Last modified: 2013-02-05 12:22:12 UTC
We made https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:%E9%98%B2%E6%BB%A5%E7%94%A8%E8%BF%87%E6%BB%A4%E5%99%A8/110 but they're hitting the filter so fast to make this filter auto-disabled. Afterwards we split it into two: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:%E9%98%B2%E6%BB%A5%E7%94%A8%E8%BF%87%E6%BB%A4%E5%99%A8/111 http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:%E9%98%B2%E6%BB%A5%E7%94%A8%E8%BF%87%E6%BB%A4%E5%99%A8/112 to keep it working. Now the same thing happens to http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:%E9%98%B2%E6%BB%A5%E7%94%A8%E8%BF%87%E6%BB%A4%E5%99%A8/115 . In theory I can split any filter into twenty to make it never overload but it looks so hacky. People in #wikimedia-tech suggest me request a configuration change here but I don't have a known nice enough new value.
Defaults are: // Disable filters if they match more than X edits, constituting more than Y% of the last Z edits, if they have been changed in the last S seconds $wgAbuseFilterEmergencyDisableThreshold = 0.05; $wgAbuseFilterEmergencyDisableCount = 2; $wgAbuseFilterEmergencyDisableAge = 86400; // One day.
(In reply to comment #1) > Defaults are: > > // Disable filters if they match more than X edits, constituting more than Y% > of the last Z edits, if they have been changed in the last S seconds > $wgAbuseFilterEmergencyDisableThreshold = 0.05; > $wgAbuseFilterEmergencyDisableCount = 2; > $wgAbuseFilterEmergencyDisableAge = 86400; // One day. I know the defaults but dunno better values.
zh.wiki has too many filters and they are too aggressive, as I reported (and was partly fixed) before; I can't see the filter in question but raising limits seems a very bad idea in general, abusefilter is nasty enough. It's also something which would require a wide consensus (which I don't see) after clear explanations of what filters are doing to the community (which is mostly unaware).
(In reply to comment #3) > It's also something which would require a wide consensus (which I don't see) > after clear explanations of what filters are doing to the community (which is > mostly unaware). Liangent: Has there been any Village Pump discussion about this?
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > It's also something which would require a wide consensus (which I don't see) > > after clear explanations of what filters are doing to the community (which is > > mostly unaware). > > Liangent: Has there been any Village Pump discussion about this? No and this doesn't seem necessary for now.
