User talk:MusikAnimal (WMF)

Hello!

This is exciting! I hope you'll still have time to sync Twinkle occasionally :) — This, that and the other (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@This, that and the other: Hehe thanks! I will definitely still dedicate time to Twinkle. I know there's a few issues up assigned to me... still waiting on a laptop to arrive so I can finally get back to programming! :) MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter manager rights

Hi, I see you still have edit filter manager rights, as granted to you as WMF staff by @Jalexander-WMF: mid June and amended by @Xaosflux: at the start of July. As phab:T29987 was marked as resolved in mid August, and the rights were granted on the basis of "ENWP only and only until no longer needed to resolve the task", is this an oversight or do you still need these rights? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for it to be removed when I got temporary sysadmin rights, guess that didn't happen :) I've emailed James. Thank you MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is now removed :) Jalexander--WMF 20:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you coming to Berlin?

Hi

Are you coming to Berlin? I owe you a beer

--John Cummings (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers

I noticed Usernamekiran's edit where, in the edit summary, he makes the point that "this is not a competition. The stats are for the purpose of analysis, not for finding the topper." It's a point I'd have to agree with. After a certain point my ability to patrol accurately starts to diminish, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

It might be less incitement to competitiveness if the title were more anodyne than "Top new article reviewers", perhaps "New article review activity" or some other wording. Just my 2¢.

It's a blinding improvement on the previous report. Thanks for producing it. Cabayi (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree on that with Cabayi. Even though a negligible number, there are some editors who see it as a competition, well at least subconsciously. And most of the editors recently given the flag, act in such way too. They get to see this link in the sort of landing page; and then they try to attempt to get entry in the list of day, and week's category. It is a good thing if this serves as a motivation, but too much of anything is never good. Personally, I cant review more than 25-30 articles in one go with accuracy/quality. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi and Usernamekiran: Yeah, this is why we chose not to expose the Page Curation stats except through the API. Then people complained and wanted an actual list, so I created the bot task. I do like your suggestion, except it's not very specific... I would expect "New article review activity" to convey more than just the top reviewers. In my opinion the leaderboard sounds more like a bad thing than it really is. Both WikiProject AfC and WikiProject GA for instance have thrown competitions to tackle a backlog, and from what I can tell they were mostly a success. There were some bad apples but just like with new page reviewing, we have people "reviewing the reviewers". I'm happy to rename the report but I don't think "New article review activity" will do. Maybe "New article reviewer activity"? Perhaps just getting rid of the word "Top" would help. Let's run it by some more people and see what everyone thinks. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yup, "New article review activity" is vague. Editors will expect to see a lot of stuff on a page with that title. "New article reviewer activity" feels better. Kindly ping me whenever-wherever the discussion regarding this takes place. I think user Cabayi will be interested as well. Thanks. :)

—usernamekiran(talk) 00:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:MusikAnimal (WMF)/NPP analysis

Have you spoken to Danny already and suggested that these stats (or at least the scripts you used to create them) are probably already most of what we need to monitor ACTRIAL? 09:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs)

They only measure survival rates, not editor retention or survival of content by individual edits to existing articles. We have a research specialist on board who is going to do the more tricky analysis. I'm not 100% in the loop, though. I think Danny is still commenting in other venues, feel free to ask more there. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#List of previous creators of an article

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#List of previous creators of an article. Winged Blades^Godric 11:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Undo on mobile

Greetings. Many users read and edit Wikipedia via mobile these days. While reading experience using the mobile interface is satisfactory, editing is not. One of the reasons is that the mobile version doesn't have any kind of revert option (aka Undo feature). This causes problems for many vandal fighters as well as normal editors who can't use computer due to some circumstances (while traveling, being out of the town etc). Also some of us prefer smartphones. We sought for undo feature in mobile. Some of us even went ahead and created phabricator tasks. For example, phab:T87609, and phab:T191706. But nothing has changed. An editor created this script which adds undo button on mobile website. I've proposed to make this script a gadget on English Wikipedia at WP:VPT#Undo_script and I've explained all of it's features there. But seeing none of the wikis has undo feature, I thought of nominating it to make it global gadget and asked for advice on [1]. One of the WikiMedia staffs advised me to create a phabricator task to make it a part of Mediawiki software as gadgets don't work on mobile devices. I didn't create a phabricator task because I thought it would be a duplicate of existing task so instead I commented on a open task. If we can't make it a part of the Mediawiki software, I think we can import this script to Mediawiki:mobile.js or Mediawiki:minerva.js to execute this script locally. My purpose for reaching out to you today is because you work as a software engineer for WikiMedia foundation. I hope you will respond to this message positively. Sincerely, Masum Reza^📞 on behalf of all mobile users. 14:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masumrezarock100. I couldn't agree more that mobile is sub-par for patrollers! As far as I know mobile improvements are on the radar for this year, see mw:Mobile contribution research. Global gadgets aren't really a thing, for starters, and indeed gadgets aren't loaded on mobile anyway. If you wanted to get the script into MediaWiki, you'd need to include it as part of the mw:Skin:Minerva Neue codebase. I think your proposal to get it into MediaWiki:Minerva.js is the best approach in the short-term. However I see many problems with the script as written, such as lack of localization, manually constructing the markup (it should instead use OOUI widgets), and the message that tells the user to "drop a note at User talk:FR30799386". This doesn't seem production-ready, in my opinion. Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]