Jump to content

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-04/Removing inactive editors from user-proficiency categories

Add links
From Wiktionary, the free dictionary

Removing inactive editors from user-proficiency categories

[edit]
Voting on

Empowering a bot to be run, tasked with adding an |inactive=yes parameter to the {{Babel}} transclusion of every user who has not edited this project within the preceding two years (past 730–731 days) of a given bot run. This parameter shall function by moving a given user to a user-proficiency category that differs from the main category by an appended (inactive) (for example, moving that user from Category:User en-N to Category:User en-N (inactive)). That same bot shall, by the removal of that |inactive=yes parameter, move any user who becomes active again from those inactive users’ categories back to the active users’ categories.

Rationale

The bottom-level categories within Category:User coders, Category:User languages, and Category:User scripts are populated in no small part by the user pages of very many users who are now inactive or who have never been active. The first sentence of Wiktionary:Babel reads: “User language templates aid multilingual communication by making it easier to contact someone who speaks a certain language.” Since it would be pointless to contact someone who, it might be assumed, would never read a message of contact, having those inactive users in those user-proficiency categories undermines those categories’ purpose.

Schedule
Discussion

Support

[edit]
  1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems 2 years (as proposed) is the general consensus in the BP discussion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support for 2 years. — Kleio (t · c) 18:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Seems exceedingly unimportant, but if someone wants to spend their time running this bot, it's fine by me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support SemperBlotto (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, though I would say even one year of inactivity is enough time for marking users as inactive. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per Μετάknowledge. --Droigheann (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I feel like babels aren't really the best way to organize things anyway, but I can't really find a reason to oppose this. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support — Eru·tuon 02:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I agree with Wikitiki that it would be better for the vote not to spell out the mechanism, but I doubt any of us would be so picky as to e.g. revert a human user doing the same thing that the vote calls for a bot to do. - -sche (discuss) 18:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose due to the wording of this vote. The policy should not need to mention how the users would be removed from the category, meaning the mention of bots and bot runs and of specific template parameters is extraneous. --WikiTiki89 18:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikitiki89: Fair point. If this vote fails, I'll trim down the proposal for next time. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

[edit]
  1. Abstain I don't think it worth the time to develop nor the system resources to run. --Victar (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Victar: What system resources do you mean? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he's referring to the bots. --WikiTiki89 14:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. --Victar (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As is pointed out sometimes in votes about bot tasks, the bot developer should decide what is worth their time.
    I don't have actual numbers, but the system requirements for this task sound negligible. For comparison, adding "inactive=yes" in a few dozens of user pages should take far less processor power than updating interwikis and translation tables regularly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would think that the resources required would be pretty tiny. The only non-negligible resource used is the bot-runner's time. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain Looks okay; I don't seem to care either way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-04/Removing_inactive_editors_from_user-proficiency_categories&oldid=43471637"