reosarevok wonders about https://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/MBS-9382 - while I agree it's almost impossible a beginner editor would deserve an autoeditor nomination, should it be actively blocked by showing no link? Or should it still be possible for a case to be made and the community to decide?
2021-03-24 08310, 2021
reosarevok
At first I thought "sure, makes sense" but then I started wondering - we don't limit who can get picked now so that's a fairly big change in our restrictions if we do
2021-03-24 08352, 2021
yvanzo
It does not seem to be a big change to me as nominated editors always had a long editing history. It just follows current practice to lighten the display of editor’s profile.
2021-03-24 08302, 2021
c1e0_ is now known as c1e0
2021-03-24 08318, 2021
reosarevok
ruaok: quick check to make sure you don't think this goes against the spirit of something? ^ :)
2021-03-24 08302, 2021
davic joined the channel
2021-03-24 08359, 2021
reosarevok
Also, ruaok / bitmap / yvanzo / anyone else who wants to check my SQL to see if I'm missing stuff: I put a proposed query to find editors to remove on https://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/MBS-9356
2021-03-24 08300, 2021
BrainzBot
MBS-9356: Remove existing editors with no confirmed email and no OAuth tokens/edits/votes
2021-03-24 08312, 2021
reosarevok
That's... a lot of editors, heh
2021-03-24 08321, 2021
reosarevok
I'd be happy to get some eyes on it
2021-03-24 08320, 2021
revi has quit
2021-03-24 08341, 2021
piti has quit
2021-03-24 08301, 2021
revi joined the channel
2021-03-24 08300, 2021
piti joined the channel
2021-03-24 08324, 2021
reosarevok
Updated it to make sure the editor was created over 2 weeks earlier
ruaok: hmm, I thought that'd get set when they create the account, but maybe not? Lemme see
2021-03-24 08352, 2021
reosarevok
ruaok: 193397 aparentl
2021-03-24 08353, 2021
reosarevok
y
2021-03-24 08306, 2021
ruaok
wow.
2021-03-24 08344, 2021
reosarevok
But it must be older ones
2021-03-24 08348, 2021
reosarevok
Because that's last_login_date TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE DEFAULT now(),
2021-03-24 08328, 2021
reosarevok
Yeah, last of those were created 2013
2021-03-24 08346, 2021
reosarevok
Anything newer than that will have a login date by default
2021-03-24 08344, 2021
c1e0 joined the channel
2021-03-24 08345, 2021
reosarevok
yvanzo: also, checking subscriptions makes sense I guess. I can't imagine it will make a big difference in the number of users and we can avoid disrupting the two of them with a weird usage pattern :D
2021-03-24 08307, 2021
reosarevok
yvanzo: hmm, there's 679 of those. A lot more than I expected, even if a tiny amount all things considered
CatQuest: limited is the same as beginner, we just renamed it :D
2021-03-24 08356, 2021
reosarevok
(nowadays it's called beginner, it used to be limited)
2021-03-24 08329, 2021
c1e0_ joined the channel
2021-03-24 08340, 2021
shivam-kapila is still a beginner
2021-03-24 08307, 2021
CatQuest
oh. i meant limited ere as in "those we for reasons set to as limited"
2021-03-24 08307, 2021
c1e0 has quit
2021-03-24 08321, 2021
CatQuest
see shivam-kapila's example. for ... social reasons, we should not remove this. it can be as simple that beginners see tis text on other's or theri own? profile and raslises there's soemthingot strive towards
CatQuest: this should only be shown if the user viewing it can nominate the user, so only for autoeditors, IIRC :)
2021-03-24 08342, 2021
reosarevok
I mean, the link, not the giant sea penis
2021-03-24 08357, 2021
CatQuest
ooh, thne i'm deff agasint removing it. it's extra code for no good reason
2021-03-24 08320, 2021
CatQuest
again, link, not seaknob
2021-03-24 08324, 2021
reosarevok
I kinda tend to agree that it's not worth special-casing
2021-03-24 08357, 2021
CatQuest off to the library
2021-03-24 08320, 2021
reosarevok
If we eventually decide to officially set some minimum requisites for autoeditorship, then we should hide the link for users that do not reach those, but right now, they don't exist - it's all community consensus
_lucifer: OK, let's just remove that check then (and make sure that the call to `db_user_relationship.delete` doesn't fail if there's no such relationship)
