Talk:XTools

Old edits (DE:WP)

Hi, I'm astonished how far back this finds information:

https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/de.wikipedia/Heribert3?uselang=de

I'd like to search in my contributions history in DE:WP about Higgs years ago, but no hit. Any hints, please? Heribert3 (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Support for Fandom wikis?

Hi, is it possible to extend this tool to Fandom wikis? I'm very active there and have been very eager to see the statistics of my edits. Thanks! Harmoniker666 (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

We hope to bring back third party support eventually, though it is admittedly a low priority. You can follow phab:T344090 for updates. Getting it to work for Fandom however might be a real challenge. I understand they use a fork of MediaWiki and custom tailor extensions and services to work for it. The engineering team would likely need to do the same for XTools. — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. The link seems very technical so not sure how I should "follow" it? Harmoniker666 (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Bug with blocks?

For a user that's indeffed at enwp since January ([1][2]), xtools reports 3 blocks (instead of 5), with longest 6 days and current none. Looks as if it wasn't aware of the last two blocks. Two months seems to me to be too long to be replag's fault. — Alien  3
3 3 16:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

(Made a detailed report at phab:T391824.) — Alien  3
3 3 12:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

And for information also ended up fixing it myself. Rabbit holes... — Alien  3
3 3 20:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Feature Request: Edtorship over Time for any given page

Thank you by the way for creating XTools it's really excellent and I'm so happy that something like it exists.

Goal/Purpose: see if any specific editors were disproportionately influential as (% of edits in a year) in a page's lifetime.

Edits are already shown as a barchart by year. Perhaps a stacked bar chart (every year adds up to 100% but broken down proportionately by contributing editor). For many pages, this may be useless as there are very many editors and not single one dominating, but for some it may be interesting to see. Greengiraffe89 (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Created T396215. — Alien  3
3 3 12:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Link to Liquid Soul

Link is incorrect. 2003:CF:E73A:99B5:4574:BE18:3963:F757 21:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you give precisions? — Alien  3
3 3 19:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Wrong move count?

Going by my en:Special:Logs/move/CX Zoom, I have 2068 moves, even quarry:query/93856 agrees. XTools only counts 1505. In fact, I have moved several hundreds of pages since yesterday, but my move count barely moved. I remember it was 1400-something before the moves. —‍CX Zoom (A/अ/অ) (let's talk|contribs) 19:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Bug found; mw gives a different log_action for moves over redirects; we were only counting move/move as opposed to move/move_redir. Left T396216 and pull request that fixes. — Alien  3
3 3 12:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for figuring it out. I hope it gets merged soon. —‍CX Zoom (A/अ/অ) (let's talk|contribs) 19:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm doing a lot of PRs these days; but it'll probably get deployed in at most a few releases. — Alien  3
3 3 20:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Now merged; will go out in next deployment. — Alien  3
3 3 20:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! —‍CX Zoom (A/अ/অ) (let's talk|contribs) 20:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

(Now deployed.) — Alien  3
3 3 22:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Time Card local time

In the Time Card there is a "Use local time instead of UTC" checkbox. Does it show edits in my local time or the user's local time? In the Xtools User Documentation I did not find a section for Time Card. Jay (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jay It would be your timezone. I have updated the documentation to clarify this. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Not all assessments types are supported

Hello, thanks a lot for the tool, it's very useful ! There is an issue that I found though. On the "pages created" page, there is an assessment column that can hold different values (in English : stub, start, C, list, etc/in French : ébauche, BD, B, ec). The "homonymie" value that can be found on disambiguation pages on French Wikipedia (for instance here) is not transfered to the assessment column in "pages created" (for instance my page with the same disambiguation page on line 9 with "unknown" as assessment). I don't know if it is an easy fix ? But it would be helpful to know which pages are not yet evaluated and which are already evaluated. Thank you in advance for your answer ! Sincerely, TTSolitaire (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Bonjour. Ceci est du à la manière dont les modèles d'évaluation (au sens les bandeaux de PDD) de FRWP fonctionnent. Ils ne marquent une page comme ayant une certaine évaluation que si au moins un Projet est marqué. Par exemple, {{Wikiprojet|avancement=homonymie}} ne marche pas mais {{Wikiprojet|Homonymie||avancement=homonymie}} marcherait. XTools ne peut pas trouver cette évaluation, tout simplement parce que le modèle ne la rend pas accessible dans la base de données.

Si le Projet Homonymie de FRWP n'est pas contre utiliser des choses à la {{Wikiprojet|Homonymie|N/A|avancement=homonymie}}, ça serait une solution. J'ai l'impression (au premier regard) que telle n'est pas la pratique.

L'autre solution serait peut-être de modifier le code pour, par exemple, que sur des PDD ne possédant qu'une évaluation "Homonymie" sans projets, il mette tout de même dans la base de données un enregistrement de l'évaluation.

Je pourrais aider à essayer d'implémenter la deuxième idée, si nécessaire. — Alien  3
3 3 11:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Dead links on this page

All or most of the links titled "link" in the "User documentation" section of this page are 404. They lead to a page called "Oh noes!". Jonesey95 (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 Your browser is apparently failing the Anubis proof-of-work check that we use to filter out malicious bots. Which browser and version are using? And do you have JavaScript enabled? — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Firefox 140.3.1esr on Mac OS, a totally normal browser that works everywhere. And yes, I have JavaScript enabled. Jonesey95 (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you using a VPN or some other proxying service? — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

stats by "bytes added/removed"

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T407814

until recently, there were two main pies - one by # of edits, and the other by bytes added/removed. in many cases the 2nd pie was the significant one when looking for information regarding "who authored this article". i do not see the 2nd pie now, and dearly miss it. don't know if the absence of the 2nd pie is intentional or not. if it is, i want to strongly advocate against this intention - the removed piece was the most useful one on the whole tool. if it's unintentional, then this is my bug report. i don't know where is the right place to report bugs. is it phab: ? peace - קיפודנחש (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@קיפודנחש:

tl;dr: not intentional, collateral effect of temporary fix for another issue, sorry for the annoyance, gotta try and patch something for this sometime soon. (Ideally getting a serious fix for that other issue.) I'll try and take some time for this but I can't promise anything. (And yes, in general the right place to report bugs tends to be phab:tag/xtools/, but do please try and avoid creating duplicates.)

In a nutshell: when determining "max addition"s we rely on reverts, to not count vandalism, except due to T389026/T407814, some of our revert stuff had to be temporarily disabled.

More in detail: there was a schema change, in which the sha1 field (the revision's hash) was moved from the revision table to the content table (T389026). We use sha1 because it lets you do revert detection: if one revision's sha1 is the same as the one a few revisions earlier, it likely means all edits in between were reverted. We didn't adapt in time to the column move could always use some participation, we got quite a stack of stuff to do and sadly I don't have much time these days (blame IRL), and now the values have been removed from the revision table. Which meant the queries we had that tried to read sha1s all ended up crashing, bringing down some tools with them (T407814). We commented out these parts of the queries as an emergency measure to get the time to solve it properly and get sha1s back. A side effect is that we're behaving as if all sha1s were NULL, aka 0. So to our code currently all revisions are the same and all edits are reverted, essentially. Given we exclude reverted edits (as likely vandalism) when counting added text, to the code no one has added text and so there's no point showing the chart.

Cheers, — Alien  3
3 3 21:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

thank you so much!

this is by no means "urgent", i just worried that the second pie, which i find the most useful part of this tool is gone for good.

i can definitely wait patiently, happy to know that at some point it will be back...

peace. קיפודנחש (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Alien333 @MusikAnimal sorry to insist, but this change of removing bytes without notice is so harmful... I am managing two university projects (Viquiprojecte:Microbiologia dels aliments UAB and Viquiprojecte:Biotecnologia alimentària UAB in the Catalan Wikipedia) and the way we evaluated our students (these are graded assignments: about 400 articles since 2017, no small thing!) was by partially checking the number of added bytes by each student in the article. Besides, they were told to check these statistics to see whether they were editing in an equilibrated way. Now, in the middle of the evaluation period, this has suddenly disappeared without any notice! How Wikipedians and educational tutors are we supposed to trust the project if suddenly we see these problems from one day to the other? This change has ruined my evaluation rubric in just two days and now I must count characters manually for each student by using the history page and against the clock. For some of us, and sorry the harsh tone, this is really urgent and annoying. Luckily I knew where to check here in Mediawiki, but what about other people affected?? Nine years volunteering on these courses that bring Wikipedia to the students so that they see that it is a great tool to participate, and the feeling is that year after year it is more difficult to trust any external tool that may help to easily grade them and use the project scholarly. Xavier Dengra (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Xavier Dengra: XTools is a volunteer project that MA had been more or less taking care of alone, for the last 8 years before I arrived last spring. We do our best. We are only volunteers that do what they can do in the little time IRL and the rest of our lives give us. It is not a question of trust. It is a question of possibility. It would be foolish to expect that that one or two guys volunteering in their evenings when they can can guarantee a permanent and unfailing service. We are only human. Contributions would be welcome: people keep complaining that we don't manage to do much, but no one ever wants to give a hand. It doesn't just all magically fix itself.

So yes, a) I would appreciate a less harsh tone (is the best thing you have to do ranting against unpaid volunteers that do their best?), and b) wait until we get time, or fix it yourself at https://github.com/x-tools/xtools/pulls. — Alien  3
3 3 16:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I get your (fair) point. But please, understand that from a plain Wikipedian point of view, the technical maintenance you never know (and it is not that obvious) whether relies on a volunteer or on the WMF. And should rather be the second one -I expect we both agree on this to some extent. The editors also (we) spend a huge amount of volunteering time as well to then see this kind of sudden changes, which sometimes are far worse than a "collateral effect". We wish that the interface was simpler so that many tools did not depend on external websites, so we could understand and help more with technical knowledge. Not the case for most of us, that we are not trained nor expert in coding... And the experience in Phabricator is that it is a 'cul-de-sac' where requests can take up to several years while the wiki interface is worsening over years. All this said, and ofc respecting your volunteering, I can only beg so that a new patch can show again, somehow, the bytes added. And that others' volunteering does not become a nightmare with the need of a calculator in the hand. Best regards, Xavier Dengra (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I will try to set some time aside to work on it this week. Apologies for the inconvenience! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Done The "Top 10 by added text" chart has been restored. That was easier to fix than I thought it'd be. phab:T407814 is not fully resolved yet; We still need to give the same treatment to the TopEdits tool, but that seems less important right now so it can wait. Best, — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much to both for the extra workload to restore it. And my sincere apologies for the 'nerves' when I saw it was gone. It is really a great help to have it available again! Xavier Dengra (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Author link is broken

Phabricator ticket: T410474

On English Wikipedia article Water, the author links to Drj:User:Drj instead User:Drj. I am using Vector 2022 skin. Shushugah (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Came here to say the same. It's been happening (on all articles and drafts, AFAICT) for a few days at least.

I also use Vector 2022, in case that's relevant. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Same problem in Vector 2010. I think it`s the XTool api`s problem. ChasingAir (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I created T410474 bug. Shushugah (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)