«18:45:03 B<bitmap> I think the discourse one should just be "accounts with no oauth tokens", maybe» - note that Discourse doesn't use OAuth.
2017-05-23 14301, 2017
ruaok
what does discourse use?
2017-05-23 14304, 2017
CatQuest
but for that, accounts created a year earlier than discourse...
2017-05-23 14328, 2017
bitmap
ah, right
2017-05-23 14335, 2017
Freso
ruaok: It's own single-sign on solution. Anyway. It's irrelevant. If they don't have a confirmed e-mail, they don't have a Discourse account.
2017-05-23 14341, 2017
Freso
*Its
2017-05-23 14341, 2017
CatQuest
right
2017-05-23 14348, 2017
samj1912 joined the channel
2017-05-23 14359, 2017
CatQuest
what about my "set phraze/words" idea, atleast to up he priority
2017-05-23 14330, 2017
ruaok
ok, then "Existing accounts with no confirmed email and no OAuth tokens. (up to 690,463 accounts)" seems to work ok,no?
2017-05-23 14336, 2017
Freso
👍
2017-05-23 14346, 2017
zas
+1
2017-05-23 14348, 2017
ruaok
bitmap?
2017-05-23 14349, 2017
bitmap
yes
2017-05-23 14353, 2017
bitmap
sounds good
2017-05-23 14357, 2017
ruaok
great.
2017-05-23 14358, 2017
ruaok
> Accounts with confirmed email, but the email belongs to a spammer domain. (see spammer domains below) (50k+ accounts)
2017-05-23 14303, 2017
ruaok
any objections to this?
2017-05-23 14338, 2017
CatQuest
no that's good, just worrying that there is like onelegit dude with an email like that :P
2017-05-23 14352, 2017
ruaok
I don't see how that could work.
2017-05-23 14354, 2017
Freso
I think we should double-check the spam mail domain assumption by running a test to see if any editors using those mail domains have made any edits/have any oauth tokens.
2017-05-23 14307, 2017
CatQuest
very good idea freso
2017-05-23 14312, 2017
ruaok
freso: "Note: No accounts that have edits should ever be automatically removed."
2017-05-23 14330, 2017
CatQuest
yes but this is one the what are spam emil domains
2017-05-23 14336, 2017
ruaok
updated to "Note: No accounts that have edits/votes/OAuth tokens should ever be automatically removed."
2017-05-23 14338, 2017
zas
it works for me, spam domain + no edit -> trash
2017-05-23 14341, 2017
CatQuest
to make sure they are. infact. spam email domains
2017-05-23 14358, 2017
Freso
I would assume for far most of the domains, they'll check out, and maybe the couple of accounts that will show up will turn out to be spam accounts too and can get removed as well.
2017-05-23 14307, 2017
CatQuest
if that is done. i'm cool with auto removing those
2017-05-23 14310, 2017
ruaok
"Accounts with confirmed email, but the email belongs to a spammer domain and the spammer domain is in fact verified to be a spam domain."
2017-05-23 14316, 2017
Freso
ruaok: I know. What CatQuest said. Just as a sanity check.
2017-05-23 14344, 2017
ruaok
any objections to that wording?
2017-05-23 14353, 2017
CatQuest
nah
2017-05-23 14310, 2017
Freso
(Based on my deleting spam accounts, I tend to agree with the list you have, but I'm also biased, since I've only been looking at e-mails for spam users, not real users.)
2017-05-23 14316, 2017
Freso
ruaok: Nope. LGTM.
2017-05-23 14324, 2017
ruaok
last point for now.
2017-05-23 14330, 2017
ruaok
> Existing accounts with no confirmed email within 2 weeks (with a fat banner to remind about confirming email address meanwhile)
2017-05-23 14340, 2017
CatQuest
lgtm? .. lets get the move on?
2017-05-23 14300, 2017
ruaok
if someone doesn't verify their account in the space of two weeks and it has no oAuth tokens, we nuke it.
2017-05-23 14311, 2017
Freso
I would maybe up that to 30 days, but that's bike shedding. Seems good to me.
2017-05-23 14319, 2017
CatQuest
2 weeks fro mnow to give the 13 day old users a chance :D
2017-05-23 14335, 2017
CatQuest
yea i'm ok with tat
2017-05-23 14309, 2017
ruaok
ok, any other objections or comments?
2017-05-23 14319, 2017
ruaok
if not, I'll turn these into tickets.
2017-05-23 14327, 2017
Freso
👍
2017-05-23 14341, 2017
CatQuest
ticets subtask of a big ticet? becasue I wanna vote for these :D
2017-05-23 14300, 2017
ruaok
the order of priority I wold like to see for bitmap and yvanzo: JSON data dumps, then spam fighting measures, then everything else.
2017-05-23 14302, 2017
ruaok
ok?
2017-05-23 14319, 2017
arbenina_ joined the channel
2017-05-23 14323, 2017
bitmap
ok!
2017-05-23 14334, 2017
ruaok
zas: I need to go soon, but we should talk about was of quantifying what we're doing to measure if it has impact.
2017-05-23 14337, 2017
Freso
Should reo and I continue to go through zas' dump?
2017-05-23 14301, 2017
ruaok
I think that is a waste of time, given that we've decided to to some automated cleanup
2017-05-23 14309, 2017
CatQuest
Freso: as way to get the spam domain emials maybe
2017-05-23 14320, 2017
ruaok
I think we should do the cleanup and then loop back around and re-do that query and re-eval.
2017-05-23 14322, 2017
zas
ruaok: ok, later tonight, diner now, and picard meeting in one hour
2017-05-23 14330, 2017
ruaok
tomorrow, then. :)
2017-05-23 14336, 2017
Freso
ruaok: 👍
2017-05-23 14337, 2017
ruaok
ok, thanks everyone!
2017-05-23 14338, 2017
CatQuest
zas: isn't it in like 3 minutes?
2017-05-23 14346, 2017
Freso
CatQuest: No.
2017-05-23 14356, 2017
Freso
CatQuest: 20:00 CEST.
2017-05-23 14357, 2017
CatQuest
ruaok: I know you don't mean me much but you're welcome anyway!
2017-05-23 14310, 2017
CatQuest
Freso: two hours eariler, did we not agree?
2017-05-23 14313, 2017
ruaok
heh. aww.
2017-05-23 14318, 2017
Freso
But it'll likely be 19:00 UTC going forwards.
2017-05-23 14325, 2017
CatQuest
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
2017-05-23 14326, 2017
Freso
CatQuest: For the Monday meeting, yes.
2017-05-23 14340, 2017
zas
the picard meeting is at 18:00 UTC, we'll change hour for next meeting
2017-05-23 14345, 2017
Freso
CatQuest: The Picard meeting was schedules a week ago, when the "regular meeting time" was still 19:00 UTC.
2017-05-23 14348, 2017
zas
if people agree
2017-05-23 14349, 2017
CatQuest
ahh ok wI thought we said for picard also :)
2017-05-23 14302, 2017
Freso
It will likely be going forward.
2017-05-23 14315, 2017
Freso
(Assuming we'll want to have more meetings. :))
2017-05-23 14316, 2017
CatQuest
Freso: right
2017-05-23 14323, 2017
ruaok
I'm going to close MBS-9352, since it gets superceded.
one is historical accounts and one is going forward.
2017-05-23 14340, 2017
CatQuest
ah..
2017-05-23 14303, 2017
khan____ joined the channel
2017-05-23 14348, 2017
UmkaDK joined the channel
2017-05-23 14322, 2017
rdswift
I have been following with interest the discussion regarding the spammer issue. I've collected some thoughts and suggestions and included them at https://pastebin.com/KWbKHF9m if anyone is interested.
2017-05-23 14333, 2017
ruaok
rdswift: regarding #5, we're drawing the criteria for removal very conservatively.
2017-05-23 14353, 2017
ruaok
if we get a wrong one with these criteria, the damage will be fixed by simply creating the account again.
2017-05-23 14333, 2017
rdswift
That works.
2017-05-23 14333, 2017
CatQuest
I like your summary rdswift
2017-05-23 14333, 2017
rdswift
Thanks. I mostly just took what I thought I heard all of you saying as concensus and then added some thoughts that I've been considering for one of the (small) sites I maintain.
2017-05-23 14313, 2017
xarph has quit
2017-05-23 14338, 2017
rdswift
The important thing is that once the issue is initially cleaned up it can be maintained with a minimum of "hands on" intervention. Nobody on the team needs more work to do.
2017-05-23 14302, 2017
Freso
<BANG>
2017-05-23 14307, 2017
samj1912
Yo
2017-05-23 14313, 2017
Freso
Oi.
2017-05-23 14332, 2017
Freso
bitmap, Mineo, zas, Sophist-UK, CatQuest, ...
2017-05-23 14333, 2017
samj1912 has no idea what the agenda is is :p
2017-05-23 14341, 2017
Freso
Who else needs to be pinged?
2017-05-23 14345, 2017
Freso
Oh.
2017-05-23 14349, 2017
zas
Eh
2017-05-23 14301, 2017
Sophist-UK
Present, sir.
2017-05-23 14313, 2017
Mineo is around
2017-05-23 14318, 2017
Sophist-UK
Literally just got in.
2017-05-23 14304, 2017
Freso
I guess there's the multi-level work tags? Is there really nothing else that needs discussing?
2017-05-23 14353, 2017
Mineo
well, we still have a picard_dev package that nobody really knows how to use
2017-05-23 14307, 2017
samj1912
Yes, we should discuss that
2017-05-23 14318, 2017
samj1912
And how to deal with it
2017-05-23 14321, 2017
Mineo
but Sophist-UK's work tags have been on the agenda for a few weeks now
2017-05-23 14329, 2017
Freso
Alright. Should we do multi-level work tags today as well?
2017-05-23 14339, 2017
Sophist-UK
Ok.
2017-05-23 14326, 2017
Freso
I guess we'll see.
2017-05-23 14328, 2017
Freso
Agenda:
2017-05-23 14330, 2017
Freso
1) picard_dev
2017-05-23 14337, 2017
Freso
2) Multi-level work tags
2017-05-23 14310, 2017
Mineo
+1
2017-05-23 14321, 2017
zas
ok for me
2017-05-23 14327, 2017
Freso
Any additions/alterations, or should we just plunge in?
2017-05-23 14352, 2017
Sophist-UK
Can we widen picard_dev to a more general discussion of what versions (1.4.x/2, formal release / dev) we want to support running simultaneously on the same pc/user account?
2017-05-23 14309, 2017
samj1912
That is a whole other discussion
2017-05-23 14340, 2017
zas
I tend to agree with Sophist-UK here
2017-05-23 14349, 2017
Sophist-UK
Ok. But it is a discussion that needs to happen.
2017-05-23 14351, 2017
Freso
I don't think the two are entirely separate.
2017-05-23 14309, 2017
xarph_ joined the channel
2017-05-23 14310, 2017
samj1912
Umm, are there really that much changes that normal users want to run multiple picard versions?
