User talk:Deskana (WMF)/Power user tools development team

Yes, but...

Yes, I'd really like to see a team that would focus on these issues, but:

• I don't really like term "power users". Tools should be designed to support all users, whether novice or expert. A good example of this imo is Special:Nuke which is easy for new admins to use to clean up spam, but experienced admins can also leverage it to clean up after vandals.

• Most of the stuff listed here would fit better under a anti-spam/anti-abuse team IMO, which would be better scoped instead of "power users" which could include anything like cross-wiki notifications, watchlist wishlist, global gadgets... unless that's the intention?

Anyways, what's next? 5 hour budget meetings? :-) Legoktm (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Legoktm!

• Good point on the "power users" terminology. I agree with you. The reason I chose to use the term "power users" is because it's the most recognised term for users like admins, checkusers, bureaucrats, very prolific content contributors. You very correctly point out that there are, for example, also new admins and experienced admins, who have different needs. We'd need to work those details out.
• There is significant overlap between anti-spam/anti-abuse and my proposal as it currently is. I guess the difference is that in theory my proposal also covers workflows like AfD, but yes, it is less tightly scoped. I'd be fine with that too honestly, as a first step towards this.
• What's next? I honestly have no idea. Right now I'm just hoping this gets tons of signatures so I can ask one of the execs to either say "yes" or "no" to this.

--Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Two tools that are ongoing sticking points here are the Commons mass upload tool, and the fact that https://tools.wmflabs.org keeps going down. Any chance these can get added to the list? --Djembayz (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Really important proposal

I think this is a really important proposal that seriously needs to be supported. Not only would this be helpful at the operational side of things, but it would also be an excellent tactical move for the WMF to specifically invest in the needs of the small minority who undertake a disproportionate amount of the work. It also may very well have strategic implications for helping with "editor retention" if this helps reduce backlogs, thereby reducing stress levels, and thereby less "biting the newbies".

In short - is there ANY other major web property that does NOT have a specific team dedicated to supporting the core group of people who do a disproportionately large amount of the work? Wittylama (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit Conflicts

It pains me to say this because I'd love to see it worked on, but I wouldn't include edit conflicts in this. Yes I'm sure active users occasionally experience edit conflicts, but we are by definition the people who have learned to live with/resolve them. We also tend to be the people making quick minor edits that cause edit conflicts to those who are spending ten minutes on an edit. My suspicion is that it is disproportionately newbies who we drive away with edit conflicts, hence I fall into the camp of thinking that an initiative to halve edit conflicts would do more for the site than Flow and V/E combined. WereSpielChequers (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: Working on edit conflicts could be something as simple as changing the default prose in the messages on the edit conflict page so that they're easier to understand. I think it's unwise to take anything off the table at this stage, because there may be low hanging fruit that could be worked on by one member of the team (e.g. by a Community Liaison or Product Manager) while the engineers work on something else. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The big gains on edit conflicts would be in actually reducing them. Changing the way MediaWiki handles categorisation or template bombing so that we don't bite and drive off newbies by categorising or templating articles that they were trying to do their second edit to. Much bigger potential win than Liquid threads, AFT, Media Viewer etc, just not a power user thing. Power users are by definition the people we haven't driven off with edit conflicts. We are the people who gain least from reducing them. WereSpielChequers (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Upgrade people to Monobook

If we want more power users, a new generation of them we need to find a way to upgrade editors to Monobook. Vector is fine for readers of Wikipedia, part of the rationale for bringing it in was that at the time we had no shortage of editors but we had an ambition that more people, ultimately everyone would read Wikipedia, and so Vector was introduced as a more reader friendly skin with lots of useful editing stuff hidden in submenus. The situation now is very different, obviously we can't truly compare current editing levels to the pre edit filter era, but there is a widely believed theory that real and not just raw editing levels have dropped. Using Vector as the default skin for IP editors and Monobook as the default for editors would make a whole bunch of tools one less click away and less hidden. WereSpielChequers (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)