybe User:Howief? - got it from the category). And he was rude, no problem, it happens to us all, once in a while. - Nabla (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry - brain, off :). I've been at work since 8am so far. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I need to make a demotivational poster? "TIREDNESS IS - not remembering your own bloody boss's username". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

:-) We're not telling him. Tks - Nabla (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding identification of (WMF) accounts

Hi Nabla, and thanks for the comments about identification of "WMF" accounts. I assure you that we're not waiting to have our name inappropriately used before dealing with it. In fact, our current plan is to refactor the "staff" user rights somewhat, and create a userright for staff members that will be assigned on account creation, but won't actually bestow any additional rights (under the "Principle of Least Access", we only assign user rights when needed. You'll note that Okeyes doesn't have "Staff" as a global group because - so far - he hasn't had need for it). It will serve as a protected "flag" so that staff status can be independently verified. Hopefully, as Okeyes suggests, the userpage redesign can take that into account and visually define it somehow. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

User rights, good one, yes. Or user page, or user name, or a mix of several of those. What came to my mind was that it is not obvious nor simple to know who is 'staff'. Oh! new user pages? Please keep them simple, not 'facebooky' as everything seems to turn these days. Thank you. - Nabla (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool

I got the message about the office hours discussion, which I missed, but I'd like to chip in if possible. I had commented on the talk page for the tool, and I think my feedback could be summed up as follows:

The tool currently measures four categories: "Trustworthy, Objective, Complete, Well-written" -- I do not really think that the general public or anonymous readers are a good measure of these things and I am skeptical of the usefulness of these categories. I had proposed eliminating all of these feedback categories and instead replacing it with only one category, Accessibility. That is, I think the only constructive use of the tool would be to access whether the article were accessible or readable. I'd rather leave the "trustworth, objective, complete, well-written" up to editors. I feel more strongly about omitting the "trustworth" and "objective" things from the tool. It might be useful to ask the general public if the articles were complete and well-written. So maybe as a second-choice proposal I could say to change the categories to "Accessible, Complete, Well-written". I just don't like the idea of having the general public give feedback on whether the article is trustworthy or objective--these are subtle, nuanced points that I do not think are appropriately summed up in a simple vote. It seems to go against the spirit of WP:NOTVOTE. Cazort (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry; the Office Hours session it tomorrow (at about this time, actually). I agree with your points, and I would encourage you to come on by and bring them up :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Page creation

I have a squillion suggestions which would make page creation a bit more interactive and / or stop some of the 'problems' making their way unchecked into mainspace. This would massively reduce the burden and therefore the backlog on NPP and hopefully educate and encourage new users at the same time. Class discuss? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! Okay, so at the moment we're just finishing off the survey, but if you want to email me your suggestions, I can pass them on and see how they mesh into our current work. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Account creator

I just gave you account creator so you can work with edit notices more easily in the future, since apparently account creator's "tboverride" permission controls the editnotice visibility/creation access. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A WMF-stamped cookie for you, sir :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Me, back

Hi, Okeyes(WMF), thanks for getting back.

The cloud thing: just off-the-wall, not pushing it, way OTT for this app, I concede.

In my head was an idea for stock trader screens from 25-30 yrs back. Instead of columns of numbers, maybe a growing forest of plants & flowers (many different images), more a graphic than a list - I can't recall what that's called, so I can't find an example, but there was quite a lot of psychology behind it. Processing could be voluntarily distributed, doesn't have to be done every day or every change, or cover the complete history. Could be a doddle.

I hadn't heard of word-clouds confusing anyone, but I have seen passions quite high from people who don't like the splotch. Redolent of initial attitudes towards Feynmann diagrams. Where did Fabrice find his dissenters?

An example of word-cloud applied to a vituperative Grauniad clickfest discussion is here by "Gray Area" 1 September 2011 12:17PM, on this page. I've seen a website somewhere that produces them.

I think AFT result-presentation could be improved. A Radar_chart appeals, and again, by putting popularity at the top, might de-fuse the fanclub vote. I'll take it to AFT5, later.

Tracking the project is confusing me; I don't want to intervene in case I don't fully understand what's intended.

There seem to be competing "5" pages -

The re-direct incorporated from original AFTtalk, if one starts a new section, goes to AFT5
From Article_Feedback_Too, the note above the lead sends people to different place Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5/:talk

I think a lead/lede is needed, or banner, or new topmost contents header(?) AND a closing talk section to redirect from Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/:talk to wherever we should rightly continue.

+ ? Could I ask your advice on recovering lost WP access ? I suffered an irritating hack that seems to have removed my p/w (I'm still in the signed-in-at-this-IP-for-30-days period, but I find I can't alter my password - current one invalid. My reference email won't let me in either - I'm trying to talk to them, too, that may be a separate problem. My attempt to alter the call-back email address didn't 'take', either.) I've tried to look up the WP procedures but find them unclear; I need a helpful admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memethuzla (talk • contribs) 14:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll forward the password query to someone - one moment :). The note at the top of Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback Tool when you try to create a new section directs people to WP:AFT5 for me; can you give me an illustration of what bit redirects to the talkpage? And re lead/lede/banner - at the top of the talkpage, you mean, or at the top of Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool page? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Me, again

(Sorry, those links got all messed up - some people just can't manage markup  ;-)

There seem to be many potentially competing "AFT5"/latest pages,
If it were me, I'd want to collate & summarise the main concerns - somewhere - with back-refs for contributors to remonstrate if misunderstood - before proceeding. (Office chat, too.)
I hadn't seen much of this material (haven't read it all yet), before trying to track these pointers; there's a lot of people making similar points in different places.
Pages may all do slightly different things, but it seems to me that these threads (and the office chat) need to be drawn together and clarified, or the main conversation will be lost.

Each relevant page may need an info panel pointer, and possibly a lead/lede re-write to complete the picture.
It might be wise to lock some pages for eventual archive.

I hope I've got the link details right this time :

(A) WP /Wikipedia:AFT5
(B) WP /Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5 & (Btalk) WP talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5
(C) mediawiki Talk:Article_feedback
(D) mw /Article_feedback/Version_5

If you are at the (old) WP /Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool , there is a not-very-emphatic note at the start of page pointing to (B). (Perhaps it would be better as an info template).

Note: Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool is now under development by the Wikimedia Foundation. 
To hear more and give your feedback on this new feature, please go to the AFT V5 project page.

If you go to edit that page ((old) WP /Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool) , there are no further warnings. (You stay on obsolete page?)

If you are at the (old:talk) Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool , there is info header (grabs attention)

...pointing at (C) mw /Talk:Article_feedback (and at bugtracking, which I haven't followed). Go to the version5 paragraph there, it points at (D) mw /Article_feedback/Version_5

If you go to edit the (old:talk) WP /Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool, you get a red-triangle ! panel pointing to (A) WP /Wikipedia:AFT5

If you go to edit the (old) WP /Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool, nothing, no warning.

No pointer: I don't know if it's possible to put an appropriate pointer at the head of "contents" without messing things up, but that would be good.

No pointer: At the end of (old:talk) WP talk:Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool there is a "conclusive" paragraph by OlYeller21, History2007, & Al.
Does there need to be a finalising paragraph pointing to (whatever) next-phase page(s)?

I hope that's cogent, at last.

++ Thanks for the referral. We shall see how it pans out.
This was me, memethuzla, again, signing off at 87.74.73.52 (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC) (I'll be back) (maybe)

Ahh, gotcha! Yes, I've managed to fix that. Thanks for making me look at it again, though - I'd seen that problem and given up on making it work until you prompted me to revisit it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please resign

Mr Oliver, you are asked to please immediately resign from this position. Your ability to scare away new editors and to be abrasive is legendary. The last person who needs to be representing the editorial community is you. Resign and walk away with your dignity still mostly intact. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It'd be "Mr Keyes", but "Oliver" or "Ollie" is just fine :). I understand your reaction; to be honest, if I were you and had been faced with my historic record, I'd take the same approach - I wasn't a particularly sterling communicator, whatever my content citations might look like. However, I am genuinely trying to change; I'd ask you to review my more recent edits, particularly the ones made under my "professional" account, and judge me by what I am doing and what I do in the future, not what I did in the past. That's the test I'll be applying to every other editor I come into contact with, whatever our past differences. Trust me, I know exactly how far out on a limb my sponsors are by giving me this opportunity, and I have no wish to see them damaged by my actions. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Trust is earned, not given freely. You have burned so many bridges and caused so much grief that it would take several years of sterling behavior to win over trust. Your appointment reflects horrifically upon the WMF. What they were thinking when they offered you money is insane. Resign, please. Now. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Note: The IP has been blocked for the personal attacks made here and on other pages. Risker (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If it matters any, I think you are spectacular. I would give you my File:PNHP poster.jpg wikilove award, but I understand it is being deleted by a bot. Dualus (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll try not to violate the trust you and others have put in me. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, Ollie. It appears you have a new fan at Harvard University. Funny, he doesn't write very well for a Harvard student.

BTW, quit apologizing for water under the bridge. By all accounts, you've been a damn fine administrator and a credit to the project. And, yes, the occasional reminder of our faults does keep one 'umble, Mr Keyes.Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe he's a legal academic; I've yet to meet one who doesn't have atrocious handwriting and spelling ;p. Your best wishes are much appreciated, as is the IP's direct way of ensuring humility. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That IP 140.247.141.165 (talk · contribs) acts like a sock, a belligerent one at that. Note the oddly dictatorial approach he took at ANI a little while ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Making other people belligerent used to be one of my greatest strengths ;P. I was actually going to ask Risker to unblock (we shouldn't be getting rid of people for expressing disagreement) until I saw the AN post, which moved from "expressing disagreement" to...well, something not quite as nice. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I tried the diplomatic approach, but that appeared to not work so well. And for the record, if you aren't making someone belligerant, you're probably not doing something worthwhile. --Jayron32 03:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're a hostage negotiator, of course. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, everyone knows a good hostage negotiator starts by shooting the hostage. --Jayron32 03:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Worryingly even before clicking on the link, that scene was the first one that came to mind. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you worried about? That film is among the finest works of underacting from the world's greatest underactor. A classic. --Jayron32 03:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's also a meta-film; if Keanu Reaves' acting makes your heartrate rise, you die of sheer amazement. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Keanu Reeves has four parts he can play well: Ted "Theodore" Logan, Ted "Theodore" Logan grows up to be a cop (Speed, Point Break, A Scanner Darkly), Ted "Theodore" Logan grows up to become cyberpunk jesus (Johnny Mnemonic, The Matrix series, A Scanner Darkly yet again), and finally Ted "Theodore" Logan portrays classic literary characters as himself (Dracula, Much Ado About Nothing). He's also pretty good at playing Ted "Theodore" Logan taking on the Devil (The Devil's Advocate, Constantine). In short, he's very good at playing Ted "Theodore" Logan. --Jayron32 03:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase Dorothy Parker (?), he runs the acting gamut from A to A. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I remember that movie; it was about that bus that had to speed around the city, keeping its speed over 50, and if its speed dropped, it would explode! I think it was called, The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down. –MuZemike 21:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I would assume the IP is a sock of someone with maybe several long-standing grudges. Read through its so-called "contributions" and a behavior pattern emerges. I have no clue who he's a sock of. Someone could ask him, though I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a factual answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There's something ironic about a person who complains about trustworthiness, who refuses to establish an identity we can identify them by... --Jayron32 03:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: IRC office hours

Sorry, I can't be present at that time; an afternoon time (preferably 3-5 pm EDT/19:00-21:00 UTC) would be better for me. HurricaneFan25 21:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, Okeyes. I won't be attending but could you please point me to the logs once they're posted? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure :). Hurricanefan, would you like the logs as well? And don't worry, we'll be holding something at a more reasonable hour later on. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Hurricanefan25 | talk 11:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool; I'll let both of you know when they get released. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Suppressed survey

Re this edit: you may well have some good reason for it but since you could not be bothered to provide a proper edit summary, I have treated it as vandalism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Just realised who you are. I see no reason to change my remark above, but will accept an oral explanation next time we meet. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I will reply on your talkpage. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Okeyes (WMF). You have new messages at RHaworth's talk page.
Message added 04:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Security issues

Some better way of delivering surveys is needed, as I mentioned here. Using social engineering, it would be easy for someone to invite survey responses from a thousand users (email or talk page), then lure them into complacently entering responses starting with clearly good stuff, then attempt to extract personal information or even "enter your password here for verification". A scammer-controlled website (surveymonkey.com might be genuine or it might be a scam) could dynamically control the survey so that people who resist entering personal info are not requested for more (to avoid rousing the skeptical), while a user who starts entering info (what country, what timezone, ...) would be led into further revelations. Further, the survey generated might be innocuous for 990 of the 1000 recipients, but attempt to scam or deliver malware to a few targeted people (like arbcom members whose email accounts might lead to interesting mail repositories). A "click here" link on a user talk page tells surveymonkey.com the likely username of the person doing the survey (HTTP referrer). I don't have a good suggestion, other than that a security consultant should be employed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)You'll need to use some GF on this. No one who is trouble by the issues you mention is obliged to take part. The survey is entirely voluntary. Ironically SurveyMonkey is being used because the locally hosted LimeSurvey software on the WMF server has security issues. If you can find better survey software that can be installed on the WMF servers, please let the WMF know. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course good faith is involved, and I am not hoping to influence this survey. But the WMF needs to be told that getting people used to doing surveys by clicking to random websites has obvious security problems that will blow up eventually. It's likely nothing bad would happen for years, but then major privacy or security violations may occur. I noticed some time ago that Tim Starling wants to work on monstrously complicated hashing of user passwords in the database to avoid the situation that at some unforeseen future time an "impossible" leaking of the password database might occur with the result that all user accounts would be compromised. Such forward thinking is commendable, but it needs to be applied to surveys as that is a more plausible, if smaller, risk.

People like me will avoid privacy or security problems, however the WMF needs to take responsibility for those users who would never think that clicking a link on their talk page could have bad consequences. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The WMF does need to take responsibility for security of such surveys. However, when a survey is being distributed by Okeyes (WMF), a Foundation account announced by the Foundation and confirmed by individual staffers, I think we can be assured it isn't distributing malware. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You and I know that. How would a typical recipient of a survey invitation know that? These surveys are making editors used to the notion that if someone with a plausible username puts a plausible invitation on a user talk page, then it is ok to assume that clicking the link to some arbitrary website will help the project. Someone hired by the WMF should assess the security implications of how surveys are handled. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

As said above, this is a temporary stopgap measure; I appreciate there is a concern, but "we will never ask for your password" is now a meme in its own right; people know (or should know) that that sort of question is never going to be asked by a reasonable org. I'm sure the department is working on finding an in-domain replacement for this right now, but we can never fully protect users from the efforts of scammers or spammers. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The simple answer is, anyone who is worried about the security issues is not forced to do the survey. One less answer from the thousands of invites that have been sent out probably won't make any difference. Although I agree that it is a terrible and inexcusable discrepancy that WMF does not have its own locally hosted poll software (there are plenty of solutions out there, and it's actually easy enough to write one from scratch in php, html, css, and js), if surveys like this are not made, progress on improvements to the user experience will simply stop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Asking for an age range (e.g. 18-24, 25-30, ...) instead of a DOB would be preferable from a security point of view. Lots of entities pick default passwords and pins based on DOB and medical entities frequently use DOB as a means of verifying identity. A range would blur this a bit and for most demographic assessments, this should be sufficient. --InsufficientData (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure; we're not asking for DOB, though, we're asking for year. Even assuming someone used "year" in a password or username (and that'd be very silly) the respondent actually identifying themselves is optional, rendering any year of birth useless from a security perspective, and those who have identified will have their username, email address and so forth scrubbed before any data is released. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Rcsprinter

Hi there. Regarding this whole situation, apparently "this is resolved to your satisfaction and that there was no ill intent meant". Have they clarified the situation with you somewhere? If so, could I trouble you to explain what the deal is? Thanks, Swarm ^X11|11|11 19:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Rcsprinter never intended to cause any harm, and we're not in the habit of pillorying people for innocently trying to improve the wiki (even if there are problems with the execution ;p). I've explained what the problems were, he's taken them on board, and so we decided to unblock. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just surprised to see this dropped without so much as a simple explanation. Swarm ^X11|11|11 01:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

An explanation of...what? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Er...what exactly were they doing? Why were they doing it? Why did they claim to be acting on behalf of "Wikimedia Surveys"? Why were they speaking in first person plural? Why did they claim "that someone else was responsible for writing the survey"? Again, I'm just curious as to whether all this was clarified with you somewhere. Swarm ^X11|11|11 19:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

They were trying to run an (innocent) survey, they didn't realise there was anything wrong with claiming the "Wikimedia" tag. This has been clarified to me through various channels; I'd rather not bring it all up again, just because I am genuinely convinced that it was an innocent comedy of errors and don't wish to "stain" the user's reputation by airing all his dirty laundry. Rest assured, both Philippe and I are pretty certain he didn't mean any harm. He wouldn't have been unblocked if that wasn't the case. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123

Could you please comment more at User Talk:Rcsprinter123#Blocked? I've raised some more concerns about what seem to me to be a disturbing overall pattern. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter

Thanks for the newsletter. I'm a tad disappointed by the tone of the sentence "Those ideas which are worthy of further investigation (or being programmed into the software) are listed in the status box at the top of the talkpage. Community suggestions that the devs like include". If you don't immediately see why I found it patronising, may I suggest that you show that to a friend who is unconnected with Wikimedia and ask them what that says about the relationship between IT and users. ϢereSpielChequers 00:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are two options here. Either one, I allow some leeway for "it turns out a feature wasn't technically feasible" or "it was technically feasible, but readers hated it" or "readers didn't hate it, but editors did" or any of the dozens of situations in which a community idea (or a developer idea) may get scuppered (which is what I have done) or two, I go "yeah, you've suggested it, it's great, we'll definitely include it" and then immediately set everyone up for disappointment if one of the aforementioned situations occurs. Which would you prefer - saying something with a tone of caution, or saying things as if they are certain to happen?

I can't speak of the relationship between Engineering and the community, because commenting on the internal thought processes of a rather large department of developers (many of whom I've never met) isn't something I consider fair, either for them or for me. What I can say is this - a year ago, if Engineering had decided to design a new version of the AFT, they would have designed it, tested it and implemented it. They're designing one now where they design it with the community's help, test it with the participation of the community, take the community's views into account...and implement it. That's a hell of a lot better for both the designers and the editors. This doesn't mean, however, that what the editors say will always make it into the software, and so I don't want to paint everyone into a corner by claiming "yes, this is definitely technically possible, the readers will most certainly like it, there aren't substantial chunks of the editing community that might hate it, it will not overburden the servers...oh and it does the job. It will absolutely be in the final version of the software". I could probably have phrased it better ("those ideas that are most promising" for example) but I think the underlying message was the correct one; that the perspective of editors is incredibly helpful, is helping make the software far better than it was a month ago, but that just because an idea is awesome doesn't mean it's going to end up being feasible. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm an ideas person, and I haven't programmed since I stopped working with mainframes over twenty years ago. But I have a lot of experience of working with programmers, if I make a suggestion and a programmer gives a technical reason why it would be a problem then I'm usually very respectful of that. But I do want to feel comfortable that they understood what I was trying to achieve, the scale of difficulty and whether the cost is primarily software or hardware. That way I can make the appropriate calculation, if this is complex and would take a month to code then I need to think if the advantage of the change would justify that investment and either drop the idea, simplify it or make the case that such a big investment is worthwhile. If its hardware the options are similar, but I also have the option of parking it and coming back when Moore's Law has rendered the hardware cost moot or at least affordable. So it isn't a three way choice between a tone of caution, giving false confidence and saying "the devs don't like it". Development and design requires the making of choices, giving clear and sometimes complex reasons for choices enables people to understand and accept or dispute the change.

There are several follow up issues from this.

1. How would you know that the readers do or don't like something any better than the community knows what readers want?
2. What do we do if readers want something and the devs can code it, but we may not have the volunteers to make it work? This is not just a hypothetical scenario - there is an inherent risk of this in a proposal to divert potential editors and other readers from fixing articles into making requests for editors to fix those same articles. We've had two similar initiatives in other wikis both of which hit this problem, and it isn't a straight reader v editor issue. I expect that the readers would prefer a system that didn't ask for their suggestions over one that asked for their suggestions but didn't have the resources to do anything but ignore those suggestions.
3. Where in your phrase "and implement it" is the process for making sure that the project is only implemented if it is sufficiently a net positive to justify the remaining development needed to make it happen? Note I'm not saying that the benefits have to justify the implementation costs, though that should be necessary for the project to be considered an overall success. But pruning shears are one of the most important tools when handling development, in my experience the most successful IT teams are the ones that are quickest at spotting and abandoning blind alleys.

I appreciate that you and I are approaching the AFT from opposite angles, your aim is to make it happen and mine is to persuade you to can it. But on a wider level we both want the best for Wikipedia. Just because I can't see a way round the various pitfalls doesn't mean that others won't be able to. Equally if we can't agree as to whether we think something will succeed or fail perhaps we can agree on one of the statistical measures that would indicate success or failure, then when we collect those stats either or both of us will have the evidence to re-evaluate our assumptions about AFT. This is a big development by Foundation standards, canning it a few months earlier could free up a lot of developer time, so this isn't just about preventing the AFT from harming the wiki, its also about all the positive things we could do with the developer time once we've convinced you to can this project. ϢereSpielChequers 12:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we're not approaching from opposite angles; I think we're both trying to ensure it's the best possible tool. I'm doing it through getting the community to participate in the development, fix flaws with it, ensure the design is acceptable and make it the best tool it can be. You're doing it through arguing we should kill it with fire :P.

To answer in order (and note, "you" is being read as the plural, because I'm an editor first, a contractor second, and a staffer not at all):

1. Surveying and polling readers for their opinions. Dario has already done one (although the pool it's drawn from inevitably makes it biased) which shows high levels of support, and Maggie is preparing a second one directed at a more neutral constituency. We're also working heavily with Philippe (whose job is, y'know..to handle the WMF's relationship with readers, what with being head of reader relations :P) to draw readers into the dedicated workgroup that'll be running from December.
2. My opinion (and I can't say with certainty that engineering share it, but I imagine they would - they've been very responsive to my points of "you need to tweak X, Y and Z to avoid creating a new workflow") would be that if such a tool was developed, it would simply not be implemented. Something that simply doesn't practically work is nothing more than dead code, from a wikimedia perspective (although it may be useful on a mediawiki front).
3. That would be the section beforehand; the "testing it" stage ;p. This isn't just making sure it works on a technical front, it's several rounds of A/B testing that take into account reader reactions to it, editor reactions to it, reader reactions to different forms and stages of it, so on and so forth. I've pushed to include "do readers think it really sucks" as one of the things to be quantified more specifically (it was already included under a different heading).

On the development front, you'll note if you've read the actual features requirement and technical documentation (which I assume you have - it's fairly crucial to understanding the details and complexities of the new software) that much of the work is being done by Fabrice, a contractor, and other relative "outsiders" (such as myself) - so even if the software was killed now it wouldn't magically free up employed developers to go work on different features. Even if it was being done by "insiders", the technical skills wanted to design a feedback form as opposed to say, a visual editor, are distinct. Such devs wouldn't necessarily be redirected to helping design a tool you prefer :P.

I don't believe, based on the data gathered so far with the old tool, that the AFT is reducing editor recruitment. I don't believe, based on the new design, that it will begin to. The problem with that argument is that it assumes that "pure readers" and "potential editors" fall into the same group; that there is no discernible difference in motivation between someone who simply wants to provide feedback, and someone who wants to contribute. If someone wants to contribute, they either (a) can grok wikimarkup (which is unfortunately currently required to be an editor) or (b) can't. If it's (b) we're currently losing nothing by have them contribute to the AFT - if it's (a) well, that's what the call to action is for. Data gathered so far shows that seventeen percent of the 30-40,000 people a day who fill out the form and view the call to action attempt to edit. That's over 5,000 potential editors being prodded into taking action and participating as editors every single day - prodded into becoming editors, or attempting to become editors, because of the AFT, not despite it. Indeed, prompting potential editors into becoming actual ones is (as you know - see WP:AFT5 or WP:AFT or the features notes) half of the point of the AFT. If you want to be concerned about what statistical measures say, I would suggest taking a look at why it is that our community, our markup and other elements of the site combine to ensure that out of those 5,000 individuals, 2.4 percent actually contribute successfully. That's what should be worrying you - not whether the tool that got them trying to contribute in the first place is sapping our editor numbers. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute that we have a problem in that a large proportion of people who try to edit give up. Of course a proportion of them simply try to remove the l from public in their type of school field for the school they are editing in and most of those are successfully dissuaded by our edit filters. But the editor interface is a big problem and I'm fully supportive of the Foundation's decision try try and resolve that. But if half of the point of the AFT is to prompt readers into becoming editors then it is reasonable to test whether it has simply failed in that area or whether it has done more harm than good. To measure that you need to stop thinking that all new editors from AFT are extra, and instead compare new editor recruitment rates with or without AFT. Remember during AFT on EN wiki the trend for new editors has been clearly negative. Yes we still have some new editors despite AFT, but not as many as we were getting and quite possibly not as many as we would have had without AFT.

As for the resourcing argument, this is not being written by volunteers pursuing a personal hobbyhorse, this is an IT development commissioned by the WMF and paid for by charitable donations. The sooner this idea is properly tested, evaluated and terminated the less WMF money will be wasted on it. ϢereSpielChequers 11:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are a lot of variables. The editing trend was declining during the AFT - but it was declining anyway, so that's not helpful. It has now stabilised, but we think that's due to WP:10 and the gender gap issue, so that's also not helpful. Because the trend was declining, it's difficult to see what individual actions have increased that decline, or merely invisibly retarded it (thereby providing a benefit that isn't statistically measurable) or improved it but been outweighed by other tools. This is a difficult thing to measure, but as I've said, I've forwarded your suggestion to the devs already. In the meantime, as said, this is a hard thing to measure - and as far as I know, you haven't measured it. If you had data on potential issues with the AFT, I would think you would've raised it by now. In the meantime, with you criticising me for not having any data on the benefits of the tool, could you keep an open mind about data on the unintended side-effects? In the absence of actual information, making statements like "The sooner this idea is properly tested, evaluated and terminated the less WMF money will be wasted on it" isn't helpful; it's unverified, unsupported hyperbole that reduces the tone of the conversation. I would appreciate it if you could allow for the possibility that this tool is A Good Thing, at the same time as you're asking me to consider that it could be a bad one. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your request for the data supporting my position. I'm relying on the stats the WMF publishes here and comparing each months activity with previous months and previous year. You may also have access to October 2011 data, but I don't and can't comment if you are saying that things more recently have changed. But that data does jibe with parts of Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Current_version Especially the phrases "The version currently deployed has seen some notable successes:", point two of that and the claim that this has promoted reader engagement. Remember I haven't simply edited the page to remove bits I consider incorrect such as "notable successes" and the reader engagement part of "has therefore succeeded, to some degree, in promoting both quality assessment and reader engagement." Though I'd concede the last part if we added the caveat "Though recruitment of new editors has continued to decline". I don't dispute that this can collect a lot of data from readers, but I don't see how it can collect meaningful data without generating vast numbers of requests for other people to edit articles. So currently I see it as caught between two fates, the data collected becoming ignored and meaningless because any ratings are insufficiently specific to show what needs improving, and generating shed loads of suggestions for the existing editors to change things. If the latter happens then unless you find editors willing to promptly do that work you will disappoint the readers more than if you hadn't asked for their input in the first place. ϢereSpielChequers 07:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying is you have data that says "the rate has continued to decline, even with the AFT" - which is fine. It's what I allowed for; as said, the rate of recruitment does not need to uniformly increase for tools to say, retard its decrease, something that would not show up in data. Now, I could look at that data and say "hey, actually the AFT has helped, because if it wasn't for the AFT we'd be losing 10 percent more per month" - but the data doesn't directly support that, and I have no data that does, even though it's a reasonable hypothesis, so you'd be wise to discount it. Similarly, you don't have any data to say that the AFT has worsened the situation - simply data that says "the situation may or may not have got better and may or may not have got worse while the AFT was around" - so it might be best to avoid black and white statements along the lines of "this is definitely A Bad Thing" until you have data that actively supports that. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

What I said was "Remember during AFT on EN wiki the trend for new editors has been clearly negative. Yes we still have some new editors despite AFT, but not as many as we were getting and quite possibly not as many as we would have had without AFT." Could you be specific as to what part of that you consider is unsupported by data? ϢereSpielChequers 21:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sentences like "this isn't just about preventing the AFT from harming the wiki" and "The sooner this idea is properly tested, evaluated and terminated the less WMF money will be wasted on it" - as I said earlier, they're not supported by the facts. Now, the idea that the AFT is uniformly positive and can be measured as such also isn't, which is why I'm avoiding giving unilateral pronouncements that it's definitely a good thing. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually I do consider those to be supported by the facts. But I'm willing to be proven wrong, the way I see it AFT will either fail because the feedback it garners is insufficiently meaningful for it to be a useful thing for us to be asking our readers to do, or it will fail because it collects shed loads of meaningful feedback but without recruiting the editors to act on that feedback. If you can show how it can be made not just to get people to suggest how our editors could improve articles, but to also get those readers to actually fix the articles themselves; Or you can show how else you can recruit the editors to action these suggestions, then I'd be happy to revise my opinion of the AFT. Otherwise those remain my words and my considered opinion re the AFT. ϢereSpielChequers 20:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback thing

A new user was a bit lost about where to comment on the feedback tool , and posted on our helpdesk [1] so I advised them [2] to post here, and they did.

Thus, it'd be great if you could respond to them either in Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Option_1_vs._Option_2, or on their talk (Hestiazfire (talk · contribs)).

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, awesome, thanks for bringing it to my attention :). I technically have the weekend off (read: to do other work in) but new users > survey tabulation, so off I pop. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.  Chzz  ►  23:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Perjury

Did not know you are a lawyer. Not canvassing of course, but please look at Perjury in Nigeria and comment at the AfD if you see fit. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Law graduate, but not yet lawyer ;). I'll stay out, I'm afraid - first, work is heavy, and second, I'm trying not to engage in anything more debate-y than content creation while I'm employed. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: office hours

Sorry, I won't be able to make it, as I'll be in Philly. HurricaneFan25 23:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's cool; enjoy your trip! Want me to send you the logs, as always? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I'm hoping to try them out in the testing period. HurricaneFan25 12:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Awesome - more testers are always appreciated. :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  I'll be there! (it's a 98% chance I'll be able to make it) ;) HurricaneFan25 18:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  Neat! :D. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, missed it. :/ Can you send me the office hours/logs as usual? Thanks. HurricaneFan25 01:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's fine :). I'm taking the weekend for survey parsing, writing a report, etc, but I should have all the logs and everything else on Monday. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

here's one from out in left field ...

Hi Okeyes-- This is addressed to you in your capacity with WMF. I've earlier chimed in with some comments posted at "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:DCDuring#This_is_not_a_dictionary_I_would_rely_on.", that you might possibly be interested in taking a look at in your free time :-).

I've had very little to do with Wiktionary, and have no real idea of their policies and practices; but I have come across an administrator's page (not this presently referenced editor) whose attitude reflected in his responses certainly raised my own eyebrows.

Possibly food for thought. All the best of luck. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the Foundation (for legal reasons, and for not-kicking-over-the-beehive reasons) tends not to get involved in internal matters of content or user discipline. Wiktionary may have some internal process of its own (projects usually do) around-about here-ish. Hope that helps :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Surveys

Does this survey not require authorisation by the WMF? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Where's it being distributed? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ask the author. I find it odd however, after all the fuss that was made over my NPP survey - and to which I still have not been made privy to the results. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• It's not as concerning as the unauthorised survey, simply because it doesn't seem to make any claim to anonymity or official status; where did you find it? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ask the author. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I will, but given that you evidently discovered it it would be useful if you could tell me where you, personally, saw it. You are online and available; he is not. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just a skivvy - I don't have (WMF) after my name ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

But you want me to ask the volunteer where you found it? :p Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I pointed it out, so I'm obviously on the ball on this side of the fence. If the survey is an issue for the WMF to deal with, then let them deal with it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Very well; I'll point it towards legal. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I got the day wrong

Having organised 15 mins to go into the IRC, I realise now that I got the day wrong. Yesterday (in five minutes' time), not today. Sorry. Tony (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

haha. That's okay! I'll drop you a note next time we put one on. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol survey

Hi,Okeyes (WMF),when will be the results of the survey be declared?The survey had ended in 7th November,it's almost 20th November,the results are still not out.Why is it being so late?That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 16:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Because the survey results had to be sanitised, tabulated, parsed and graphed. As said, the results should be out early this week - I've got them sitting on my PC right now, I just need to update all the research literature and do last-minute spot-checks. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, things have got a bit delayed; we're waiting on legal (plus, they have today off, because it's turkey-fest. Oy veh, you american holidays and your screwing with my work schedule). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

AFT newsletter

Be a dear and sign NEWSLETTERS MAILBOX up for your propaganda encyclical if you would be so kind. Cheers, Skomorokh 16:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The Central Committee ensures me it's not propaganda, and they should know - they've vetted the content fifteen times, so have a pretty good grasp on it :P. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

AFT Office Logs

Hi: you mentioned on my talk page, "As always, if you can't attend, drop me a line and I'm happy to link you to the logs when we're done". To that end, I'd be grateful if you'd drop me a link to the AFT Office Hours chat that will be held in #wikimedia-office on Friday 16th December at 19:00 UTC - I don't think I'll be able to make it myself, as it's out of work hours. All the best, The Cavalry (Message me) 23:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Me too. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Me three. I'm particularly interested in bug 33081 (shameless plug). :-) Graham87 06:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Me four, please. It's unfortunately in the middle of the day for me, and I can't get to a computer. (PS, any chance at offering office hours a little later, like 00:00 UTC or something like that? For us in the US, the middle of the day is a bad time.) ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 07:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

We're trying to rotate it, yup; hopefully the next session should be 22:00 UTC, if that works better? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I may be a little late to one at 22:00 UTC, but I should be able to make part of it.~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 03:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! I'll drop you a line when we schedule it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(extremely late reply))Hmm...in regards to your email, I find option #2 (the one with suggestion/question/etc.) best; though clicking the question mark in the corner gives a box with really bad-looking shadowing. Can the shadowing be gray instead of black? Aside from that, it's the only issue I was really concerned about for option #2. Option #1 is to unspecific, though; it's just a box asking for suggestions and a "yes/no" box. HurricaneFan25 — 21:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; we're more looking for "is something broken" than "can something be improved"; it's about the tool technically working. We'll focus on making it pretty next :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I just added it to my article; where is the feedback page? HurricaneFan25 — 00:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The feedback page has yet to be deployed; I've had to remove it from your article. This is a very limited randomised test, and expanding and altering the list may screw with things :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Logs

Hi there - was wondering if you have the logs for the above, or when they might be available? The Cavalry (Message me) 20:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

ahh, yes, sorry; they are available :). We just deployed the tool, around 10 minutes ago, so I've spent 48 hours in a worky haze. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

AWB

Try using {{Subst:PAGENAME}} it's less impersonal - since people check by diff. Rich Farmbrough, 12:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC).

Great idea; thanks Rich! AWB isn't usually my thing, but timeframes are tight. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello!

Hey! Remember me ? :P

I just wanted to drop in and say Hi -- I've taken a leave of WP for maybe six months now (with school and all), but I've finally had a break in the work to get back on the wiki! I see you have a fun new job, but feel free to help me out as I continue my Supreme Court case project! :-)

Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Argh. Realized you still use your Ironholds account. Some months off the wiki will jumble your mind :-P Lord Roem (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hehe; that's fine :). I'm a bit bogged down at the moment, but I'll try to check in and help out when I have some free time :).

Page Patroller

Hello, Okeyes.I need to know when the User right called "Page Patroller" will be out.Will it be be available to all administrators, and others can get from WP:PERM? Night ^{Of Darkness} 16:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The answer is "we don't know" to all of that :). The survey was partially (very, very partially) aimed at discovering opinions on the page patroller userright and how it should be distributed; the yes:no ratio was very, very close on whether such a right should even exist. There'll be more details in the report we'll (hopefully) publish soon :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Hi Oliver,
Thanks for the notification of the RfC. I don't have any particular comments to add on that issue - I'm sure the community who do vandal patrolling more frequently will have enough points of view already on who gets to suppress comments etc. What I would like to add, and I'm not sure if you're up to this stage yet, is a strong vote in favour of having the 'call to action' send people to the talkpage (and not merely to edit the article directly). Perhaps you can test that as one of the options? Furthermore, if it can be built in (version 5.1?) to allow feedback providers to give an email address that is hidden (like the current "email this user" system) but allows Wikipedians to contact that person later if their comment is being discussed on the talkpage. This, I believe, would have a very high level of stickyness for the new user as their position in the discussion would already be respected. Sincerely, Wittylama 23:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Great points on all fronts :). At the moment we're in the middle of testing, so things are a bit...data focused (I swear, the next time I hear the phrase "inter-coder reliability" I'm going to go postal) but I've been building up a nice log of community suggestions for features that I can throw at them as soon as people are back to the design grind full-time :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks for that. By the way, did you ever year back from the folks you were asking re. why the 99.7% of other articles still have AVTv1 still running - is it *really* only because of the call to action at the end of the rating process? Or, should I ping folks on foundation-l about it again, given its been several weeks. Wittylama 02:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't; probably the deployment sucking everyone's time in :). I'll drop Dario and a few other folk another note. If you don't hear back by say, 5pm PST, probably safe to ask more publicly where they might notice. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar

Dear Oliver, Thanks for all your help in managing our community relations to help design the new article feedback tools together. As a result of your tireless work and great insights, I am confident that we can provide a better user experience and engage more readers to become editors over time! And I am deeply grateful for all you've done to make me feel welcome as a newbie on Wikipedia. I have learned so much from you already and can't wait to do more together. I look forward to a great collaboration with you in 2012! Fabrice Florin (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This is probably the nicest barnstar I've ever received :). Thanks, Fabrice!

Archive request

Hi there Okeyes! I'd like to request that you archive Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5 since it's really large and a bit difficult to navigate. I would Be Bold and fix it myself, but I have little experience at archiving and I'd probably mess something up. But I thought I'd let you know. I hope to see that text-based feedback tool implemented project-wide real soon, I think it would be very helpful especially because someone down-rated one of the articles I'm working on, and I have no idea why. Unfortunately there was nothing opened in the Talk page, so I have no idea what they had a problem with. Good luck! Jessemv (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a great idea; I was just thinking that myself, actually :). I was pretty sure I'd added an auto-archive template, but it appears to have got lost somewhere - I'll archive now :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks! Jessemv (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thread at VP/M about the A.F.T.

Please see this thread. I'm cross posting it to your other account as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You? WMF?

So you made it into WMF? I cannot understand. We met last August here, and my conclusion was (and still is) that Ironholds is an Arrogant Admin, not communicating and disruptive for the project. Ironholds only survived because Admins don't criticize Admins. (An admin only since January 2011? Que pasa?) I think WP is reaching its upper asymptotic level, which is quite below a professional level. Also, I don't believe you are a LibDem. Your behaviour is Tory. And then you note "I've ruffled a few feathers", but you "acknowledge this, and have taken steps to make sure it doesn't happen again". Sure. But that's not the way ordinary Editors can go ahead. It's a Tory-like privilege only Admins have. Now please explain, how & why did your WP-career develop this way, and this steep? What is going on? -DePiep (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

DePiep, I'm going to take the high ground here and simply not reply to this. Anyone who opens "can you explain yourself" by calling me an arrogant, uncommunicative and disruptive Tory is asking for a WP:NPA block, not an explanation. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)+

Why complain about me referencing your Toryness, when your Userpage says: "I worked for the Liberal Democrats" [3]? And, as for you taking a "high ground" only now: arrogance. -DePiep (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Or, alternately, as my userpage says, I'm working to correct my past errors. If I respond to you, you attack me more. If I don't respond to you, I'm arrogant. You haven't exactly left me with choices here ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"ordinary Editors" can't "ruffle a few feathers"? Really?

Also, no true ordinary Editor would accuse an Administrator of asymptoticism :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You win, Demiurge; I had to google "asymptoticism" ;). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• DePiep's position is echoed by many editors and admins in silence. The WMF made an...interesting...choice by selecting you for a paid position. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ironholds, please disengage from this thread. DePiep, if you have concerns that have not been previously expressed, please feel free to write me at philippewikimedia.org. Otherwise, I'm going to ask you to disengage too, please. Your point has been well made. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

All appointments are open to community discussion and community consensus. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Time_to_patrol_one_article.png

I think you might have got the > greater than and < less than backwards in this image.--v/r - TP 01:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Headdesk. I'll go regenerate the file; thanks for picking it up ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

CENT

Hey, just letting you know that your adding of the NPP survey to CENT has been undone (see here). Jenks24 (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thread at VP you might be interested in

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Wider_consenus_before_enabling_gadgets_as_default_.28enabled_for_all_users.29. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

graphs in NPP report

<harassment> ignoring the readability complaints, why not svg? ;p </harassment> I might be able to vectorize from the existing graphs and replace the text, if that's still an issue, since I imagine re-generating would be a right pain. sonia♫ 03:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

...Have I ever told you how brilliant you are? If not, yeah, that. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of the graphs, should File:Hours a week spent patrolling.png have column titles of "<1" (less than 1) and ">20" (greater than 20)? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed! On my list of things to correct :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Now fixed! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks great - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Politburo

Care to make a contribution to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Opinion desk/Political? ResMar 22:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"Politburo" is hardly a neutral phrase ;p. I can point out a couple of inaccuracies that might bear looking at:

1. "The existence of the Wikimedia network and its continued health is based on its status as a 501(c) organization, on policies of fair use and freedom of panorama and general leniency in copyright laws"

   We are (to be specific) a 501(c)(3), not just a 501(c)

   It is worth pointing out that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is more of a pressing issue than our charitable status, at least when discussing things like SOPA.

2. "and as the image filter protests and SOPA blackout clearly show, there is a community will to use our position in the public eye fight for the preservation of free content and copyright leniency."

   Public eye to fight

   I don't think you can group them together. The image filter was nothing to do with free content or copyright leniency, more the immediate availability of that content.

   I don't think there's a substantial amount of "community will" to fight on general principles of copyright leniency. There is a distinction between leniency generally, and leniency that is necessary to preserve Wikipedia. For example, you might want to look at the attempts at a similar protest for ACTA, which fell apart firstly because ACTA does not directly impact upon Wikipedia, at least to the same degree that SOPA does, and secondly because the community felt that repeatedly using the blackout ability would undermine its effectiveness. So, actually I would say there is a substantial amount of community will to preserve the community. Not to sort out copyright law.

3. "Yet there is a significant population of editors who think that we should be less rambunctious in the defense of our principles"

   What population? Where? I'm not saying they don't exist, but they should be pointed to :). The SOPA RfC was pretty largely in support of the general principle of protesting in some form. I'd come up with a less substantive word than "significant" unless you can demonstrate that there is a significant number.

4. On a more meta note; I cannot speak for the WMF's position on this issue. However, I am happy to write an opinion in my volunteer role. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, an opinion, that's exactly what I need. As for WMF speaking, HaeB writes the Research report on his WMF account, so I don't think it's really forbidden; do you mean that you don't know the WMF's overall position on it? My favorite is something Jimbo said: Wikipedia is neutral, but its existence is not. ResMar 14:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, and HaeB has it set up so that he runs said research report by the researchers. I can tell you what my opinion is, I can tell you what the WMF opinion prrobably is. I cannot just sign up to give you that opinion without running by people :). I'm happy to throw it up the food chain to see if people are okay with what I want to say, if that works. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well so long as it all comes together before next Sunday. As for rules and snuff, you should see User talk:Bdell555#Point-counterpoint. ResMar 14:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Noted! The "Wikipedia is neutral" line, btw, is either Sue's or Kat's (I forget which). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you see it as a SOPA debate, or as a debate over whether or not it is ever acceptable for the movement to be used in politics? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The latter, the SOPA initative is only the latest and greatest manifestation of this, no? I think the issue has been bubbling along for a while now. ResMar 15:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Works for me :). Just wondering because I saw your message to Bdell555, and his blog post seems mostly concerned about the specifics of SOPA. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)