Last modified: 2010-12-06 20:17:27 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports are handled in Wikimedia Phabricator.
This static website is read-only and for historical purposes. It is not possible to log in and except for displaying bug reports and their history, links might be broken. See T27775, the corresponding Phabricator task for complete and up-to-date bug report information.
Bug 25775 - Remove "top 5 reviewers in the last hour" from Special:ValidationStatistics
Remove "top 5 reviewers in the last hour" from Special:ValidationStatistics
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 26268
Product: MediaWiki extensions
Classification: Unclassified
FlaggedRevs (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Normal enhancement (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Rob Lanphier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:...
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2010-11-04 03:54 UTC by Gurch
Modified: 2010-12-06 20:17 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Gurch 2010-11-04 03:54:29 UTC
It's not supposed to be a competition.
Comment 1 Bawolff (Brian Wolff) 2010-11-04 17:23:37 UTC
Neither is editing, but edit counters seem to pop up everywhere. I'd suggest that some people find these counts useful, if not on wikipedia, then in other places where the extension is enabled.
Comment 2 Gurch 2010-11-07 13:20:09 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> Neither is editing, but edit counters seem to pop up everywhere.

Attempts to add a "top 5 editors in the past hour" feature to MediaWiki would be met with a similarly negative reaction.

Remove the feature, please.
Comment 3 Chad H. 2010-11-08 21:33:04 UTC
For reference, this was added in r51626. Can't find the original bug.
Comment 4 P. Birken 2010-11-11 20:56:25 UTC
It has been in use for a long time on de-WP and on the one hand provides useful information in allowing for example to see if someone is overdoing it, while at the same time giving gratification to reviewers. If en-WP does not want it, remove it for that project only, but actually I suggest keeping it, since there's no real reason to remove it.
Comment 5 Leinad 2010-11-15 23:48:08 UTC
I support Philipp (the same on pl-WP).

+a bit history...

"top5" has been enabled when user:aka had to disable on toolserver the "statistics tool" due to performance problems. The tool had been widely used by de. pl. and hu.wiki communities, so I suspect that the new MediaWiki feature was a good solution and should remain so.
Comment 6 Bawolff (Brian Wolff) 2010-11-16 01:28:33 UTC
This must be the only time in the history of everything that something was too performance heavy for the toolserver, so it got moved to core ;)
Comment 7 Leinad 2010-11-16 01:40:18 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> This must be the only time in the history of everything that something was too
> performance heavy for the toolserver, so it got moved to core ;)

Current feature on Special:ValidationStatistics is only a small piece of former FlaggedRevs stats tool on toolserver. The old tool had various stats and graphs etc. :)
Comment 8 Gurch 2010-11-16 01:40:46 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> This must be the only time in the history of everything that something was too
> performance heavy for the toolserver, so it got moved to core ;)

Move it back out to toolserver then.
Comment 9 Aaron Schulz 2010-11-16 05:35:42 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> It has been in use for a long time on de-WP and on the one hand provides useful
> information in allowing for example to see if someone is overdoing it, while at
> the same time giving gratification to reviewers. If en-WP does not want it,
> remove it for that project only, but actually I suggest keeping it, since
> there's no real reason to remove it.

Would this be OK user-wise on toolserver only again? I don't see a performance reason why a top X list can't be there.
Comment 10 p858snake 2010-11-16 08:59:55 UTC
(In reply to comment #9)
> Would this be OK user-wise on toolserver only again? I don't see a performance
> reason why a top X list can't be there.
It shouldn't be much worse than the edit counting tools already on there.
Comment 11 P. Birken 2010-11-28 15:34:25 UTC
Well, the danger is that nobody finds it on the toolserver anymore (moving things twice makes everybody forget where they are). So, I would be against it, in particular since I don't see a real reason to do anything in the first place.
Comment 12 Aaron Schulz 2010-11-29 21:38:20 UTC
(In reply to comment #11)
> Well, the danger is that nobody finds it on the toolserver anymore (moving
> things twice makes everybody forget where they are). So, I would be against it,
> in particular since I don't see a real reason to do anything in the first
> place.

Also, any toolserver report would need to have the list for all FlaggedRevs wikis.
Comment 13 Rob Lanphier 2010-11-29 21:41:32 UTC
Putting this on hold until there's a consensus one way or another.
Comment 14 Bawolff (Brian Wolff) 2010-11-29 22:31:54 UTC
Why not make it a config variable, and if the enwiki people get community consensus, they could disable it just for them.
Comment 15 MZMcBride 2010-11-30 00:22:07 UTC
I'm re-opening this bug. There isn't any reason for it to be set to LATER. It isn't resolved and there's nothing holding up action on it (e.g., awaiting an updated version of some outside dependency or awaiting the death of Internet Explorer 5 or what have you).

(In reply to comment #14)
> Why not make it a config variable, and if the enwiki people get community
> consensus, they could disable it just for them.

There's already a configuration variable in core for this: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgEdititis

(Which, by the way, is set to false by default.)

I'm not sure what the practice is regarding core configuration variable (re-)use in an extension is, but at least you can say there's precedent for this type of feature being wrapped in a configuration variable.
Comment 16 Aaron Schulz 2010-12-06 20:17:27 UTC
Marking dup of 25775, which *might* be useful enough to justify and would cover this.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 26268 ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links