Might be a duplicate of T6055

That sounds sensible only if the checkbox is labelled as "Automatically enable all beta features" instead of "Automatically enable all new beta features" as @Soni points out.

This is an irritating bug to encounter. It's counter intuitive to say "Automatically enable all new beta features" but imply "Automatically enable all beta features". Not to mention that the UI makes you think you disabled a beta feature, only to have it auto-re enabled.

Just wanted to point out that 4 months later, the queries are still running.

About a dozen or more queries that happened just after this query are still marked as "Running". I believe there are others as well, some more queries that followed these.

Hey @Halfak . I actually am interested in going ahead with this. Just got my system fixed today so finally can actaully start with this again tonight or tomorrow night?

Still getting an empty set. Not sure if the problem is with Query termination or the way the Query was framed :/

Just in case it helps, here's the output from a sample run of the Query -

First Two Queries attempted to test Tool Labs (tool name - "Sonitool")

Current Progress -

• We will be querying the following tables on enwiki_p database - logging (for deletions), page, revision (for good dataset)
• The following queries were tried using Quarry
  • https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/10191 - For Bad dataset. Works. (Needs to be refined)
  • https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/10206 - For bad dataset. Also works and needs to be refined.
  • https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/10188 - For good dataset. Got timed out.
  • https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/10293 - Refined query for good dataset. Also timed out.
• From these, we have a basic format of the Queries to be run for our datasets.
• Current plan is to have 20k articles in the good set, and 5k articles in each of the bad sets. We can later choose to truncate the overall dataset
• Since the Quarry queries are timing out. We’ll use a Tool Labs account to run these queries.

Copying over content from my personal documentation....

J-Mo, can you please confirm what is the current criterion the Hostbot uses for sending the invites? Ideally, the new thresholds should be more rigorous than the current ones (Because the general idea is that we should invite editors more invested in Wikipedia than currently), so we might want to revisit the retention rate percentage, but overall that idea looks solid.

The choice of the "3 days" number is pretty arbitrary for now, but I'm hoping Aaron can weigh in with some drop-off statistics to help decide exactly how old newcomers have to be before they are best suited for mentorship. (One possible parameter I have in mind is that after a certain time period, the rate of drop off of newcomers should be marginally lower)

I suggest not putting anything in the templatespace unless it is going to be called from multiple locations. Most of the suggested names in templatespace will be better placed under Wikipedia/Co-op instead.

Completed. The front page template is at https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Co-opFront