Thank you kindly @RLazarus! Much appreciated :) @Urbanecm also thank you for that note! Will take it onboard.

In T241781#5783368, @Krenair wrote:

This task is about whether people keep access to private security tasks, anyone can have an open Phabricator account without any activity requirement.

Happy with a badge, or whatever other way you see fit for the purpose of easy identification. Whatever works, basically.

I would kindly ask that T&S team members (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trust_and_Safety/Team) get to keep their Phab accounts active, as a rule of thumb. We may rarely contribute through this platform, however the nature of our work sometimes requires us to review activity here that may be breaching behavioural norms. That is not to say that we step over the CoC for Tech spaces committee's toes, rather we like to work with them if needed, so having access can go a long way towards that end. Accordingly, I would like to keep my account (@Kalliope). I would also like to communicate Maggie's request that hers (@Mdennis-WMF) be kept too, for similar reasons. She's not T&S staff but does oversee the team's work more broadly, as the VP of Support & Services.

It's worked great. Thank you for your help!!

Unfortunately when I did the set up I opted for "no password" but then the system wouldn't let me in. So, i had to overwrite it and create a new one. Sorry about that! Here is the new ssh key, so you can set up a new thing for me. My apologies!!

ssh-rsa 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 ktsouroupidou@ktsouroupidouwmf1632

That's great! Thank you, dbarratt.

I have a quick question that probably is due to the fact that I'm not familiar with the tech side of this tool, but here it goes anyway: does the tool list 'all edits' between two users on the same pages? By that I mean, does it show only visible edits, or does it also show edits that have been reverted, rev-del'd or oversighted?

In T189237#4054716, @dmaza wrote:

Allow users to only see edits in the same sections on talk pages

Hard, due to the volume of the table and that sections are not structured data

In T165073#3260871, @Johan wrote:

(With that said, a third category is when you put up something for translation and end up with twenty languages and get Latin, two variations of Portuguese, two variations of Norwegian, but not German or Japanese, and on the last day start looking around for someone to translate the most important languages, in terms of numbers of speakers/Wikimedians, or number of speakers/Wikimedians who don't understand English.)

Countless +1 on what Johan said about planning time in for translation. I too am more keen on working on the problem rather than deal with the symptom.
Also "within the day" is not really feasible if people on the task force are on wildly different timezones.

@egalvezwmf Yes, the first message is for the initial outreach to testers, while the second is intended as a response to people who reply positively to our call for help, granting this access to the survey.

Edward, what is the second message for? Is it for a different testing audience altogether, or is it a follow-up message to be sent to the same testing audience as the first message but a week later as a reminder? Or, is it the message to go to those from the testing audience who get back to us, saying "sure, I'm happy to review those questions for you". I suspect it's the later and have started a draft on the same Google doc (because. we have enough Gdocs as it is). But, let me know either way, please.

You may want to build in some time for legal review of those texts before they are ready to go out for translation.

I second placing the questions on Officewiki, once the first review is completed. It will make sense to also include the side information for the questions (Team goal, survey goal, question goal) for added context.

@egalvezwmf I have added Safety and Support Group as a collaborator to the survey and have activated the later. But I still seem to be missing something, as the system asks me to add a panel (I expected that I'd see one there already).

Hey Neil,

@Neil
This is fantastic, thank you so much!!
Since our email is not an invitation to become active in the projects again, rather tell us if they left because of harassment, I'm inclined to keep those vanished users in our list and contact them anyway.

Have a chat with Edward Galvez, for a Qualtrics account. He can set it up for you.

@Neil
,
You can start with the highest edit counts and go downward.
I don't see why it should not be possible for you to upload them into Qualtrics yourself. Assuming you have an account there, I can share our survey with you, so that you can perform the action.

Hey Neil,

Ok, can we start with en.wp, to get an idea for numbers, as it's the largest project anyway?
We have no set number cap in mind, as we have no idea what those may be in the first place. If the number is massive *like 10,000 users then we probably want to set some limit. But if it's more like a few hundreds, we may use all. Does that make sense?

Ok, let's give it a go for each Wiki separately then. The interest is technically on all Wikis. So... all 16 of them... :/
I am hoping that we can then somehow cross reference this data to identify which of those users have been inactive across all Wikis...