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

Is the Babel template really the place to put "inactive" status? We've been debating other inactive things, like removing admin rights, so perhaps inactivity status should be stored in a more general way. Equinox ◑ 18:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It never even occurred to me that that might be a possibility. Such a thing would be very efficient and preferable to my method, I agree. But is it possible? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought perhaps the bot could just add an inactive=yes template to the user page, or some such thing. I don't know much about what's possible, and whether language proficiency templates could then pick that up and react to it. Equinox ◑ 19:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Can it be stored in a more general way that can be queried by templates? --WikiTiki89 20:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The great white hope is that templates and/or modules might be able to query Special:Contributions directly. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Criterion for renewed activity
What should the criterion for renewed activity be (that is, the point at which the bot will mark you as active again)? One edit after more than two years of inactivity, or several edits, or several edits including on talk pages, or something else? — Eru·tuon 02:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the idea is any edit at all that shows they still have access to their account and might respond to questions. --WikiTiki89 12:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * What Wikitiki89 said is what I had in mind, but I’d be open to suggestions of higher thresholds. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really know. I can think of hypothetical problems. Maybe editing only once after two years would indicate someone wouldn't want to be contacted, or they wouldn't respond. Perhaps they would be out-of-date on Lua or template coding after more than two years. I suppose the criterion can be adjusted if any of these hypothetical concerns prove to be real. — Eru·tuon 23:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. I, for one, am not attached to that threshold; it just seems to be the easiest one to accomplish technically. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

"Inactive" categories
What about, instead of removing the users from any category, moving them to an "inactive" category: from Category:User template coder &rarr; Category:User template coder/inactive, for instance? Not sure what purpose this would serve, aside from indicating how many inactive users have been proficient at this or that. — Eru·tuon 23:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is what is proposed by “This parameter [yes] shall function by moving a given user to a user-proficiency category that differs from the main category by an appended  (for example, moving that user from Category:User en-N to Category:User en-N (inactive)).” — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I failed to read the description of the vote closely enough. — Eru·tuon 22:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

"Inactive" is not the same as "unavailable"
That users are not actively editing does not mean they can't be contacted or that they'd be disinclined to help upon request. There are those, like me, who can be directly emailed, and there are those who've set their notification preferences to "email".

Are there any data on which percentage of the inactive accounts can indeed not be contacted, or decline upon request? So far, this proposal relies on an assumption.

Also, what about having a bot simply asking the users whether the "inactive" categorization would be appropriate? If no answer is given, the flag is appropriate, otherwise it should be up to the individual account, right? Paradoctor (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The proportion of users who would respond quickly despite not having edited in years is probably rather small. If someone notices that they have been declared "inactive" although they still check the site without editing, they can remove themselves from the "inactive" category by making an edit doing just that. - -sche (discuss) 23:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "probably" Probable according to what statistical model? I've seen too many claims like that fail to take any of them at face value, I'm afraid.
 * "they can remove themselves" Certainly. But why be rude, when there's a polite option taking the exact same amount of work? We rely on volunteers, after all. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)