Now that the "abuse filter maintainer" (AFM) group has been created on WMF wikis, we should devise a strategy on how best to utilize this group.
Ideals (and questions about them)
- Every time a change in AbuseFilter code results in functionality change without backward compliance, we should try to identify affected wikis
- Should we use DB queries?
- Should we use on-wiki search?
- Every time we find filters that must be edited to match the new AbuseFilter code, AFM should start by letting the sysops of that wiki know, in case they would want to fix it themselves
- What venue do we post this in? Should we curate a list of pages in each wiki in which such notice should be posted?
- What format do we use for communication? Do we just say something like "this function needs a third parameter in all of its use cases" or do we specifically say "update filter #14 and change foo to bar"?
- What do we communicate about private filters? Do we even mention them on-wiki? Do we ask for a sysop to email the AFM for more details?
- If an AFM ends up editing a filter on some wiki, s/he should clearly state the purpose of the edit, so that there are no future surprises to local sysops
- Should we require a mention of the Phabricator ticket or Gerrit patchset ID in the filter comments?
- Should we ask each request for AFM edits to have its own Phab ticket? Should they be tagged with Wikimedia-Site-requests or not?
- Should we create a tracker task (or a Phabricator tag) to mark all such tickets?
- We should have a mechanism to keep track of how (and how often) AFM right is being used.