Jump to content

User talk:Martin Urbanec (WMF)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Martin Urbanec (WMF), and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 02:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:"boostabrain"

[edit]

Can you please explain why you have assigned a mentor to the editor? I indefinitly blocked this account in March, 2022. Cullen328 (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that you have assigned a mentor to User:Grs24web, an account that I blocked over two years ago. These are spammers who contributed nothing of value to the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have done the same thing with User:BarehamOliver, a checkuser blocked sockpuppet. Can you please clarify your thinking? Cullen328 (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now, User:Hoctienghoaonlinezhongruan, another spammer that I blocked almost two years ago. Cullen328 (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And now it is User:Economic affairs research, another self-promotional account that I blocked in December, 2021. Cullen328 (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now you have done the same with User:Lugunts, a hardblocked impersonating troll. Cullen328 (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Cullen328, thank you for your message. Apologies for taking a couple of hours to reply – those log entries were done by a server-side maintenance script, which was running during my night. I've now stopped it, to support this discussion.
All of my recent mentor reassignments were done as part of the Growth team's efforts to clear mentorship assignments on all Wikipedias, to ensure that only currently enrolled mentors (see the list at Special:ManageMentors) are assigned as a mentor to any user.
Since the Growth features were first deployed on the English Wikipedia, a mentor gets assigned to each newly created account. Unfortunately, user intention cannot be really determined at the sign up time. For this reason, a mentor is assigned to every newcomer.
The mentor is randomly assigned from a list of mentors (see Special:ManageMentors). For quite some time, the list of mentors was a regular wikipage (see the history of Wikipedia:Growth Team features/Mentor list). This had several disadvantages; for example, when a mentor decided to retire, they simply removed themselves from the wikipage. While this ensured they no longer received any new users to mentor, they were still assigned to all newcomers who registered while they were listed as a mentor.
From time to time, such former mentors continued to receive questions from their legacy mentees even after they retired. Sometimes, those questions were asked months/years after the mentor has retired. Based on community feedback, we decided to fix this problem (and some other ones) by introducing a structured mentor list. This means that a list of mentors now lives in the MediaWiki namespace, and can be only edited via forms maintained by the Growth team, such as the Mentor dashboard or the Manage mentors interface (for administrators).
The Structured mentor list enabled the Growth team to automatically reassign mentees who were assigned to a retiring mentor (those reasssignments are logged at Special:Log/growthexperiments under the retired mentor's name). Unfortunately, even though the issue I described above can no longer happen for any newly-retired mentor, it is still a problem for mentors who retired before Structured mentor list's introduction.
By those reassignments, we're trying to do a final clean-up of the mentorship assignments, to ensure that only currently active mentors serve in that role. I realize that doing this reassignment for permanently blocked users might not be important, since they can't edit (let alone ask questions to a mentor). However, since blocks are liftable, I personally believe it makes sense to do the reassignment for all user accounts, regardless of their blocked status.
More details about this reassignment project can be found in Wikimedia Phabricator at phab:T330071, or in the Tech News, where the intention was announced. If you have any specific questions, please do not hesitate to ask me directly, at Growth team's talk page or by reaching out to @Trizek (WMF), the Growth team's community relations specialist.
Sincerely,
Martin Urbanec (WMF) (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer is completely unacceptable, Martin Urbanec (WMF). You are actively engaging with spammers, trolls and vandals as if they were productive contributors. Please do not post multi-paragraph evasive bafflegab replies that blow off my concerns under the "authority" of the WMF. That just enrages hard working, unpaid volunteers. Instead, explain why these indefinitely blocked editors deserve positive, friendly support from paid WMF staff wasting their time with baloney, and why unpaid volunteer editors and and administators deserve to be poked in the eye with a sharp stick, while you are cashing your generous paycheck? Cullen328 (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328, don't forget about WP:AGF. You have the right to be angry, but this right doesn't allow you to post messages like the one you wrote. We will listen at your comments, but only in a constructive manner.
Clearly, indefinite blocked users shouldn't get a new mentor, it wasn't the initial intent at all. We are working on improving the script.
Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Cullen328 is assuming good faith (he hasn't accused you of doing this maliciously) and while he's obviously annoyed and could do with toning down the rhetoric somewhat, he does make a reasonable point and I think the best way of handling that to that is to find the underlying concerns and respond to those. As you say, indefinitely blocked editors shouldn't be getting assigned mentors, and the script is being fixed to resolve this, so that should resolve anyone's concerns. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333, we both agree on the annoyance.
We are very sorry about it. We are investigating what happened, and we will fix it.
However, we have to make a difference the problems caused by the maintenance script (totally our fault, I'm not undermining our responsibilities there) from how Cullen328 reacted to this problem.
Martin stopped the script, started investigating the issue and provided a context. Cullen328 reacted to the latter, assuming that Martin wasn't taking his job seriously. Anyone can read it above. This is clearly not a way to assume Martin's good faith.
Some other users were able to contact us to report the problem, along with the fact it was disturbing and annoying, in a very civil way. Unfortunately, Cullen328 was the only one using the tone he used, which is unpleasant for everyone.
Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately I wasn't affected by this issue, however why are WMF staff operating (untested) maintenance scripts from their accounts when there is User:Maintenance script to do it. I am reiterating Cullen328's comment as you could easily make a discussion at the village pump or similar which would allow for community discussion. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 12:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, let me see. The WMF has taken over a voluntary, ad hoc community function and automated it. So now, rather than new editors asking for help, including requesting to be mentored if that's the way they like to learn, the WMF assigns them a mentor automatically. That's likely to be taken as condescension or worse by some new editors; not all of our new editors are either young or seeking to socialize. (I'm reminded of the instructional videos, which assume all new editors love videos and give the impression citation templates are mandatory; I've had to try to soothe new editors who were terrified by those templates, and the videos are a big accessibility fail. Choice is better!) And the disadvantages of the automation include the random assignments rather than people seeking out mentors based on seeing them around or looking at their user pages, and the fact it's yet another script designed by a team who didn't forsee the effects. I don't see the advantage of this imposed one-size-fits-all, and I do think Cullen has grounds for annoyance when editors he's indeffed are being assigned mentors, requiring him as a conscientious admin to research why he blocked them. That's aside from the point he made with rather a large dose of vinegar: this carelessness makes work for us unpaid volunteers, and yes, through carelessness, for the benefit of indef-blocked users. I appreciate that sometimes a mentee will not realize their mentor has retired or even died, and will post on their talk page asking for help. But we've been dealing with such community issues as a community for as long as we've had talk pages. Talk page watchers come by and assist. Was the mentor system in any way broken? I suspect not. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yngvadottir In my understanding (and maybe Trizek can expand on this) is that the task was specifically that the GrowthExtension was incorrectly assigning people who are former mentors to new users to be mentored. The script in question merely reassigned the users who were incorrectly assigned these former mentors to new active mentors. Sohom (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, assigning a mentor to blocked users wasn't supposed to happen, it is an unfortunate glitch we are investigating.
@Zippybonzo, using User:Maintenance script was an option. By using his user account, Martin gave the possibility to users to ask for questions. It is the case in a section below. And, by using his account, Martin was informed of the problem as well.
Regarding the community discussion, not all moves require a discussion. As already said, this maintenance process was announced in the Tech News, like many other are each week. This time, for once, something went wrong. We are really sorry for the inconvenience.
@Yngvadottir, the structured mentorship is an option offered to newcomers. It is live at English Wikipedia since May 2021 and Cullen is one of the active mentors. I understand Cullen's annoyance, as he is an active mentor doing a good job.
You seem to refer to WP:ADOPT, where newcomers ask for a mentor thought a complex process that can sometimes require wikitext. I check on the list of users requesting adoption, and I found requests from 2019 that aren't yet addressed. The "new" system was partially created to address the lack of success of older mentorship programs.
Assigning a mentor to every newcomers is not a random choice. Not everyone knows where to start when they arrive at Wikipedia. I checked at Cullen's talk page, where newcomers who have him as a mentor benefit from his advice and experience. I randomly selected a few users, to check what was their first edit ([1][2][3][4][5]). For the majority, with no surprise, it is a question to their mentor.
Being my self a mentor on my volunteer time (at French Wikipedia) I see similar patterns: users making their first edit as a question to me: "how can I do this?", "how is Wikipedia working?" and so on. I also see newcomers coming to me with questions after a few edits, when they face a difficulty, or when they look for some advice. I also see newcomers who never contact me, because they don't need to. And they can opt-out mentorship.
@Sohom Datta, the script was to reassigned mentors to accounts what had a mentor in the past. We moved from various unstructured list of mentors to a structured one, but some users were left aside. We will resume the work at some point, including the feedback we get.
Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the script's action should not say that the former mentor has retired, given that sometimes that's not exactly the case (Nosebagbear). Rephrasing to say that Nosebagbear is no longer a mentor would probably be more appropriate (and accurate). Hey man im josh (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would second that, the wording of the action should definitely be updated. Sohom (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is for the log message. Would the current wording visible in your watchlist be better?
"‎($oldmentor retired from mentorship.)"
Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about "(Automated reassignment of mentees since $oldmentor is no longer a mentor)" maybe ? @Hey man im josh What do you think? Sohom (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something like that is fine by me. I'm not particular on the phrasing, just so long as it's generic and reflects that a user didn't necessarily retire. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh @Sohom Datta, thank you for the suggestion. It is now documented. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the ANI discussion and it made me wonder about a few potential issues going forward, if I've understood correctly, so I hope you don't mind my asking: Will all mentees be assigned a new mentor every time their existing mentor retires from being a mentor or retires from WP or ceases contributing for an extended period or dies or ...? Won't this mean that, when this process occurs, the current mentors will be assigned a bunch of new mentees, some of whom may have themselves left WP, or become regular contributors not needing mentoring, or whatever? Then when those mentors retire, the process repeats so that, over time, the number of inactive mentees being reassigned grows ever-larger? What is the benefit for the encyclopaedia, the volunteer editors / admins / mentors, or the WMF in moving an account that is created tomorrow, makes one edit, and then disappears through many different mentors over the next 20+ years? I understand the benefit for someone who may need a new mentor but it appears to me that the related signal is going to be buried in noise that will continue to increase indefinitely... Am I misunderstanding? Because , if I'm not, it appears that future consequences could use further careful consideration. Thanks, 172.195.96.244 (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the question, it is a good one!
All mentees are assigned to a new mentor if the mentor quits (or leaves). And yes, some of the reassigned mentees might never return, or, sometimes, have never edited. Based on our observations, in the short term, you get one active account for 200 inactive accounts. on the long term, the number of inactive accounts increases, as active users don't return (for too many reasons).
Mentors can have a look at their mentees' edits, and reply to their questions. The ones who aren't active are invisible as they have zero edits and they made zero actions.
But as we have cases of newcomers who come every year for a few edit, or cases where they start using their accounts months (if not years) after they created it. Hence, we can leave them with no mentor.
This is why the Growth team took the decision to assigne a mentor to any account. This has virtually no cost. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reassignment request

[edit]

Hiya I just saw "GrowthExperiments log b 05:16 Martin Urbanec (WMF) talk contribs set Bookku as the mentor of JulietJulietJuliet (previous mentor Isabelle Belato) ‎(Isabelle Belato retired from mentorship.)" in my watchlist - would it be possible to reassign me as the mentor of JulietJulietJuliet since I've already had some fruitful communications with them? Hopefully that would be OK with @Bookku: as well, cheers Mujinga (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Idk what are updated process, in any case I have no issues with reassignments as and when needed. Bookku (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bookku! Mujinga (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah nevermind I now see I can do that myself with "claim mentee" - and have done it. Although I wouldn't have wanted to do that before without making sure that Bookku was ok with it, so actually this worked out. Cheers to both Mujinga (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga, you can claim a user using either Special:MentorDashboard or Special:ClaimMentee. Hope this helps! :) Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martin_Urbanec_(WMF)&oldid=1185244140"