Talk:XTools/2019

This page is a feedback forum for XTools. For reporting bugs, it's preferred that you use Phabricator.

If the issue is urgent and you're unable to use Phabricator, feel free to ping one of the active maintainers.

CheckUsers in Admin Stats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I noticed that the CheckUser group isn't shown in the "User groups" column of admin stats. I was wondering whether there was a reason for this. Seems relevant to include, especially if we're looking for active checkusers on other projects, for example. Mz7 (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It's supposed to show it but this must have broken when we reworked that tool a while back. Filed a task at phab:T213119 — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question regarding the API

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. I'd like to use the api for xtools.

I have a list of wikipedia pages and I'm interested in seeing the number of edits and characters for each of them.

I tried to follow the api instructions. I opened a new directory and installed composer. I downloaded the latest release, unzipped it and moved the files to the directory.

I ran the code `php composer.phar install` and received this message: `The requested PHP extension ext-intl * is missing from your system. Install or enable PHP's intl extension.`.

I tried again with `php composer.phar install --ignore-platform-reqs` and received this message: Parse error: parse error, expecting `';'' or `'{'' in /Volumes/flashdrive/API/vendor/ocramius/package-versions/src/PackageVersions/Installer.php on line 59

Can anyone give me a hand? SebsebsebBBB (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

If you only need data for WMF wikis (and not your own third-party wiki), you can use the existing public API. There is no need to install XTools on your system. Documentation is at https://xtools.readthedocs.io/en/stable/api/index.html. Specifically I think you want the article info and prose endpoints.

If you do want to install your own XTools instance, ext-intl will be a requirement (it is used to format numbers and dates, etc.). I'm not sure about the Installer.php error you got. I searched and found this GitHub issue that suggests you might have an incompatible version of PHP (should be 7.2).

Hope this helps. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Configure gadget

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is there an easy way to configure what the gadget shows? E.g., seeing who created a page does very little for most editors, but top editors by added text? Potentially very useful. czar 02:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Top editors by added text is too slow for automatic, real-time metadata that the gadget is meant to provide. There is another gadget out there that does something similar, based on the WikiHistory tool, but I can't seem to find it. It works by precomputing the data ahead of time, which is why its able to serve the stats so quickly. However it is of questionable accuracy. If you want attribution stats (tantamount to this example, but not the same as top editors), I would recommend using the WhoColor browser extension. It's a little hard to setup, but later this year it'll be much easier to install, among other improvements. More at phab:T213813. Hope this helps — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! And is there an easy way to configure this gadget to drop the first editor? It often sticks out conspicuously and is either an old IP or someone who created a redirect (more heat than light). czar 01:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, we just need to add CSS classes around it and then you can customize it as you please. I've created phab:T216782 — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pages Created not seeing assessment for one page

Looking at: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/kenirwin

it shows that the the assessment is unknown for the article on Mary Jobe Akeley, but the article was assessed back in December 2018:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mary_Jobe_Akeley

Does something need to prompt the script to re-check? Is there something wrong in the coding of the assessment in the en.wiki?

Thanks Kenirwin (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It's probably pulling from WikiProject United States because it's the first assessment record in the database, and that one doesn't have a specified "class" ranking. I think we implemented it in this way because we tried to get pages created + assessments all in the same query. On second thought, it shouldn't slow things down much to make this into two different queries, such that we can get the first non-null result for class assessments. I'll look into it! — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

Ken Kenirwin (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles edited (total)

I'm interested in knowing how many edits I've made pages I've edited in the article namespace. I realize the Top Edits tool could be used to determine this (for most editors) by simply counting the entries; however, since I've edited more than 1000 articles, this list is truncated. I noticed that the Edit Counter tool displays a count of the total pages edited under the "General statistics" heading in Pages edited (total), but not for specific namespaces.

Would it be possible/feasible to add a count of pages edited by namespace to the Edit Counter tool and/or increase the maximum number of pages returned in the Top Edits tool beyond 1000? I imagine the latter would be easier to implement and prefer it over the former since I'm also interested in looking at the frequency distribution of my edits in the article namespace.

Thanks for your consideration. Seppi333 (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, I realize some editors have edited tens of thousands of pages in the article namespace, so some truncation limit is necessary in the Top Edits tool. It would probably be useful to provide those editors with a summary of the truncated data (this is a third alternative for implementing what I've requested above); i.e., append a statement like either of the following:

• Limited to the first 1000 entries. Username performed X more edits across N more pages in this namespace.
• Limited to the first 1000 entries. Username edited N more pages in this namespace.

Summarizing the X number of edits in those N remaining pages isn't really necessary since one could determine that manually (i.e., subtract the total edits in the namespace by the sum the edits in the first 1000 entries), but that would probably be helpful for some. Seppi333 (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! If Top Edits is the preferred tool, I think the ideal solution would be to paginate the results if there are more than 1,000. This is how the Pages Created tool works. Adding a count of the unique pages edited in a namespace is something a bit easier to do, and I don't think it will be really slow. I have created a ticket for these features at phab:T218531. We also plan to add date range filtering to Top Edits, along with the Edit Counter, which may be helpful in your case. That is tracked at phab:T202552. Regards. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate it. Filtering the output by date is a novel solution to the truncation problem. Edit: I agree, pagination would be the best way of addressing this.

Anyway, kudos to you guys for creating a really useful set of edit analysis tools. Seppi333 (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Make pie chart consistent with table (Page History: Authorship)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

First of all, thank you for providing such a versatile tool. The German language Wikipedia community are discussing the provision of a deep link to the Authorship section of the Page History tool right now, to be displayed alongside every article. Should the vote come to pass, I would expect to see an increased load on the Page History tool in a few weeks' time. So I hope that there is some caching mechanism.

I would like to ask for a change in the Authorship section. Right now, the rendering of the pie chart takes only the percentages of the first ten contributors into account. If an article has a long tail distribution of contributors, this gives the wrong impression. The top ten contributors to the article Angela Merkel have contributed less than 40% of the current total to the article. Yet the pie chart makes it look as if the #1 contributor has contribued more than a quarter to the article, not 11.7 %. Could you please change the rendering of the pie chart so that the remaining other contributors (lower ranked than #10) get one collective slice of the pie, being as large as their combined total? This pie section could be gray, as this connotes lack of detail. In the Angela Merkel example, this slice of the pie would be 61.5 %, or about two thirds. The ten named top contributors would get proportionally smaller slices.

Thank you! (PS: I am not sure whether I get a feedback or ping through this site, so if you want to contact me, better try my de:WP talk page.) Minderbinder (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey! There is a dedicated page you could use to show authorship information, e.g. https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo-authorship/de.wikipedia.org/Neaira%20%28Hetäre%29 . This will show all contributors, however there are caveats (a) limited to 10 colours, which repeat. (b) I will soon limit it to the top 500 editors or so, because if there are more it sometimes fails to load. I assume this is not a problem for you.

At any rate, yes for the main Article Info page where we only show the top 10 contributors, we can add a slice for the remaining contributors, as you suggest. I'll look into implementing this soon.

Thanks for the suggestions! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This has been deployed. Example: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/de.wikipedia.org/Angela%20Merkel#authorship, and the dedicated authorship page: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo-authorship/de.wikipedia.org/Angela%20Merkel (chart may be at the bottom depending on your screen size). Thanks again for the recommendations. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello MusikAnimal, a big thank you for the change and incredibly fast deployment. The changed graphic is exactly as I had hoped for. Your work has been well received by the authors in de:WP discussing this topic. Minderbinder (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Minderbinder My great pleasure :) Regarding caching -- unlike the rest of XTools, the Page History tool actually doesn't cache most data (phab:T208543). This is a caveat of its implementation. However we can easily cache the authorship stats. So my question for you is if it would suffice to link only to the dedicated authorship page, e.g. https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo-authorship/de.wikipedia.org/Angela%20Merkel, and not the full results? This would be faster for you, and less strain on the XTools servers. If the community wants the full Page History results, that is okay too :) Most of the time it will be no problem, but any high-traffic page such as your Village Pump may be very slow to process or fail entirely.

Another thing I wanted to mention: While I greatly appreciate the praise, the authorship stats you see are fetched from a third-party service called WikiWho. Their superb algorithm provides around 95% accuracy. They should get full credit for this :)

Finally, take note of the path-style URL format that XTools uses. Basically, your link should not replace spaces with + signs ("Foo+bar"), instead use normal percent-encoding like "Foo%20bar". If you are using the {{urlencode:Foo bar}} parser function, just use {{urlencode:Foo bar|PATH}}. The other option is to pass in the page title via query string, e.g. https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo-authorship/de.wikipedia.org?page=Foo+bar. — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal Thank you for your helpful implementation hints. I will not be changing the GUI to include the link myself, that is left to a group of interface-admins. The formal vote on this change runs until May 8. Though there is currently a 3:1 majority for providing the deep-link to your statistics, it would be premature to discuss implementation details right now. I will point the interface-admins to this discussion after the vote has been tallied.

I like the idea of a dedicated authorship page, both to enable caching and to avoid information overload. Can I make a suggestion though: In the non-dedicated section (i.e. https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/de.wikipedia.org/Angela%20Merkel#authorship) the table is cut-off after the tenth contributor, in line with the pie chart. The contributions from rank 11 on are summarized with one line, providing number of remaining contributors and their total contrbution in terms of characters and percentage. That is not the case for the dedicated page (i.e. https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo-authorship/de.wikipedia.org/Angela%20Merkel ), which renders the table with a different cut-off at rank #500. That makes for a very long page, and effectively prevents the viewing of the pie chart when smaller (mobile) screens are used. Who is going to scroll down 500 lines? Besides, for most articles the lower ranked contributions can be for something as mundane as inserting a wiki link etc. So I would suggest to bring the cut-off of the dedicated page in line with the section of the main page. The last line with contributors from rank 11 should be expandable, so if someone clicks on it, a full table should be rendered. This would also help with chaching, I imagine: Each authorship stats page would have to hold about 24 data items only.

On Wikiwho: I am all for giving credit where credit is due, so I will look into contactiing them. Minderbinder (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Error querying Wikiwho API: Unknown

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As User:Minderbinder already reported earlier on this page, the German Wikipedia community held a vote on the question whether the WikiWho tool in XTools should be linked from each article, in order to make article authorship prominently visible to readers. The vote ended five days ago, and the link was subsequently added to the desktop UI page footer via de:MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright. Pretty much directly after the link was added, the tool started to fail showing authorship data; instead, it displays an error message Error querying Wikiwho API: Unknown for most of the requests.

There are several users on German Wikipedia complaining about this problem, and there is some speculation that there may be simply too many requests so that a request quota to the WikiWho server might be exceeded most of the time.

Can you please give some insight into the problem? What can be done to fix this situation?

(I have no idea whether someone else has already contacted you; if that is the case, please link to related discussions.) MisterSynergy (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, to add from my observations: It seems "Authorship" has always problems at daytime (in Germany), while it starts to work in the evening/night. So it does not seem to be broken completely, but every day temporarily. I would also be pleased, if someone could give insights or maybe even has a solution to the problem. Thanks! Magiers (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

According to api.wikiwho.net (not linked due to spam filter) there are API limits in place:

"Currently, there is a limit of 2000 requests/day for unregistered users, and also a 60 requests/minute limit for all users."

It is possible that we are now running into either one of those. Count Count (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the late reply. I think your assessments are probably right... regardless I will contact the WikiWho maintainers and get this sorted out. I am pretty sure they support this initiative. I am on holiday right now so I may not get to back to you for at least a few more days. As far as I can tell XTools is not suffering in any way, so it's up to you if you want to disable the link in the meantime. Apologies for the disruption! — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

If necessary, it seems that running the code on wmflabs may be possible as well: https://github.com/wikiwho/WikiWho ToBeFree (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you MusikAnimal for looking into this topic. I am sure after living so long without the credits of the authors, de-wp can live some days longer without a working tool. So first enjoy your holiday. But XTools is affected too: When the api is not working, then the section "authorship" in the XTools is empty too (and the Top-Editors are not a surrogate, because they don't deliver useful metrics about authorship). It would be great, if the API limits could be deactivated or maybe even as suggested the tool could be transfered under our own responsibility. Greetings. Magiers (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This should be fixed now! \o/ Apologies for the long wait. All the best, — MusikAnimal ^talk 12:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TopEdits tool not working correctly?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was looking for the specific edits by Blueboar and Boracay Bill on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Archive_21 and both queries returned 0 edits to that page, which is patently wrong -- see this section where at least they have each edited once --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Archive_21#Overuse_of_%22third-party%22_in_nutsell_and_intro_paragraphs_causing_problems . Maybe "archive" pages are excluded from the index?? Thanks for input. --~ Ceyockey (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

OK - I found the problem. You need to search the ORIGINAL article from which archives are produced in order to find edits by users which are show in ARCHIVES. Ceyockey (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Correct, the edits themselves were made to the original page, not the archive page. The archive pages are merely a copy/paste of the original text. See the revision history. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Erich Brauer

I am the creator of the page "Erich Brauer," but when any onlooker checks the edit history and goes back to the earliest date, the article is listed as being created by User:Magk. The reason for this discrepancy is because, before I created the article, User:Mag2k had already made a "Redirect" for a different article, entitled "Arik Brauer," but he had used the name "Erich" for his redirect. How can I alleviate this problem, and have the article "Erich Brauer" shown in my own list of articles created? ~ Davidbena (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This is phab:T182183. Unfortunately it is a difficult problem to solve. MediaWiki has no formal log of when a redirect became an article. As you can see at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erich_Brauer&action=info, MediaWiki also claims Mag2k as the page creator. It's simply looking for the oldest revision. XTools works in the same way. There's a proposed hacky workaround at phab:T190065, but I can't make any promises. The issue is really with MediaWiki, not XTools. Sorry! — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

EditCounter

I very much like the EditCounter Tool but I would find it even more useful when one could calculate a "weighted article count", i.e. the summarized kilobytes of created article content.

There are authors who create lots of tiny articles (1-2 kb in size) and thus have an article count of several thousand. Other authors put some work into their articles which often have a much larger size.

The "kilobyte count" would be a helpful counterpart to the pure article count, which may be misleading when judging contributions. ~ Furfur (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello! If it helps, you could use the Pages Created tool and sort by size (either original size or current size). We can add an "average size" column in the summary section. Would that help? Should it be averaging the original or current size? — MusikAnimal ^talk 13:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello MusikAnimal, thanks for your answer. Of course an average size (showing the original size not what may have been added by other users) would be helpful – at least better than the current situation. Nevertheless I would still find it helpful to have a summary of all the created content in kilobytes. Currently we have a summary (the number of articles) but this does not realistically reflect the work a user has invested. Furfur (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I think you mean a sum of the sizes of all pages. That we can do; we'll include both the sum and the average. I have created phab:T229578. — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, I would like to see a sum of my work (and that of other users) :). Furfur (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Count of minor/ip/bot/reverted edits for page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

First of all, thank you for creating such a useful tool & API! Is there any way I could get the count of minor/ip/bot/reverted edits for a given page? I can see those counts included in the UI but I don't see them returned in any of the page requests that I tried. I see that this is where you build the `articleinfo` response https://github.com/x-tools/xtools/blob/6d8f265ec0aecf6f3a6909b742cc4cda0d28d94f/src/AppBundle/Controller/ArticleInfoController.php#L238 and this is where you get respective edit counts https://github.com/x-tools/xtools/blob/19bcac6775a8302273a4314bbfe1b0e753458255/src/AppBundle/Model/ArticleInfo.php#L485. NHarateh (WMF) (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! We can definitely add an option or something to get the number of minor and IP edits. Getting the number of reverted edits however I think will require combing over the entire history revision by revision, which will be too slow for an API endpoint. The revert count is very much an approximate figure, anyway. I would not use it for research purposes. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

400k edits limit suggestion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

According to the list of editors by highest edit counts, there are less than 50 editors above the 400k edits threshold, yet it would not surprise me if these were among the most searched in your tools. I was wondering whether since there are so few, it would be possible for the edits/pages created for those users to be calculated infrequently (e.g. once a month) and then have that monthly snapshot be served to those searching for them, rather than just a message saying the editor has >400k edits?

Just a suggestion, thank you for creating/maintaining these tools. Renamed user qoTkZBdUBi (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Everything is computed on-demand, so this wouldn't be an option. Ideally we would simply limit processing to just 400,000 edits (phab:T182182); the issue there is we likely only care about the most recent 400,000 edits, and that is what makes the query so slow. I think going by time frame would be more doable, say the past year. The problem with that is someone could make a million edits in that year alone. So we need some very specialized logic... — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I figured my suggestion wouldn't be feasible somehow. I agree that doing things by time frame would be ideal, hopefully it becomes possible in the future. Renamed user qoTkZBdUBi (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

articleinfo-authorship

The automatically included link in the article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_5544/5 to the articleinfo-authorship of xtools https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo-authorship/de.wikipedia.org/NGC_5544/5?uselang=de gives an error 404: Not Found.

--Boehm (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I am working to fix this. Thanks for the report. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

User's top authored pages

A user's XTool's page has a "Top edited pages" section which lists that user's nine most edited pages for each namespace, where "edited" is measured in edit counts. I find this to be a good mechanism for reviewing talkspace edits, but for mainspace I'd be equally or more interested in being able to see pages by authorship percentage. Is this technically feasible (or already available somehow)? Cheers! —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 01:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is not feasible :( The Authorship tool relies on an external service where we can't do arbitrary, large-scale queries like you suggest. Sorry! — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting reading—it prompted me to test the processing time of a heavily edited article like Che Guevara (22 sec) against that of a randomly selected article (2 sec), so I now better appreciate the complexity of the tool. I guess a top-authorship table would be feasible only if it were displaying cached data of authorship info that XTools was slowly scraping. It might be cool, but it'd full of holes and constantly out-of-date. Regardless, thanks for the response! —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 13:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there any scope for implementing wikiwho in-house? I know there's been chatter about having something like the whocolor interface as a standard tool. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 06:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The source code is public, so it's really a matter of financing the servers. This will allow for other languages to be added too. There has been talk about this at WMF, but I don't know any specifics or a timeline.

That said Community Tech is building an official browser extension similar to WhoColor, using the existing WikiWho APIs. That should be released to the public very soon (maybe a month or so). More at meta:Community Tech/Who Wrote That tool. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

An in-house hosting of wikiwho would be awesome indeed, the authorship tool is super useful! Signimu (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Authorship for Chinese Wikipedia (zh.wikipedia.org)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why isn't there data of authorship for the Chinese Wikipedia? Wei4Earth (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

We are using a third-party service called WikiWho, and unfortunately they do not yet support zhwiki :( There are plans to add more languages, but I'm not sure when you could expect this to happen. Sorry! — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, MusikAnimal, I'll ask them for info. Wei4Earth (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Detailed information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, when requesting an information about a user for any Wikimedia site, the Edit Counter does not give some more detailed information – month counts, time cards, most edited pages – unless the user had given permission (opted in). However, for the English Wikipedia this is different: all information is shown without opt-in. Why is that?

Bever (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

There was an RfC for it some years ago. A quick search found this but there might be newer discussions. If there is consensus we can remove the opt-in requirement for your wiki as well. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Number of reverts and histogram of edits by size

Would it be possible to add a graph showing the number of reverts vs non-reverts edits (globally)? And also a histogram of edits by size (instead of just having <20KB vs >20KB pie chart for example, this would give more granularity). The rationale is that the tool is solely based on edit counts, and very little on edit content, whereas both are important. Arguably it's more difficult to assess edit content, but with the addition of these two metrics, I think this would significantly increase the possibility to use this tool to assess content in addition to count Signimu (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

If by content you mean writing articles, etc., and not maintenance work such as reverting vandalism and semi-automated edits, you could use Auto Edits. This doesn't separate reverts and non-reverts, but it does offer some visualization and exposure of content vs. non-content contributions. True revert detection is practically a science (one could perform partial reverts, etc.), and the rudimentary job Article Info and Top Edits (per-article) does at it is very much approximate and slow enough as it is. We could not feasibly do this for every edit a single user has made. Hopefully Auto Edits at least helps your use-case.

A histogram aggregating the sizes of edits is a neat idea, but I wonder how expensive it would be. I have created phab:T236087. Feel free to follow it for updates. Thanks for the fine suggestion! — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Yes Auto Edits fits the bill Great thank you for opening a ticket, I'll follow it! Have a nice day! Signimu (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Data limits

Why is there a 400,000-edit-limit set for the edit counter? I would like to have the limit increased to 500,000. Are there any other limits implemented in this software? Wei4Earth (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello! This limitation is there because the tool can run very slow for users with a high edit count. When the queries run for a long time, they slow down XTools for everyone else. So the 400,000 limitation is to ensure XTools is stable for all to enjoy. Increasing to 500,000 is a possibility, but we have to draw the line somewhere (eventually someone will come by and ask to raise to 600,000, etc.). I will try to look into this soon. There is also phab:T182182, but I don't have high hopes about that either :/ — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Is the 400,000-edit-limit only restricted to one project or also on the global contributions? What are the other limits that are implemented in this software? Wei4Earth (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Every user-related tool is limited to 400,000 edits, except the Simple Edit Counter which is limited to a million edits, and the Edit Summary tool, which has no limitations. Meanwhile the Page History tool is limited to 20,000 revisions. Finally, all queries are killed after 10 minutes.

I did not think about the Global Contributions tool... I guess it is going off of meta.wikimedia, so if you have over 400,000 edits there it probably doesn't work. I can remove the edit count restriction, but fortunately it seems few have that many edits on meta anyway.

This edit count restriction is admittedly not a very good solution. phab:T188677 goes into some detail, but basically it's the best we can do right now to ensure stability. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe for those tools that have limitations, you could make an option to show only the recent edits for those who have more than the limit? e.g. "Showing the recent 400,000 edits (Maximum 400,000 edits)" for Edit Counter. Wei4Earth (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes indeed. That is what phab:T182182 is about. It is a complex problem to solve. From cursory tests, it's nearly just as expensive to scan all edits as it is to scan only the last 400,000, due to how sorting of database rows works. Production WMF sites have much more powerful database servers, which is why Special:Contribs works well for users with any edit count (it also simply lists contributions, rather than doing any complex analysis). There is a slight chance we could get it to work for XTools, but as I said before, I don't have high hopes :/

A better alternative would be limit to a smaller date range. The queries are then more likely to finish, and we don't have to scan every edit the user made. The problem is deciding what date range to use. For instance, you could have had an account for 10 years, but 90% of your 1 millions edits were made in the past year, so we can't assume any given date range will be finite enough. The overall goal is to prevent queries from being ran that will never finish, and that's very hard to predict (phab:T188677). You as a user don't want to wait 10 minutes only to find out the query was killed, and during those 10 minutes, other users of XTools also have to wait for your query to finish.

I'm also exploring opening up just some of the Edit Counter features to users with a high edit count. For instance, the "month counts" and "year counts" are much less expensive than the "general stats" section, so with some clever logic XTools could show you limited results, which hopefully is better than nothing.

There may be other edit counter tools out there that allow you to look up users with a very high edit count (though I'm not aware of any). XTools is different in that it has a very large user base so we have to worry about scalability. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Second shows twice

On bnwiki, i installed ArticleInfo gadget but when i tried to view a page which is edited no more than 60 seconds ago, the second shows twice. Like this "(+২ 2 সেকেন্ড)" https://imgur.com/JuE5gOm, here ২ is bengali digit 2. If time is more than 60 seconds e.g. minute, then everything shows correctly https://imgur.com/a/LKDvntl. If possible kindly fix this. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal This error still exist on bnwiki. If possible, please take a look. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, i think i found it. 1 I will let you know if this doesn't fix it. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Authorship vs Top editors order on page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For the articleinfo tool, it'd probably be logical to show the "Authorship" section before the "Top editors", since "Authorship" represents the current page, and "Top editors" represents its previous history. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 06:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree, and in fact I would suggest to write down a small sentence describing this difference, as it is not clear on the get-go for a new user to understand the difference between both. Signimu (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I have moved "Authorship" to come before "Top Editors". There is a very brief description of each, Authorship attribution, measured by character count, excluding spaces under "Authorship", and Editor statistics over the history of the article. at the upper-right hand corner of "Top Editors". Maybe the placement should be consistent. I can look into it. Thanks for the fine suggestions! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Global edit count

Would it be possible to add the global edit count, in the text shown at the top of a userpage when the XTools gadget is enabled? This would allow to more easily spot experienced editors coming from other projects, such as other languages, or commons {{=)}} Signimu (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

This is certainly possible, but only for registered accounts. It is a bit weird though because the gadget is called "ArticleInfo", meaning it's about the page, not the user. It just so happens that (usually) the author of a userpage is also the owner. I wonder if it makes more sense for a global edit count to be a separate script. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah! Then the navigation popup is using something different, I just noticed you are correct, XTools header shows the edit count of the creator, not the userpage account, but navigation popups show the userpage account edit count. I will see with them then, but I think it would be nice also if XTools header could recognize a userpage and show the user infos in addition to the articleinfo  ;-) Signimu (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Article info: Former bots

I've find out that as some admins mark they edits as bot edits (example), they appear as former bots on the list. Is there any way to mark this users as "normal users", not bots? (E.g. mark as former bots only those users, who have had long-time bot rights?) Draceane (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a fair compromise that we can investigate, but of course there could be actual short-lived bots that are reported as human. In practice, I think communities should demand dedicated accounts be created for automation. — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikivoyage is not supported

While testing XTools with Wikivoyage I got the error message "de.wikivoyage.org is not a supported project." Maybe wikivoyage can be added. RolandUnger (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean the authorship tool, specifically. This is provided by a third-party service, and indeed only a handful of wikis are supported. I do expect the other big Wikipedias to be supported in the future, but it's less likely you'll see this for non-Wikipedias anytime soon :(

Other tools in the XTools suite should work fine for Wikivoyage, e.g. https://xtools.wmflabs.org/adminstats/de.wikivoyage.org — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)