This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Page Curation/2023 Moderator Tools project page. |
|
In the past (on Phab), I have requested stats on how many (a)CSDs have been rejected by admins, and (b)were sent to AfD, and passed as keep, redirect, merge or delete or (c) kept and actually deleted at a later date. Redirects are neither cheap nor the answer for eliminating issues because redirects get deleted, and the redirected article ends up in namespace again. Another stat that may prove useful is the number of unsourced articles and stubs in the WP corpus of articles with creation dates and tags that are at least 3 years old still sitting in namespace with no improvement.
I'm of the mind that NPP reviewers who meet certain qualifications, such as DYK/GA/FA promotions under their belt, attended NPP school and passed the course, and did good reviewing work for at least 3 months (the initial trial period after graduation) should be given more tools to work with, some of which are in the admin bundle. To make the unbundling of certain admin tools more acceptable, we could establish a NPP notification system that lists CSD/Prod decisions by reviewers, and requires review/approval of the action by at least 2 other NPP graduates/teachers. That way, we are dealing only with editors who know the system well, do the BEFORE properly, and are less likely to create an unnecessary time sink or mistake (and will also help keep the backlogs at bay).
The tools I have in mind to make the reviewing experience more efficient (while also eliminating some of the frustration for reviewers and at the same time, lightening the load for admins) include:
I believe this will help to eliminate many of the issues we deal with on a daily basis, and may even cut down on UPE, and possibly even WP:POV creep relative to contentious topics. Atsme 💬 📧 18:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Comments: @ Atsme For the WTL you do not need an NPP right. I had access before I was a NPP member and I am pretty sure any active NPP member will be granted access with a founded argument. But I believe not many NPP members will feel the need for the WTL, as what can be found in the WTL can likely be found on google as well. So access could be granted only to the ones who apply. But I understand your suggestion for some sort of automation. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 19:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
500+ edits, 6+ months editing, 10+ edits in the last month, No active blockspractically IMHO would apply to any active WP:NPPer. Note that NPP has a criteria of 500 edits in the mainspace as well and no blocks in past 6 months, which is more stringent. Of the 500 here (listed by username alphabetical order), 496 are extended confirmed (of the remaining four two are bots) and all have 6+ months editing (first one checked per my command F search for extended confirmed, 2nd one per my check if there are any post July 2022 accounts). So only 2 out of 500 checked are not eligible for TWL. There are lots of suggestions and improvements needed at WT:TWL including some subscriptions that are not working, but practically all NPPs are eligible. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for these udpates.
Re: the idea of unbundling: the specific point that deletion/undeletion and viewing deleted revisions pages should be accessible to many more people than blocking/unblocking users, seems worth a general RfC. That is relevant to NPP and matches how much more reversible a deletion is. –
SJ
+
00:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The potential harm of looking at deleted content with WP:HARASSMENT is difficult to monitor in general, so while I couldn’t care less about a user looking at REVDELETED copyright content, this gives me pause. A stricter criteria would be in order than merely a successful NPP graduation. Does the candidate meet WP:ADMINCONDUCT like conduct is what I’d look for in supporting such access. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi all. Although our work on PageTriage isn't going to be getting underway for a little while yet, we are beginning some groundwork. One piece of that is making sure that I understand the NPP process. To that end I'd like to meet with a few folks to ask some questions and to record a screenshare of you patrolling articles. This will give me a chance to learn what it's like patrolling articles on enwiki today using PageTriage, start to see what the pain points are, and ensure that I'm not misrepresenting the process. Although I've done patrolling work myself and have read most of the help and process pages, nothing compares to sitting down and watching someone else edit!
I already asked on the NPP Discord and have a few calls lined up, but I wanted to post here too to see if I can meet with a few more patrollers. If you're interested in joining me for a 30-60 minute call please let me know - I have a release form you'd need to sign if you're happy with screen recording via Google Meet. Alternatively, if you're not comfortable meeting 'face-to-face', as it were, your own screen recordings uploaded to Commons would also be very valuable to watch. Let me know if you have any questions! Samwalton9 (WMF) ( talk) 11:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
In terms of PageTriage, we found that patrollers generally didn’t run into significant issues using the extension. During our interviews no patrollers encountered flow-breaking bugs
Just a quick note so you know the back story: at the time we wrote the
open letter, PageTriage had a bunch of super annoying bugs that were driving patrollers to use Twinkle for everything except the "mark as reviewed" button. Early on we envisioned WMF fixing these bugs, but volunteers such as myself and
MPGuy2824 ended up stepping up ourselves and fixing them. They included the
prod bug, a
couple of
AFD bugs, and some others. I am happy that these are fixed, since they clear the way for other work. But they were a huge part of our motivation for writing the open letter at the time. I guess I'm writing this so you guys don't feel bamboozled about the software not being very buggy right now. Hope this helps. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
16:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Folks from the Moderator Tools team (Sam?) may want to add themselves as watchers and/or members to the PageTriage group on Phab. For now I am just adding Sam to various tickets I think might be relevant to this project. If folks become watchers, they'd see these tickets automatically. If not, no worries. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 16:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Given that the discussion of the results includes significant discussion of the difficulties in identifying reliable sources, it may be worth noting that we do have WP:NPPSG as a somewhat obscure resource to log the history of Wikipedia discussions about the reliability of specific sources. I've been the main editor maintaining the page--in distinction from WP:RSP, which is used primarily to head off repetitive and redundant discussions about high profile sources, NPPSG is focused on providing a starting point for discussion based on the community's last recorded position on a source, and is focused on whether a source's coverage can demonstrate notability. signed, Rosguill talk 17:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I've just posted an update now that our work is underway in earnest. Please let me know if you have any thoughts or questions! Samwalton9 (WMF) ( talk) 14:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Makes sense and thank you! Even if people strongly dislike the design, standardizing it with MediaWiki makes sense visually but also from technical pov. While refactoring it will be worthwhile to check what bugs are accidentally solved/versus newly created bugs if we’re not emphasizing adding test coverage (I agree doing it twice doesn’t make sense perse). ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
As part of our project to improve the technical state of PageTriage, our team has been hard at work upgrading the code that powers PageTriage. Rather than replace the current experience straight away, we've set up a testing venue to gather feedback and squash bugs first.
Per the update I just posted, please use this link to test out a new version of NewPagesFeed! The goal is that although the UI has changed a little, the experience of using the new feed should not be substantially different - full details can be found in the linked update. Bugs and feedback can be reported in this thread or on Phabricator. Thanks for your help with this! Samwalton9 (WMF) ( talk) 11:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised that the new new pages feed is still completely unusable on mobile. Shouldn't that have been one of the benefits of switching to Codex? – Joe ( talk) 06:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
A quick heads up that the default NewPagesFeed interface will change from the old version to the new one tomorrow (Thursday 19th October). We've done a lot of testing and the only change should be some minor spacing/styling differences. That said, if you run into any issues please let me know or
file a task on Phabricator, and you can access the old version of the UI at Special:NewPagesFeed?pagetriage_ui=old
. We'll give it a few weeks and then remove the old interface if all seems well.
Samwalton9 (WMF) (
talk)
11:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ Samwalton9 (WMF), PageTriage can now support wikis other than English Wikipedia? ( Example) — MdsShakil ( talk) 11:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Page Curation/2023 Moderator Tools project page. |
|
In the past (on Phab), I have requested stats on how many (a)CSDs have been rejected by admins, and (b)were sent to AfD, and passed as keep, redirect, merge or delete or (c) kept and actually deleted at a later date. Redirects are neither cheap nor the answer for eliminating issues because redirects get deleted, and the redirected article ends up in namespace again. Another stat that may prove useful is the number of unsourced articles and stubs in the WP corpus of articles with creation dates and tags that are at least 3 years old still sitting in namespace with no improvement.
I'm of the mind that NPP reviewers who meet certain qualifications, such as DYK/GA/FA promotions under their belt, attended NPP school and passed the course, and did good reviewing work for at least 3 months (the initial trial period after graduation) should be given more tools to work with, some of which are in the admin bundle. To make the unbundling of certain admin tools more acceptable, we could establish a NPP notification system that lists CSD/Prod decisions by reviewers, and requires review/approval of the action by at least 2 other NPP graduates/teachers. That way, we are dealing only with editors who know the system well, do the BEFORE properly, and are less likely to create an unnecessary time sink or mistake (and will also help keep the backlogs at bay).
The tools I have in mind to make the reviewing experience more efficient (while also eliminating some of the frustration for reviewers and at the same time, lightening the load for admins) include:
I believe this will help to eliminate many of the issues we deal with on a daily basis, and may even cut down on UPE, and possibly even WP:POV creep relative to contentious topics. Atsme 💬 📧 18:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Comments: @ Atsme For the WTL you do not need an NPP right. I had access before I was a NPP member and I am pretty sure any active NPP member will be granted access with a founded argument. But I believe not many NPP members will feel the need for the WTL, as what can be found in the WTL can likely be found on google as well. So access could be granted only to the ones who apply. But I understand your suggestion for some sort of automation. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 19:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
500+ edits, 6+ months editing, 10+ edits in the last month, No active blockspractically IMHO would apply to any active WP:NPPer. Note that NPP has a criteria of 500 edits in the mainspace as well and no blocks in past 6 months, which is more stringent. Of the 500 here (listed by username alphabetical order), 496 are extended confirmed (of the remaining four two are bots) and all have 6+ months editing (first one checked per my command F search for extended confirmed, 2nd one per my check if there are any post July 2022 accounts). So only 2 out of 500 checked are not eligible for TWL. There are lots of suggestions and improvements needed at WT:TWL including some subscriptions that are not working, but practically all NPPs are eligible. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for these udpates.
Re: the idea of unbundling: the specific point that deletion/undeletion and viewing deleted revisions pages should be accessible to many more people than blocking/unblocking users, seems worth a general RfC. That is relevant to NPP and matches how much more reversible a deletion is. –
SJ
+
00:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The potential harm of looking at deleted content with WP:HARASSMENT is difficult to monitor in general, so while I couldn’t care less about a user looking at REVDELETED copyright content, this gives me pause. A stricter criteria would be in order than merely a successful NPP graduation. Does the candidate meet WP:ADMINCONDUCT like conduct is what I’d look for in supporting such access. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi all. Although our work on PageTriage isn't going to be getting underway for a little while yet, we are beginning some groundwork. One piece of that is making sure that I understand the NPP process. To that end I'd like to meet with a few folks to ask some questions and to record a screenshare of you patrolling articles. This will give me a chance to learn what it's like patrolling articles on enwiki today using PageTriage, start to see what the pain points are, and ensure that I'm not misrepresenting the process. Although I've done patrolling work myself and have read most of the help and process pages, nothing compares to sitting down and watching someone else edit!
I already asked on the NPP Discord and have a few calls lined up, but I wanted to post here too to see if I can meet with a few more patrollers. If you're interested in joining me for a 30-60 minute call please let me know - I have a release form you'd need to sign if you're happy with screen recording via Google Meet. Alternatively, if you're not comfortable meeting 'face-to-face', as it were, your own screen recordings uploaded to Commons would also be very valuable to watch. Let me know if you have any questions! Samwalton9 (WMF) ( talk) 11:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
In terms of PageTriage, we found that patrollers generally didn’t run into significant issues using the extension. During our interviews no patrollers encountered flow-breaking bugs
Just a quick note so you know the back story: at the time we wrote the
open letter, PageTriage had a bunch of super annoying bugs that were driving patrollers to use Twinkle for everything except the "mark as reviewed" button. Early on we envisioned WMF fixing these bugs, but volunteers such as myself and
MPGuy2824 ended up stepping up ourselves and fixing them. They included the
prod bug, a
couple of
AFD bugs, and some others. I am happy that these are fixed, since they clear the way for other work. But they were a huge part of our motivation for writing the open letter at the time. I guess I'm writing this so you guys don't feel bamboozled about the software not being very buggy right now. Hope this helps. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
16:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Folks from the Moderator Tools team (Sam?) may want to add themselves as watchers and/or members to the PageTriage group on Phab. For now I am just adding Sam to various tickets I think might be relevant to this project. If folks become watchers, they'd see these tickets automatically. If not, no worries. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 16:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Given that the discussion of the results includes significant discussion of the difficulties in identifying reliable sources, it may be worth noting that we do have WP:NPPSG as a somewhat obscure resource to log the history of Wikipedia discussions about the reliability of specific sources. I've been the main editor maintaining the page--in distinction from WP:RSP, which is used primarily to head off repetitive and redundant discussions about high profile sources, NPPSG is focused on providing a starting point for discussion based on the community's last recorded position on a source, and is focused on whether a source's coverage can demonstrate notability. signed, Rosguill talk 17:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I've just posted an update now that our work is underway in earnest. Please let me know if you have any thoughts or questions! Samwalton9 (WMF) ( talk) 14:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Makes sense and thank you! Even if people strongly dislike the design, standardizing it with MediaWiki makes sense visually but also from technical pov. While refactoring it will be worthwhile to check what bugs are accidentally solved/versus newly created bugs if we’re not emphasizing adding test coverage (I agree doing it twice doesn’t make sense perse). ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
As part of our project to improve the technical state of PageTriage, our team has been hard at work upgrading the code that powers PageTriage. Rather than replace the current experience straight away, we've set up a testing venue to gather feedback and squash bugs first.
Per the update I just posted, please use this link to test out a new version of NewPagesFeed! The goal is that although the UI has changed a little, the experience of using the new feed should not be substantially different - full details can be found in the linked update. Bugs and feedback can be reported in this thread or on Phabricator. Thanks for your help with this! Samwalton9 (WMF) ( talk) 11:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised that the new new pages feed is still completely unusable on mobile. Shouldn't that have been one of the benefits of switching to Codex? – Joe ( talk) 06:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
A quick heads up that the default NewPagesFeed interface will change from the old version to the new one tomorrow (Thursday 19th October). We've done a lot of testing and the only change should be some minor spacing/styling differences. That said, if you run into any issues please let me know or
file a task on Phabricator, and you can access the old version of the UI at Special:NewPagesFeed?pagetriage_ui=old
. We'll give it a few weeks and then remove the old interface if all seems well.
Samwalton9 (WMF) (
talk)
11:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ Samwalton9 (WMF), PageTriage can now support wikis other than English Wikipedia? ( Example) — MdsShakil ( talk) 11:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)