User talk:Quiddity (WMF)

Jump to: navigation, search

About this board

By clicking "Add topic", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL
Kudpung (talkcontribs)

Hi Nick. I'ts a shame I wasn't able to assist at the Wikimania discussion I originally proposed and I hpe you didn't take my comments about it too personally. However, at en'Wiki we are far more advanced on the preparation for addressing these issues than the current make-up of the fOundation might realise. For one thing, Page Curationwas developed mainly at my lobbying and in direct collaboration with Erik and Brandon. Brandon had also begun work on precisely the same kind of landing page that your project at Edit Review Improvements appears to suggest, and I strongly reccommend you read his recent comment to me at because these are the local Wikipedia project discussions that the WMF is rarely aware of.

Hus a lot of thre groundwork has already been done and we will shortly be starting an RfC to introduce a very long overdue user-right for operating the suite of Page Curation tools. With this in mind, after now 4 years of its use, we realise that some essential elements were no included in the code, and which I would like the WMF devs to address. These issues do not require a community consensus as they are basically aimed at bringing the drop down options in the Curation control panel in line with the more comprehensive Twinke tool which theoretically should no longer be being used for New Page Patrol. The fundamental difference between Twinkle and Page Curation is that Twinkle is a community developed and maintained script which can be modified with very little fuss, while Page Curation being MediaWiki hard-coded requires long, and often bitter requests through Bugzilla or Phabricator and depends upon the Foundation's own perception of priorities.

I hop you will allow me to discuss these minor changes with you in detail. When you reply here, please ping me on my en'Wiki talk page. Refgards, Chris.

Quiddity (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Hi Kudpung, It was good to talk with you at Wikimania.

You requested a link to the notes from the session: I've copy&pasted them into the page at wm2016:Discussions/Quality_tools

I've re-read that /Archive_4 link, which I'd read before, but still found useful to see again. I've also looked through Article Creation Workflow/Design again, and I still agree that it contains many great ideas. I also agree with Noyster's comment that we need to improve the information that people get when they first register their account.

Generally: As we discussed earlier, it would probably be smoothest for everyone, if you and I could figure out the rough requirements, so that we can get a thumbs-up from the devs on various options, before broader discussion. That way you'll know, and be able to explain, any development complexity that might exist with the various options, before starting the wider RfC discussion.

Specifically: You mentioned at Wikimania and above, the idea of introducing a user-right for operating Page Curation. There is already a user-right required, the one named "patrol". However, that right is given to all autoconfirmed accounts (per w:en:Special:ListGroupRights - ctrl-F for "patrol"), so it does make sense to change the requirement for Page Curation wranglers, to something that is less easily & automatically obtained.

I believe it is easier for everyone concerned (from editors to admins to bcrats to devs) if we re-use an existing user-right, rather than creating a new user-right (and all the code and translations and policies and other documentation that tend to go along with a new user-right or user-group).

From a look at the existing user-rights, I'd tentatively suggest that re-using the "review" user-right, might work well. It is only currently given to the group "Reviewers" aka "Pending changes reviewers", of which there are currently 1,295 administrators and 6,629 pending changes reviewers on the English Wikipedia. Only admins can assign/remove editors from that user-group. I'll ask a dev to comment with some better ideas.

Let me know what you think of all this. (And hopefully I won't need to ping you manually, due to the magic of cross-wiki notifications and flow, doing so automatically!). Cheers.

Kudpung (talkcontribs)

Hi. Thanks for the ping (I don't know why the cross-Wiki notifications does not work for me - it seems to be frozen on 99 and I can't find a way to clear it). I'll be replying in more detail as soonas I've dug out some more background for you). Best, Chris.

Quiddity (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Update: I've struck out my suggestion, as it was flawed.

However, Matt points out that the "patrol" user-right is already given to the "Pending changes reviewers" user-group, so, if we just removed "patrol" from "auto-confirmed", that would potentially solve it in one.

Questions to answer:

  1. Are we sure about using one group for both (do we trust the same users to publish unpublished text (PendingChanges) and to just review already-published text (patrol)?
  2. Is "Pending changes reviewers" too narrow a group of people

Possible outcomes:

  1. Create a separate Patrollers group with only 'patrol'.
  2. Add more people to the Pending Changes Reviewers group (bearing in mind they can also publish unpublished pending changes).
  3. Other.
Kudpung (talkcontribs)


Stage 1  is to make some minor expansions to some of the features of the Page Curation fly-out (doesn’t require  a RfC, just the collaboration of a WMF engineer) to bring it in line with Twinkle. We do know that some users are still patrolling with Twinkle because its CSD criteria are more granular.

Stage 2 is to get a user right created for patrolling mew pages, i.e. access to the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation tool. This will also have the effect of providing feedback on who is actually patrolling pages and allow those who monitor the system to provide help to patrollers as requiredI’m suggesting 90/500 - it has to be higher than reviewer or rollback, or the 30/500 I got introduced for AfC. Grandfather only those who have patrolled at least 100 pages in the last 12 months. Deprecate the current New Page Patroller userbox. On successful adoption by the community of the user right, send a nesletter to all those who no longer automatically meet the new criteria, inviting them to reapply. User right to be requested at PERM.

Stage 3 is to  deprecate the old new page feed and stop people using Twinkle , Stiki, and Huggle tp patrol pages in an attempt to get all patrollers singing from the same page.

Stage 4 (ultimately) Merge AfC with NPP. We actually already have a community consensus for this but it was decided to wait until the requirements for NPP have been established and rolled out.


The reason why we  have the staggering number of 6,629 pending changes reviewers on the English Wikipedia is because when it was first created, the right was accorded in early 2010 by a bot based on a very low threshold of criteria - the lowest requirement of all the minor user rights on en.Wiki. In the 2009 pre-RfC poll for Pending Changes it clearly stated that there is no comparison with flagged revisions (Pending Changes) and the Patrolling of New Pages, and that in any case, NPP  does not lend itself well to being carried out by Huggle (or other mass-editing or speed-editing scripts as we now understand it).

The recommendation to admins is to grant the pending changes reviewer on a fairly liberal basis. Recent blocks or noticeboard threads should generally not be used as a reason to deny a user the right upon request. The reviewer right simply re-enables a tacit ability autoconfirmed editors possessed prior to the implementation of pending changes—the ability to approve anonymous edits. Essentially, Reviewers do not take responsibility for the correctness of edits they accept. A reviewer only ensures that the changes introduced to the article are broadly acceptable for viewing by a casual reader. the rights can only be removed by an administrator after a community discussion has taken place.

The next user-group minor right of the edit-quality-control kind  is Rollbacker which was unbundled from Admin some years ago. Accorded by admin discretion following a fairly thorough examination of the user's experience, it is never given for less than 200 mainspace edits and at such a low level of experience, graduation through the Counter Vandalism Academy is recommended.

Finally, but not a MediaWiki controlled access, is the use of the Articles for Creation helper script, a development by a volunteer. AfC is a process that permits articles to be submitted through the Article Wizard or the Draft:Namespace by users who are otherwise technically or through sanctions are not permitted to create articles immediately in mainspace. AfC reviewing is a fairly complex process and while it is theoretically still possible for anyone with a registered account to accept or decline AfC submissions, the helper script is practically essential and a sub-routine developed by a volunteer prevents the use of the script by any user not having at least 30 days tenure and 500 mainspace edits - a requirement I suggested and proposed and which was accepted by a solid consensus, and passed the scrutiny of the AfC project members.

Landing Page (Article Creation Workflow/Design):

Many years ago, not knowing that ACTRIAL was going to be ruled out by the Foundation, in anticipation of ACTRIAL I began to develop a reworked Article Wizard as part of the ACTRIAL package. The WMF had not taken into account (at that time) the full package of the trial we had  proposed and  ruled the trial out without understanding the full scope of what the  community had agreed to by an overwhelming majority on a very highly subscribed debate. As a result however, parallel to the development of Page Curation, and partly based on my ideas for an improved Article Wizard, Brandon began work on Article Creation Workflow/Design. Knowing what is required here, I would be happy to collaborate with the Foundation to get it, (or something like it) finalised; Brandon's ideas have enormous potential and could certainly be used as a starting point.

Reply to "Page Curation (New Pages Patrol)"
Summary by SamanthaNguyen

Put any further questions on Talk:Design/WikiFont

SamanthaNguyen (talkcontribs)

Thanks for telling me, I actually didn't know that. :)

Since she's not active anymore, is it okay if I request to move the GitHub repo to Git / Phabricator (along with requesting to have a Phab tag for it), or does it have to go through some other WMF designers first such as you?

SamanthaNguyen (talkcontribs)

Ah woops I apologize, I forgot about the part of putting questions on the talk page! I'll close this

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

This is a test.

Why didn't this reproduce my error?

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)


Manal allali (talkcontribs)
Polentarion (talkcontribs)

German input see ;)

Idriss baladi (talkcontribs)


Reply to "bira"
Manal allali (talkcontribs)
وسام اللطافة
je t'aime
Idriss baladi (talkcontribs)


Idriss baladi (talkcontribs)


Reply to "إليك وساما!"
Davey2010 (talkcontribs)

Hi Quiddity, Hope all's well,

The talkpage page jumped and I've ended up marking Talk:Echo (Notifications) as resolved, I think I've fixed it but I have absolutely no idea so could you check please ?,

I'm really sorry!, Thanks, ~~~~

Quiddity (WMF) (talkcontribs)

No problem! Yup, you fixed it, all is well. I'm glad you were looking at it, and feedback is welcome. :-)

Reply to "Echo"
Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

On the first day of Christmas,

Your teammate gave to thee

A complaint about pings for thee.

Quiddity (WMF) (talkcontribs)

That's phab:T72123.

Reply to "Merry Christmas"
Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

What's going on with quotations marks in Flow titles? I posted a new thread at Talk:Phabricator/Help, and the straight single quotation mark was percent-encoded upon saving. When I refreshed, it displayed correctly. Is this a known bug?

Quiddity (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Not a known bug. Please file, if you can still reproduce.

I tried to reproduce at Topic:Sv06400aub9lyi0w but all 4 types display the same after refresh, and without any percent encoding.

Reply to "What's going on?"
Nicole Sharp (talkcontribs)

Can someone transwiki the page metawikimedia:Help:Transwiki to Help:Transwiki and any other helpful pages discussing the Wikimedia transwiki protocol to the MediaWiki wiki? Thanks! Please move this post to an appropriate discussion page if necessary, I was not sure where to post it on the MediaWiki site. Nicole Sharp (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Quiddity (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I've added a softredirect to that meta page. AFAIK, a single location is preferred, so that translators don't have to do the work twice, and to prevent slow content-divergences. Also, the meta location is preferred for most wikimedia-specific documentation, whereas is for documentation that applies to all re-users of the MediaWiki software. (Though inconsistently, because there are ambiguous areas and edge-cases, plus not everyone agrees. There are various proposals/ideas for fixing (or at least improving) this situation in the long-term.)

Also, just in case, you might also be looking for M:Help:Import.


Reply to "transwiki"