Talk:Admin activity review/2013

Subpages

Let's move the messages to subpages. When ready, mark them for translation (and announce translation in the appropriate places) PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. --MF-W 03:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

now moved and linked from the page. --MF-W 21:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please revisit the wording

Is it possible to revisit the following wording in point number 2 ?

1. 1. "lazy user 1"
   2. "lazy user 2"

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is only a draft. Of course the user names will be inserted there, without any adjectives. --MF-W 13:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Clearer language

I am worried that the text of these messages may be difficult for non-native English speakers to understand, mainly due to the long sentences. (I think we cannot expect it to be translated into all languages, especially the small ones!) May I suggest the following:

Hello. A new policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, etc) has been adopted by community consensus. According to this policy, the stewards are conducting a review of administrators' activity on smaller wikis. To the best of our knowledge, your wiki does not have a formal process for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts, meaning that the stewards will handle the removal of these rights on your behalf.

We have determined that the following users meet the inactivity criteria - no edits and no log actions for 2 years:

• lazy user 1 (administrator)
• lazy user 2 (bureaucrat, administrator)

These users will shortly receive a notification asking them to seek community discussion if they want to retain some or all of their rights. If the users do not respond, they face removal by stewards.

However, if you as a community would like to create your own activity review process superseding the global one, or if you want to make any other decision about these inactive rights holders, or if you already have a policy and we just missed this, please notify the stewards on Meta so we know not to proceed with the rights review on your wiki.

Thanks, (signature).

And the other one too. This, that and the other (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Definitely. I have just worked your suggestion into the text. --MF-W 01:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Translation

We really need to get these translated ASAP, and get some kind of instructions for communities who want to retain their inactive users on SN (possibly translatable). Of course, the messages need to be completed first. Do you think they're ready? PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer one or two more users looking over them. --MF-W 01:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

My two cents

First of all, I'd like to point out that I appreciate your work on this. A few things might possibly be improved even more, so please consider:

• Moving the link to the RfC from "community consensus" to "the discussion".
• Simplifying the text (that is, making it easier to translate and understand). You could:
  • Replace "To the best of our knowledge, your wiki does not have a formal process for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts, meaning that the stewards will handle the removal of these rights per the new Admin activity review here." with "Your wiki does not appear to have a formal process for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts. This means that the stewards will take care of this with the new admin activity review." Note the change of the upper-case "Admin" into the lower-case "admin".

    Here I was thinking that "to the best of our knowledge" makes it appear nicer if we indeed have missed a local process somewhere. Otherwise, I split the sentence in two per your proposal. --MF-W 04:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Change "the inactivity criteria - no edits and no log actions for 2 years" (used in the community notification) into "the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for 2 years)" (used in the inactive right holders notification).

    so done. --MF-W 04:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Maybe replace "are conducting a review" with "are reviewing"(?).

    of course. --MF-W 04:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Changing "If the users do not respond, they face removal by stewards." into "If the users do not respond, then their advanced rights will be removed by the stewards" or something along those lines, because we'll only remove user rights, not users.

  Hehe. Done. --MF-W 04:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Changing "We stewards will evaluate the responses." into "We will evaluate the responses", because it'll probably be redundant to mention that we are stewards. I imagine these notifications will only be sent by stewards. Even better would be "The stewards will evaluate the responses", because otherwise this part of the message wouldn't match the previous sentence starting with "According to this policy, the stewards...", where we already refer to ourselves as 'the stewards'.

  I thought of saying "we stewards" for clarity that people know a steward writes to them (yes, I also imagine stewards send the notices only). But ok, maybe we should make that clear in another way (e.g. the signature). --MF-W 04:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Replacing "...notify Stewards on Meta so we know..." with "...notify the stewards at Meta-wiki, so we know..."

  Done with PiRSquared's capitalization. --MF-W 04:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Changing "If you have any question..." into "If you have any questions..."

  Done. --MF-W 04:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore:

• The sentence starting with "However..." in the first message and the sentence starting with "If we do not receive..." in the second message are quite long, difficult to translate and might also be difficult to understand for people who only know a little bit of English. I'm not sure (yet) how this could be improved.

  Maybe "structuring" with bulletpoints could help. --MF-W 04:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

English is my second language, so an extra set of eyes of a native English speaker would be useful. Kind regards, Mathonius (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If you do replace "Meta" with something else, then please use the capitalization "Meta-Wiki". PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I will look into your comments tomorrow later this day. Though you know, it's a wiki... :P --MF-W 02:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments inline. --MF-W 04:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

User:FischBot/inactive

Hello, I am a bit disappointed that you are not using my tool instead of the other skript. My skript produces well-arranged tables and creates subpages for wikis, while the other skript only produces lists without linking to the user page. --Pyfisch (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand your disappointment; I would also be a bit disappointed if I had written a script which would then not be used. However plain text lists (walls of texts :P ) fit my working style here better IMHO for editing in the list. After we are done, we should surely also think about the advantages we want to have from the script. --MF-W 01:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)