T416038: Provide an API for basic data about a talk page is now merged!

@Dillon Is there also code that can be removed for adding the Dashboard link to that side menu? If so we could include that in this task.

who is using it? Which metrics do they find particularly valuable?

https://github.com/WikipediaLibrary/TWLight/pull/1514

Just confirming that I chatted with Amir last week and he said that from a performance perspective Echo notifications should be fine, provided email remains off the table.

In T416458#11619685, @JSengupta-WMF wrote:

I brought back the "do not show again" action in the design. This is the pattern Growth team follows for their onboarding as well so let's keep it consistent.
https://www.figma.com/design/CdyroPkkcT7GJA9bwno0Rq/WE1.4-Task-priotization?node-id=810-34755&t=PyQEgYAkpn0M2f6g-1

Personally I think adding a dismiss button is reasonable, not sure why that got de-scoped.

Thanks @Tchanders!! I really appreciate the raw numbers in the sheet - it helps give a lot of context to the percentages! My first reaction is that ~500 reverts out of 4,500 edits seems like a lot. I ran a couple of quick queries for this date range and 509 out of 4,508 edits were reverted in total on simple.wiki. I wouldn't expect Automoderator to be correctly reverting every single possible human edit, and also don't anticipate that Simple English editors are missing significant numbers of bad edits. This highlights that the Revert Risk threshold we estimated (T385102) probably isn't accurate for simple.wiki. It was based on id.wiki, but we already know that the required threshold is likely to be different for different wikis. I wonder if we need to repeat that analysis too, to target 1% revert rate on our various target wikis...

We're looking to deploy this change this month. Apologies for the delay.

Related issue: T417244: [Vector 2010] Watchlist navigation overlaps with watchlist title

In T374698#11603818, @Tchanders wrote:

Thanks @Strainu - I experienced roughly similar timings to get multilingual revert risk scores via the internal stats server (about 15 minutes for 4-5k revisions).

@Samwalton9-WMF I have a couple more questions, now that I've tested it out on bgwiki.

Are these assumptions OK when fetching the revision IDs to include in the analysis for a given wiki?

• Use the last week of January as the time period (in case we need the historical dumps for looking at reverts - not available yet for February)
• Don't include article creations
• Don't include bot edits
• Main namespace only

In T417145#11606813, @Samwilson wrote:

I wonder if, rather than looking at this from the point of view of labelling, we should think of adding more search capabilities to Special:EditWatchlist. Whatever the search results are, people will be able to assign or unassign labels, but also remove from their watchlist. It might be more flexible.

As long as this solution lists only the users + emails who upvoted, and not every other user (there are over 50,000 in the database!) then I think this could work :)

This is looking good to us.

Looks good.

@Catrope @Chlod Do we have any insight on whether CodexHTMLForm has the features we require yet?

Automoderator has been deployed for some time now and we haven't encountered any performance issues. Additionally, I believe that the formal performance review process is now defunct.

This hypothesis was completed.

Closing this out since we haven't had any further reports.

In T374698#11601081, @Tchanders wrote:

I'm not sure how long calling the API will take (will need to fetch all the revision IDs for a month, then call the LiftWing API for revert risk scores for each one). I'm not sure how well this will scale, so I'll test first on a smaller wiki. @Samwalton9-WMF Any preference on which small wiki I start with - is there a particular wiki whose data it would be interesting to see first? If not, I'll start with bg.wiki.

This would save us time and effort in T402781 - do you know if/when this could be merged?

Closing this task in favour of T409059: Surface noteworthy edits to editors.