User talk:Keegan/December13-December14

VE office hours

thanks for the announcement on hewiki.

i would like to draw your attention to the fact that by setting it to 23:00 UTC, you make it most convenience to north american editors, and at the same time very inconvenient to almost anyone who uses any RTL language (such as hebrew, arabic, persian etc.). i think it would be good to schedule some "office hours" which will work better for RTL'ers, lest you'll lose most of the feedback specific to RTL issues.

peace, User:קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I'll let those that schedule these office hours think about hosting a RTL time-friendly session next month. Shalom, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

Curious, why oversight the stuff from Leavewikifactsalone? I don't remember anything close to disruption (aside from the socking alone), nothing warranting oversight. Feel free to email me if you don't want to respond publicly, although if you do, please leave me a {{You've got mail}} note. Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edits in question were under the scope of "non-public, personally identifying information." Leavewikifactsalone was introducing off-wiki, off-line information to disparage the contributor, not the content. This real-world sleuthing is pretty much a no-no if the editor has not expressed it already. My apologies for the disruption; I was under the impression you'd been notified about this. Keegan (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I remember what you mean: his comments almost made me request an OUTING block instead of going to WP:ANI at the "Uninvolved admin needed" thread. But yes, nobody had said anything about it to me. Thanks for the response. Nyttend (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I know that I already said this at the VP(t) talk page but I wanted to add another thanks for letting me know that I can bring you any cut and paste problems to you in the future. It is always great to be able to go directly to someone who knows how to fix things! enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD | Talk 21:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keegan twins

hi, thank you for your clarification. honestly, in the past, i've thought about changing my user name, just to work in english too. but now i'm very busy with my job and i have been reduced my editing for W and so i've kept it. but...it's just a nickname (one of my favorites uk football player....u too? :), and it seems like you're more involved in W than me. so, if you think this could be good for you, i could try to change it in something similar (do you know if is it possible to do it and keep all my items? all the best! ciao! keegan (ita) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.28.41.4 (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Keegan! My name, my first name, is actually Keegan. "What's your real name?" is probably the most popular question I get when I meet other Wikimedians :) Keep your username as long as you would like, my message to you was so that you are aware that I am not trying to be you on the Italian Wikipedia.

If you would like to change usernames so you can take advantage of single-user login, like when you come over here to leave a message you still have an account, you can do that over on the Italian Wikipedia. This is the page, but I don't read Italian so I hope the instructions make sense to you. Your contributions are changed over to your new name as well. Again, not a big deal to me, might be useful to you, but feel free to keep using the name on it.wp as long as you please as far as I'm concerned. It's a good name :) Keegan (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Jimmy's talk page

Hi. Jimmy has opened a discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 164#Philosophical discussion of hypothetical BLP situation and some have suggested OTRS could play a role in one or more of the proposals. Would you be interested in commenting? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthonyhcole:: Wow, that conversation took off. I see you also reached out to my colleagues, I'm sure at least one of us will have some thoughts. I'll try to set aside some time to parse through it and perhaps comment if no-one has said what I'd say be the time I get to it later :) Keegan (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case

Hello K. I wanted to let you know about this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Coronation Street characters being moved discussion in case any of the cut and paste moves require your skills. If not no worries. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 23:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday!!!

Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee. ~ Anastasia (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Anastasia. I had no idea the Birthday Committee was still a thing. Happy editing to you :) Keegan (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit History

Hi Keegan. A friend and I recently worked on a draft of Steven Novella and the page was updated on July 2. In the copy-paste effort from userspace draft the edit history is lost. This was my error; I should have moved the draft instead (as I am learning?) Susan suggested I message you here to check on correcting this loss of history as was required for one of her pages recently. A few updates have been made to the page since July 2 so I don't want to move the draft copy and possibly loose the recent updates. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khamar (talk • contribs) 08:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Khamar:, @Sgerbic: the answer of can I help is more complicated then "Yes/No." I can and will help cleaning up these page history issues, but it leads to a much broader concern:

Wikipedia prefers that you write/update existing articles on the page where they currently exist. This is for many reasons, the most important are licensing of content (W adds Q to the userspace draft, gets moved and Q is credited with publishing something that is not theirs) and the second, and as equally important, is the opportunity for editorial review and discussion. There is a reason it is easier to rewrite articles in userspace and then move them over, when contentious: discussion and review is paramount. Wikipedia thrives on transparency, and these userspace rewrites, while optimal in presentation, have not been subject to Wikipedia peer-review. The process you are all using builds articles in walled gardens, and that is something that your group should look to rectify. I have also noticed, looking over article histories, that other users in the project have not disclosed their participation in "guerrilla editing" on their userpage. I highly encourage them to do so. Keegan (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say we completely agree that discussion and review are critically important. You may observe, on the Steven Novella talk page no less than three request for such review before publishing the changes. Of course, some great suggestions were incorporated along the way. If there is a walled garden somewhere I for one do not support that. Every edit should be open and transparent. It appears to me that every editor is held to the same standard in that regard. Kyle^(talk) 03:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, as long as there is an understanding there. I do need a link to the draft page that needs merged, btw. Keegan (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

Hi Keegan. Your memoserv inbox was full so I couldn't deliver my note, but I wanted to say that I gave you access to #wikimedia-checkuser and #wikimedia-privacy. For some reason you weren't on the access list yet... Please check if you can really join the channels. Trijnstel_talk 22:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it, Trijnstel. I'll check now. Keegan (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS and COI

I have posted to several places (VTR, PUMP, FTNB) that I believe a clear and prominent policy is needed stating edits by OTRS team members driven/suggested/inspired by secret OTRS correspondence with a party that has a COI require disclosure as COI influenced on the talk page of the article edited. Please comment as you see fit. Discussion with Rjd0060 has been cut off and has not provided satisfactory resolution in the opinion of myself and BullRangifer. Your input would be valuable and may provide insight/clarification from the OTRS admin perspective. This issue has been discussed in several places, notably ANI. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there MrBill3. I'm traveling internationally this weekend, I hope to provide some more insight for you next week. Keegan (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I hope you enjoy your trip and look forward to hearing from you at your convenience. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MrBill3: @BullRangifer: OTRS agents are not meat puppets for people writing in. This even seems to have created this misconception for some folks. Our primary job is to provide information and not action. The recent kurfluffle is not representative of an endemic problem that needs fixing- it was a one-off event based on a misunderstanding the agent had. Creating another layer of process that agents have to keep in mind when answering emails because of one event isn't necessary. Another point to address: "secret correspondence." There is a massive difference between secrecy for the sake of keeping information hidden just because one doesn't want others to know, and secrecy based out of the necessity for privacy, which is where OTRS is concerned. This is why agent's shouldn't, and they are trained not to, perform an action that shouldn't be reverted based on private information that is provided by email. That's not transparent and it's not fair to the open community we have and it's why I removed "per OTRS" from the dispute resolution policy. In other words, the policy you'd like to create to make OTRS agents declare COI is pretty moot because by English Wikipedia existing COI policy they should be doing this anyway. In case you missed the link in the post I made on ANI, you might be interested in watching my half hour Wikimania 2014 presentation about what OTRS agents do. Keegan (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If as you say, "by English Wikipedia existing COI policy they should be doing this anyway." what is the harm in spelling that out on VRT and/or having that explicitly made clear in terms of OTRS policy. If they should be doing this anyway, where is the creation of "another layer of process"? Do you see the contradiction? What is the problem with pointing to a specific guideline that is particularly relevant when stating PAG apply?

Privacy can be maintained by not disclosing the identity of the correspondent. Secrecy is created by concealing the fact that a correspondence from a party with a COI initiated an action. I am pretty sure the issues of concern are only when "action" is involved. Without giving identity or relationship COI can be disclosed, many editors with a COI disclose that they have a COI but not their identity or the details of the COI, shouldn't following that guideline when editing based on information from correspondence be a clear policy for OTRS team members. Couldn't the issue/concern raised and the fact it came from a party with a COI be posted to talk? That seems in keeping with policy. COI based editing is suggested to be proposed on talk and have an uninvolved editor perform the edit once there is consensus. Again this seems all to be a matter of following policy when editing English Wikipedia.

How much direct editing is being done by OTRS team members? How much is based on input from a party with COI? How often has that been disclosed per policy on talk? I have seen edits marked "per OTRS" but I can't recall a COI disclosure or proposed edit on talk from OTRS. This seems to be indicative of more than a one off event. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Keegan for making this great edit. That's a huge step in the right direction! Now that needs to be made explicit on VRT and OTRS pages for all to read. Assurances that OTRS volunteers are being instructed behind the scenes don't cut it. BTW, the incident that started this involved one OTRS volunteer who has done it on other articles, and apparently it's not the only such case by OTRS volunteers. It's likely not a widespread practice, but it's happened before.

I'm also really concerned that such a relative newbie can even get OTRS status. He's like a bull in a china closet, and has a history of throwing his weight around and deleting sourced material. That's not good for any editor, and especially an OTRS volunteer, who thus brings disrepute on that system. OTRS volunteers, because they are often acting in a COI capacity, are just like anyone with a COI who has less rights than other editors, unless they are dealing with direct BLP matters, and when dealing with BLP matters have the same (not more) rights as other editors. BLP matters have their own guidelines which are followed without using OTRS. The OTRS system can just jumpstart doing something.

Other editors need to see it stated on OTRS and VRT pages that such actions are not allowed, and that OTRS agents must follow the COI guidelines, like anyone else. Why state it? Because they are automatically, by nature of their job, placed in a COI position quite frequently. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all certain I can support that change, especially given the limited (almost null) input. OTRS volunteers are often in the position of not being able to explain why an edit is necessary without violating privacy. The removed verbiage does provide for referring to OTRS admins so the ticket can be checked to ensure no bias or proxy is involved. Without that verbiage, I am concerned we will open the door to endless ew problems. Killer Chihuahua 15:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion on the project talk page. Killer Chihuahua 15:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any edit made by any editor including an OTRS team member must adhere to PAG on the project it is made on. If there is not a valid reason for an edit to be made that is in keeping with policy the OTRS team does not have the authority to make such an edit. To "explain why an edit is necessary" is required for any edit, there is no "super policy" which creates such necessity without adherence to policy. I think this is an additional clear example of OTRS team members believing they have some "necessary" edit to perform and secrecy regarding not only the COI origin but regarding "why an edit is necessary". Policy is quite clear about the need for rationale, sources and adherence to PAG for all edits. Exceptions already exist in policy for BLP and privacy, options ranging all the way to oversight and suppression exist for situations when policy requires. There is no "super policy" that allows OTRS team members to act on behalf of a COI party without disclosure but apparently yet another OTRS team member seems to think maintaining the privacy of a correspondent creates an exception to policy. This is a real problem. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree with you in this day and age, KillerChihuahua. Back in '07-'10 making edits and being in a position to not explain why was acceptable to both OTRS and the English WIkipedia communities. That process left the building a long time ago and you should never be making edits these days that you cannot explain, all OTRS and how you might have found out about an issue in an article aside. Edits should stand alone on their own merits within policy and must be rationally explained. "I know something you don't know, trust me" is not a good policy for OTRS since the agents and structure are outside the remit of the English Wikipedia. It works for Oversight and CheckUser because those are local processes with local policing.

All that said, I'm currently at Wikimedia Deutschland wearing my Keegan (WMF) hat working on ramping up the Structed data on Commons project, so all please do understand that I'm only checking in on these conversations sporadically this week and into the next. Keegan (talk) 07:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is actively going on at one of our most public community notice boards: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#OTRS. Shouldn't it be held there? I'm concerned that forking it off to various talk pages is simply going to dilute it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonriddengirl: Yes, it should. I never intended to get too in depth here :) As I just said above, I'm only have time to follow this off and on at the moment so I am hesitant to get involved in those biiiiigggggg discussions because I won't be able to keep up in real-time. Please continue the discussions on the relative project pages! Keegan (talk) 11:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding post on OTRS discussion

I almost answered there, but then was afraid people wouldn't get the humor, so I'm pasting it here.

In reply to this:

You're quite welcome, Keegan. No worries about the gun-jumping... we've only known each other for years, and I'm just back from almost dying of cancer... it's ok, jump my case... ABF... I don't mind. Puppies are there to kick, after all. (world's smallest violin begins ~~playing~~ whining). :-P Killer Chihuahua 17:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:) Welcome back! Keegan (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Structured Data Bee, vol. 1, issue 1

Greetings, thank you for signing up for the Structured Data newsletter and its first edition. With this newsletter, the Structured data team plans on keeping you informed of technical progress, events, and communications to talk about the project, and continued information on how you can participate. This newsletter will be sent approximately every two weeks, and future editions will be translatable prior to publication. If you're new to Wikidata and want more information about how it works in relation to Wikimedia Commons, you can read an introduction to Wikidata for Commons being drafted.

Tech and design

The software development for this process is still in the planning phases. The idea is to have some functional prototyping done for experimentation and feedback by the end of the year.
The initial roadmap for development has been posted on Commons. The roadmap is a rough outline and is open to iterations as the team learns where and when to focus its energies.
There is a page set up for design ideas about what structured data could potentially look like.
There are forthcoming requests for comment about the particulars of technical architecture on mediawiki.org. Keep an eye on the commons:Commons:Structured data/Get involved page for notification of when the RfCs are posted.

Events and chats

There was a week-long meeting between the Wikimedia Foundation's Multimedia team, the Wikidata team, and community members, held in Berlin, Germany, at the office of Wikimedia Deutchland on October 6-10. You can read an overview of the event in on this page on Commons. There are also plenty of pictures available on Wikimedia Commons.

If you would like to read more detail about what was discussed, there are etherpads of notes taken for each day of the event.

The next IRC office hour to discuss the structured data project will be held on November 20, from 19:30 to 20:30 UTC.

The second IRC office hour (logs) was held on October 16, and the first (logs) on September 3.

Getting involved

You've signed up for the newsletter. That's a great first step!
While working prototypes are being developed, there is a drive to make all files contain machine-readable data on Wikimedia projects.

The information and sign-up page is located on Meta, at File metadata cleanup drive.
The MrMetadata tool on labs that will identify files on your wiki(s) that need information templates added.

A hub has been launched to facilitate communication and documentation for this work.

There is a frequently-asked questions page that is finishing drafting and will need translated. Keep an eye out for when it is ready if you are interested in translating.
There will be active organization of the Get involved page as community participation is further organized. There will be work groups, similar to specific Wikiprojects, dedicated to particular aspects of structured data like licensing presentation, design, API performance, and even helping out with this newsletter and other community communications.

There will be much more information and activities around the proposal to develop structured data on Wikimedia Commons. This project is a major undertaking and an important step as the chief provider, repository, and curator of media for Wikimedia projects.

Thank you for your participation in such an extensive project, let me know if you're interested in participating in this newsletter. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

File metadata cleanup

Hello Keegan,

I'm contacting you because you offered to help with the File metadata cleanup drive on this wiki. Thank you!

There are still many files lacking machine-readable information, and many of them can be fixed by adding special markers to the information and copyright templates. Can you help? Even occasional or small edits are appreciated :)

I'm available via email, IRC or on-wiki to answer questions if you're not sure how to proceed. Let me know if you need help! Guillaume 21:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correspondence

Hello, Keegan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TBSchemer (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]