Talk:Admin activity review/2015

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Reusing some messages[edit]

Hi. I think that, with the necessary modifications, it is not necessary to draft new messages for this year and we can reuse past round ones, such as Admin activity review/2014/Notice to communities. As such, I think that those notices should not be year-specific to allow easy yearly reuse. Best regards. —MarcoAurelio 15:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the messages from 2014 are already reusable as is. --MF-W 19:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see that you're continuing this. I got a lot of complaints about the quality of the translations, and I think there were edits made to them even after the messages were posted, but I think the messages should be reusable. It may also be worth looking into using MassMessage, though it would make it harder to track down a user's primary wiki to let them know (which isn't necessarily required by the AAR policy, but a courteous thing to do). --Rschen7754 20:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754 and MF-W: I have moved the message to Admin activity review/Notice to communities. If the translations are bad, maybe we should delete them and ask translators to do them again? Regards. —MarcoAurelio 11:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It depends... some of them are probably good, where the people who complained went back and changed the text, and others were probably okay from the beginning. Of course there is the risk of getting another batch of bad ones if you delete them and start over. --Rschen7754 17:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think, given this risk, it would be better to get users to proofread the existing translations. --MF-W 15:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll send notifications to translators asking to translate missing messages and to proofread those existing ones. —MarcoAurelio 15:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First step[edit]

Here is a list of all inactive administrators who are subject to this process. Here is a list of wikis which have their own activity review processes. I would ask someone to check these lists.

After a while (eg. a week) I would like to start sending notices. Openbk (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do I understand it correctly that the Data page contains all inactive sysops now (i.e. also on wikis which might be excepted from the process acccording to the second list)? --MF-W 00:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. "Data" page contains only those administrators who may lose their rights. I did not put there administrators of special wiki or wikis which have review processes. The second list is the same as this and is intended to help creating databases in the future. However, both lists may contain some errors. Therefore, someone should check them again. Openbk (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to communities and to inactive right holders needs review[edit]

Hi. Do you like the wording of both notices? Before sending notifications to the translators to update or translate the message it'd be good to review the english one. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 11:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both are fine by me. ;) RadiX 13:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Is there anyone else here?--Eks-istifadəçi (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post mortem[edit]

I'll finish AAR15 shortly. For next year, I invite you to leave your feedback at Admin activity review/2015/Post-mortem. Thank you. —MarcoAurelio 17:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]