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)
 * 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)

Edit filter manager rights
Hi, I see you still have edit filter manager rights, as granted to you as WMF staff by mid June and amended by  at the start of July. As 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)
 * 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)
 * It is now removed :) Jalexander--WMF 20:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers
I noticed '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)
 * Yes, I agree on that with . 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

Discussion at Village pump (proposals)
You are invited to join the discussion at Village pump (proposals). Winged Blades Godric 11:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

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, T87609, and 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 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. 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)
 * Hi . 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 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)
 * regarding gadgets aren't loaded on mobile anyway - do you know if there is a ticket open to enable this (perhaps a required additional option like [MobileLoad=true] in MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition)? I'd much rather see this then projects shoehorning in code in to MediaWiki:mobile.js. — xaosflux  Talk 12:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be very helpful. In fact, I checked some gadgets that work on mobile such as Comments in local time and Strikeout usernames that have been blocked. Masum Reza 📞 12:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also FR optimized the script and now it uses OOUI widgets. Masum Reza 📞 12:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * checked as in you (a) confirmed they don't work in mobile when loaded as a gadget, due to the 'gadgets don't run on mobile' and/or (b) confirmed they work in general on mobile if manually loaded for example from your own personal script page ? — xaosflux  Talk 12:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Both. You can check my minerva.js. Also scripts in global.js and css in global.css don't load in mobile. So I can't figure out how to load a script globally in mobile view. I think we need to create a phabricator task for that. Masum Reza 📞 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * T140863's title suggests that gadgets to mobile could be a thing? — xaosflux  Talk 13:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The real problem is with the minerva skin. The thing is if I switch to vector or other skins while on mobile, gadgets and scripts work perfectly. As long as the browser is modern (or supports JavaScript), all gadget load and work. To be clear, Minerva skin is not optimized for scripts and gadgets. We need to work on it further. But skins other than minerva aren't suited for viewing on mobile as those are made for wide screens. But if I use landscape mode in my phone or my tablet, the view isn't bad. Masum Reza 📞 14:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Help with extension development and deployment
Hi, I saw that you're part of the Community Tech team and wanted to ask if you could help me navigate some WMF and MediaWiki requirements. For the last few months I've been trying to improve En Wikipedia's coverage of chess articles by trying to implement a way for readers to interactively browse a chess game (similar to the Hebrew Wikipedia). Following this RfC and this interface admin noticeboard discussion, it became clear that a gadget wasn't likely to find consensus for deployment and I started converting kipod's gadget into an extension at mw:Extension:ChessBrowser. It's getting close to a stable version, so I started a tracking task for deployment at T244075. James quickly told me that as a non-WMF sponsored project, "it's exceedingly unlikely that the above steps will happen", and suggested I get in touch with the Community Tech team. So long story short, could you help me figure out how to get a WMF sponsor for this project? Are there other hurdles I'm likely to run into or due diligence I need to do still? Thanks for your help! — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well done! This code looks excellent. I vaguely remember reading those discussions last August. You say there isn't consensus for a gadget; is there consensus for an extension? I think the same concerns might persist, where we're loading this JavaScript for all users, when there is a narrow interest and it applies to only a small number of pages. Am I understanding that correctly? I personally think the hidden gadget approach proposed in the RfC was the better route, and wouldn't involve the huge investment of getting an extension deployed. It seems this was already discussed in depth; perhaps you could summarize those discussions on the phab task? That'd help others weigh out the cost-benefit. Anyway, if we do move forward with an extension, I can't promise Community Tech will be able to serve as the sponsor, but I can ask. For the record, I am a chess player myself and I would appreciate this feature! :) Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can post on the village pump to gauge consensus for an extension and work on summarizing the IAN discussion for that and the phab task. The extension actually resolves the concern around loading javascript for all users on all pages. With a default gadget, every client on page load will need to evaluate whether the page contains a chess board. The extension moves this evaluation to the server side and includes the javascript as part of the parser output; the client will not run any javascript unless the page includes the  tags (see the logic in ChessBrowserHooks.php, specifically ). So the extension allows improvement to this small set of pages without reader-facing performance implications unlike the gadget implementation. This was my understanding of 's concerns and suggestions in the noticeboard discussion. It's okay if the community tech team can't sponsor this (I'm not even really sure what sponsorship entails), but asking around and gathering information alone would be very helpful. Getting a public working example running in conjunction with the village pump discussion I mentioned should also help the WMF gauge community interest and perhaps make the project known to teams who could/would be able to sponsor it. And thank you for the compliment on the code! Much of that is from the helpful feedback of  during code review. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I talked this over with some of my team, and I think we'd like to help! We are not sure what "sponsorship" means either, but I can at least comment on the task to publicly declare our interest. Now, this is sort of a "10% project", as we call it, meaning we won't have but a small amount of time to work on it each week. Fortunately it seems the extension is largely written, so we can assist with further code review and the actual deployment. The lengthy process I believe is going to be security/design/performance review, which is handled by other (very busy!) teams. Loading the JS on inapplicable pages was my main concern, and as you say that won't be an issue. There were a number of voices supporting an extension, so perhaps we don't need further consensus on that. But, a summary of past community discussions on the Phab task would still be helpful. As I said I'll comment there shortly, and we'll try to iron out the next steps. Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's great news! A 10% project sounds like it would work perfectly. I'm a little swamped this week so there's some outstanding reviews from Danny that I need to resolve, but I should be able to get to those code reviews and the phab task edits over this weekend. One thing that could use some help is 561389. The submodule we plan to use says it is licensed under the LGPL but gives no version number, so we're not sure what to do about it. Maybe you know someone who could advise? I've also been trying to figure out if a wikitech:Portal:Cloud VPS instance is something that would be useful for development and collaboration, but I'm not sure how those work. Does it seem like something worth investing time into? — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the license changes, but there are some people I can ask. We can deploy the extension to https://commtech.wmflabs.org/ if you'd like (and I'll create an account for you so you can test it). I'm not sure it will be worth the trouble to request and create a new VPS project just for this. Development should happen on your local MW installation. Is that working for you? Eventually the extension will be on the Beta cluster, then we won't need VPS anymore. The way I envision this would sort of be like our team's workflow. You/whoever authors the features, we/Danny/whoever does code review, and once merged we'll update CommTech wiki for further QA. I don't know that we'll have our own QA engineer involved with this, but I think my colleague Sam and I (and anyone else!) can fulfill this role. I'm glad you're OK with this as a 10% project! I should forewarn you the whole process of getting this to production will take some time, perhaps a few months. This is mostly due to how busy the other teams are. The same is true for WMF-built extensions; it always takes a long time! ChessBrowser seems like a smaller and lower-risk project, so I'm hoping it won't be as bad. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It works fine on my local development environment; I'm just also aware that not everyone has one set up and demonstrations are often helpful. Commtech's wiki sounds like a much better solution to that than a Cloud Services project which seemed heavyweight. And the timeframe is no surprise; if anything I'm actually amazed at how fast this is already progressing! Let me know if you need anything from me in the near future beyond the phab task updates! — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi MusikAnimal, is Community Tech still able to sponsor this as a 10% project? has volunteered to help deploy ChessBrowser to the Beta Cluster, but it seems that a WMF sponsor is still needed. At the security readiness review, Jcross says that beta deployment is stalled until there is a sponsoring team and/or manager willing to accept at least a medium risk for deployment of this extension. Hopefully this is something Community Tech can still help out with; it tied for 10th in its category in the most recent community wishlist survey so any help would go a long way in improving the reader experience on multiple wikis. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We're still in! I've replied there :) MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Newspapers
I would like to have a Popular Pages listing for the WikiProject Newspapers showing the 500 most popular pages. There is a page for the contents, WikiProject_Newspapers/Popular_pages I hope this is the right way to ask for this. Let me know if there is something else that I need to do.

User:G._Moore User talk:G._Moore 06:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, see Special:Permalink/941613069. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * My pleasure! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Community Tech/Popular pages bot
Hi, I found that the bot currently only posts on English-language Wikipedia. Is it possible to implement this tool into Chinese-language Wikipedia? We would like to do similar stuffs to our WikiProjects. Thanks a lot! - Peacearth (talk) at 10:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! First we need to get the PageAssessments extension on zhwiki. Here's a summary of what it does: T190309. Please first make sure there is consensus to enable it on your wiki and then we will get it deployed. After that, we need to add translations for the Popular Pages bot. If you or someone you know is able to make a pull request on GitHub, that would be the easiest. See the English messages at . Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Community Tech Bot
Hi CTB seems to have had problems a few hours ago generating the list of top new article reviewers. It’s missed most of us out. Mccapra (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you give some examples? Which accounts should have been listed but weren't? I see you and the usual users on the 15:54, 22 July 2020 report. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread the timestamps. You must have been talking about the 03:54, 22 July 2020 report, which indeed looks lacking! I wouldn't rule out those results as impossible, though. The top section is for the 24 hours leading up to when the report was made. Anyway if it happens again and you're sure it's incorrect, just ping me. Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi it was actually this run at 03:54 on 22 July that I meant. Instead of reporting the top 100 reviewers, it only reported nine instead. This was definitely wrong as it missed out ME and presumably a bunch of others. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi the bot doesn’t seem to have run this task at all for the last day. Mccapra (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is due to replication lag on the databases (currently ~43 hours behind). I'm told the database admins are doing some maintenance. The problem should be temporary. Sorry, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks very much. Mccapra (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Database reports/Editors eligible for Autopatrol privilege
This report (you are listed as the contact for) should, if possible, be modified so it does not list vanished users (who are obviously not eligible). Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, I think! It's simply looking for "Vanished user" in the username. I'm not sure if there's a more effective way to do it. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There is a small chance that this method will exclude someone unnecessarily ("formerly vanished user" or "I'm not a vanished user" for example) but the likelihood of that are so small and the consequences so slight it's not worth worrying about. I wouldn't have a clue if there is a more efficient way to do it or not! Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

App views on main page
Do you know what happened to mobile app pageviews to the main page? In October they decreased by a factor of 10-15. --Izno (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that is T256508. All the subtasks have been resolved for some time now, so I assume it is close to being fixed. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Add "all time" to "Top article reviewers" report?
Hello there. I see you're listed as the contact for the database report Database reports/Top new article reviewers. I just wanted to suggest adding a section to the bottom for all time top reviewers. Currently it goes up to top reviewers in the last 365 days. Here's a query I drafted that might help, although its numbers seem to be slightly low. Or if you don't think it's a good idea, don't worry about it. Thanks for your time. – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Page missing from WP:U.S. Supreme Court Cases's Popular Pages list
Hi, I noticed a problem over at WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases/Popular pages. The page Marbury v. Madison has stopped showing up on the report, despite still being a page within the WikiProject and still having a high number of pageviews. Any chance you could investigate? I tried but couldn't identify the problem. Thanks in advance!  White Whirlwind   07:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

NPP stats
Hello.

This report, Database reports/Top new article reviewers, shows the number of reviews performed. The backlog of unreviewed articles is quite high (some have said NPP is in crisis or collapsing). The backlog that we care about most is mainspace articles (non-redirects). This report includes the number of "reviews" which includes articles and redirects. Is there any way to have two numbers reported instead of the total? We report the backlog by counting only articles (New pages patrol/Backlog chart), so seeing the number of articles reviewed would help.

For each time period (day, week, month, quarter, year), the report shows the top 100 reviewers. Could it also add two more lines, one to show the number of reviews by done by everyone beyond #100, and a line to show the total reviews in the period by all reviewers. This would provide a much clearer view of the situation.

Thanks, MB 05:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I just re-read this and found it a little confusing to myself. Just in case it is not clear, I am asking that the "Num Reviews" column be replaced with three columns - "Num Reviews", "Article Reviews" & "Redirect Reviews". This would include the top 100 by total reviews. Alternatively, I guess there could be two separate tables in each time period, one just for articles and one just for redirects. I would be happy with either, so whichever approach you think is better/easier/faster/etc.
 * This second part of the request is clear as stated above, two more summary lines in each table to give a complete accounting.
 * Thanks again. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 05:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just checking in on this. It's been about 6-7 weeks. Do you have any estimate on when you can get to this? <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 01:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @MB Sorry for the late reply! I saw each of these messages as they came in, I just am bad about replying to requests when I know I don't have time to work on it which is sadly the case here… :( I've got a long queue of priorities so it will be a bit before I can fulfill this request, but I do hope to get to it! In the meantime, I can provide you with query/66432 which is the equivalent for January 1, 2022 through August but solely for articles and not also redirects. I didn't verify the data is correct, but it should be. Hopefully the in-code comments make it clear how to fork and adjust the query as desired (such as querying only for redirects and changing the date range). If you need help with the query don't hesitate to ask! The kind folks at WP:RAQ I'm sure can also help. And I will get to the bot when time allows :) Hopefully within the next few weeks. Kind regards, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand being busy. I just wanted reassurance that you still intend to get to it. Thanks for the query info, that will help in the interim. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 21:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * MB, this query gets you the total numbers over the various time periods in the report, split by articles and redirects. MusikAnimal, when you get to this request maybe you can use some of this query. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The code for this report is here. If I get time I may submit a patch for this. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Tried tonight, but Ruby is not my native language. Windows 10. Stuck on package manager stuff. I did  but am still getting   when I run  . This is despite having i18n installed (I think) in the folder vendor/bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/i18n-0.7.0. Tried a bunch of Stack Overflow stuff such as switching from require to require_relative, didn't fix it. – Novem Linguae  (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Novem Linguae Just a guess, try . That should make it use the Ruby that you have installed via bundler. Alternatively you can install the gems on your system (rather than per-application) with , but bundler is recommended. Anyways I apologize there's basically no docs on MusikBot! Also that you're resorting to making patches as you wait my free time... I'm going to try to take a look at this tonight if I have time. Thanks to all for your patience and Novem Linguae for your willingness to contribute! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I finally got around to this. Please see this draft report and let me know if this is what you're looking for. Pinging @MB, @Novem Linguae and @MPGuy2824. To MPGuy2824: I did in fact use your query to get the totals, so thanks for that :) I did some rudimentary manual checks of the numbers of this new report and they appear to be right to me. Please let me know if anything seems off.
 * One semi-flaw that I didn't realize until coding this… As you see in the notes, "Redirects" refers to the current redirect status of the pages, not the redirect status of when the review was made. This is why you might for instance see article reviews made by . This is a technical restriction that is the same reason my team had to decline T157048. Way back then I filed T240065 to get the necessary data into core to make this easier, but it hasn't received much attention. It is possible to go by the newly-introduced redirect tags like, etc., but at least for this database report, that means scanning every revision on every page reviewed by every reviewer. It probably can be done, but it would be very slow… Anyways, as you can see, out of the 452 reviews done by DannyS712 bot III in the past 24 hours (as of the time of writing), only 2 have since become articles. So I think the redirect/article breakdown is still useful, but it's certainly not exact. I hope this suffices for now.
 * Apologies again for the long wait. I'm away from the wiki tomorrow through Monday, so it may not be until next week that I get the newly updated report deployed, assuming it looks good to you. Until then I look forward to hearing your feedback. Regards, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would prefer the total row go at the bottom of each table and that the default sorting be on the article reviews. Thanks for taking care of this. We waited this long, I'm sure waiting a few days more isn't an issue. I'm guessing the 739 reviewers in the 365 day table includes admins as well. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree it looks a little odd with the total at the top. I would also like to have two more rows at the bottom to show how many reviews were done by the people after #100. On the 30 day table, there were 7,527 total articles. Reviewers 1-100 did 6,943 of them, leaving 584 done by others. (I got this by copying the table into a spreadsheet). If we could see this just be looking at the report it would be great.
 * Could you have a line with the total of the top 100 (6,943 in this case) on one row,
 * then a line with the remainder (584),
 * and then the overall total (7.527). Thanks for whatever you can do. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 03:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, this is so close and we could really use it now. Any chance you could finish it up and make it live soon? Thanks. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 04:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @MB @MPGuy2824 Apologies for the delay. Real life got in the way and I forgot :) I have reworked this based on your feedback. It now sorts by article reviews (not total reviews), and includes both a Subtotals, Remaining, and a Totals row. Please review at Special:PermaLink/1112533395 and let me know what you think! Regards, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The totals are exactly what I wanted. The only thing that looks a little funny is the sorting. If you sort by #Articles, the rank matches 1-100 or 100-1. If you sort by #Redirect, the rank does not, it is still the Total rank. If you sort on the Total column, that seems to be not sorting by the total number, but by the Username (but slightly differently that if you sort on Username directly). The present version is a big improvement so please make that live as soon as you can if you don't have time to look at the sorting now. Thanks. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 21:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The order of the numbers in the Totals row is wrong. Seems like a minor code fix. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the issues you both mentioned (thank you!) and deployed the new code. Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey MusikAnimal. New report looks great. It's already getting compliments in the NPP discord (@Dr vulpes). If I may suggest a minor tweak: I think we can go ahead and delete the "patrol log" link. Long story, but the page curation log is almost always the log the user wants, and the patrol log at first glance looks like it logs the same thing but in reality doesn't have a 1:1 correspondence to the page curation log, which can be confusing for people. – Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Looks like our #2 reviewer uses the patrol button. After some digging, I finally figured out how patrol works. You have to hit the X on the Page Curation toolbar, which unhides the [Mark this page as patrolled] link. Only took me like two years to figure out. lol – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the kind words :) I was going to say, the query counts both 'patrol/patrol' and 'pagetriage-curation/reviewed' log actions, and as you've discovered it is possible to do the former without the latter (but I assume we discourage that as a community). Apologies again it took so long to deliver on this update, and thanks for your patience. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

NPP redirect and reviewed stats
Hi, asking here since this page doesn't have a short archive config. When you get the time, could you respond to my latest comment on Collecting_data_for_the_NPP_redirect_backlog ? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

New message from Red-tailed hawk
— Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Community Tech bot and Commons files nominated for deletion
I noticed is no longer giving notifications when a Commons file used in articles is nominated for deletion. However, the bot's user page still shows the "notify article editors about pending deletion of Commons images used" task as active. Could you please check into this?

Thanks! Ixfd64 (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally, we're in the middle of fixing it right now :) I'm hoping to have it back up and running by early next week. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks for letting us know. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)