Yes, pipes are supported.

👍

Could you either add this Tech News or ping me/@Quiddity/@Trizek-WMF as son as you know when this will go into production?

In T32750#4015559, @Johan wrote:

Could you either add this Tech News or ping me/@Quiddity/@Trizek-WMF as son as you know when this will go into production?

Yeah. @Keegan is going to do that, I believe.

In T32750#4015573, @Niharika wrote:

In T32750#4015559, @Johan wrote:

Could you either add this Tech News or ping me/@Quiddity/@Trizek-WMF as son as you know when this will go into production?

Yeah. @Keegan is going to do that, I believe.

@Niharika says we can probably go into production next week, so I've gone ahead and added it to Tech News.

I'll be notifying communities when we're released into production, it's a straightforward and highly requested feature.

Is this going to hit for BOT edits that mention usernames? For example this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&type=revision&diff=828934435&oldid=828934414

and this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toxic_masculinity&curid=52960997&diff=828940879&oldid=828940727

A bit worried about a few high volume bots that may start a flood of mentions

another sample:
https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Muldeanwohner/Babel/Angler&curid=10253398&diff=174725188&oldid=174719611

In T32750#4024237, @Xaosflux wrote:

Is this going to hit for BOT edits that mention usernames? For example this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&type=revision&diff=828934435&oldid=828934414

and this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toxic_masculinity&curid=52960997&diff=828940879&oldid=828940727

A bit worried about a few high volume bots that may start a flood of mentions

another sample:
https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Muldeanwohner/Babel/Angler&curid=10253398&diff=174725188&oldid=174719611

Very nice catch... we'll have to discuss this. You could always mute the bot(s) in your preferences, but perhaps you shouldn't have to go out of your way to do that. Or we could exempt users with the bot permission, but I know some bots purposefully use Echo (albeit rare).

I also see Twinkle will issue some inadvertent pings, e.g. https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle/blob/master/modules/twinklewarn.js#L1394 That's easy to fix. I suppose we'd have to link to Special:Contribs instead?

It might be nice to have a way to link to a user page without pinging.

@MusickAnimal muting the bots is a lot of work as EACH editor has to do it, better would be to investigate any high-use bots in advance and contact the operators. They could change their user: links to something else (e.g. contributions as mentioned above, or logs or something else). I'm not sure what the "best" approach to this is. Perhaps a more complicated "exempt API edits unless some additional parameter is purposeful set" ?

In T32750#4025344, @Xaosflux wrote:

@MusickAnimal muting the bots is a lot of work as EACH editor has to do it, better would be to investigate any high-use bots in advance and contact the operators. They could change their user: links to something else (e.g. contributions as mentioned above, or logs or something else). I'm not sure what the "best" approach to this is. Perhaps a more complicated "exempt API edits unless some additional parameter is purposeful set" ?

Totally. We're going to discuss more and hopefully we'll resolve these issues prior to deployment. At the very least give a broader "heads up" :) I'd wait on saying anything to the botops, because we may want to exempt them entirely, not sure.

Well, getting notified by SineBot doesn't seem _that_ bad, since the user should have signed the comment themself. OTOH, the admin mentioned by CommonsDelinker doesn't need the ping at all.

Thanks for raising that, @Xaosflux. That's a good point that we missed. I'm compiling a list of bots which mention users in edit summaries. I'm going to run a few queries to figure out which major bots mention users in their summaries and how often they seem to do that, on a couple of big wikis.

Enwiki's Sinebot is probably (?) already excluded, because it's the 1 entry on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Echo-blacklist (The blacklist feature is documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Notifications#Community_blacklisting ).
However, I'm not sure if that blacklist system would be a very good solution to the main problem (I suspect not), because there are likely to be bots that have multiple tasks, where some of the tasks purposefully ping users on talk/project pages, and some of the tasks result in edits that currently link usernames in the edit-summaries (with no ping intended).

@Niharika I've created a logging filter on enwiki, see results here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=905
(I just exempted SineBot due to the Blacklist already discussed)

In T32750#4025851, @Xaosflux wrote:

@Niharika I've created a logging filter on enwiki, see results here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=905
(I just exempted SineBot due to the Blacklist already discussed)

Nice, thanks! I also put some stats in T188960: Figure out which bots mention users in summaries, how often, and decide how 'Edit summary pings' should handle bots.

Hello. Thank you again for this task. Tell me, please, if I'll fill two more tasks, that are reasonable after both this one, and expanding to 1000 symbols, is there a chance for them, or some of them? I'm talking about:

• Adding url parsing (or at least pure html, with no []).
• Adding wikilink parsing.

Thank you.

In T32750#4035406, @IKhitron wrote:

Hello. Thank you again for this task. Tell me, please, if I'll fill two more tasks, that are reasonable after both this one, and expanding to 1000 symbols, is there a chance for them, or some of them? I'm talking about:

• Adding url parsing (or at least pure html, with no []).

This would add additional requirements on communities to patrol, as external links can lead to dangerous destinations. I think the communities would have to provide some serious feedback about the desirability of that, before it would be added.

• Adding wikilink parsing.

I thought [[ ]] wikilinks are already parsed, are they not ? Random example

In T32750#4035406, @IKhitron wrote:

Hello. Thank you again for this task. Tell me, please, if I'll fill two more tasks, that are reasonable after both this one, and expanding to 1000 symbols, is there a chance for them, or some of them? I'm talking about:

• Adding url parsing (or at least pure html, with no []).
• Adding wikilink parsing.

Thank you.

This would be an unrelated change to this project. You can propose it by creating a new Phabricator task.

In T32750#4035498, @TheDJ wrote:

In T32750#4035406, @IKhitron wrote:

Hello. Thank you again for this task. Tell me, please, if I'll fill two more tasks, that are reasonable after both this one, and expanding to 1000 symbols, is there a chance for them, or some of them? I'm talking about:

• Adding url parsing (or at least pure html, with no []).

This would add additional requirements on communities to patrol, as external links can lead to dangerous destinations. I think the communities would have to provide some serious feedback about the desirability of that, before it would be added.

I see. Thank you.

• Adding wikilink parsing.

I thought [[ ]] wikilinks are already parsed, are they not ? Random example

Sorry. My fault.

In T32750#4035505, @TBolliger wrote:

In T32750#4035406, @IKhitron wrote:

Hello. Thank you again for this task. Tell me, please, if I'll fill two more tasks, that are reasonable after both this one, and expanding to 1000 symbols, is there a chance for them, or some of them? I'm talking about:

• Adding url parsing (or at least pure html, with no []).
• Adding wikilink parsing.

Thank you.

This would be an unrelated change to this project. You can propose it by creating a new Phabricator task.

It's exactly what I talked about - creation a new Phabricator task. Unfortunately you did not see this part. I get an answer, and will not create this task.

@IKhitron Sorry, I wasn't trying to dissuade you. I think your first idea has merit as new feature proposal, but as @TheDJ said we'll need to discuss it further before building them.

Internal links currently work (e.g. [[Cats]]) but external links do not work (e.g. [http://www.google.com cats]) (example). HTML links (e.g. <a href=") probably shouldn't be supported thought, in my opinion.

In T32750#4035557, @TBolliger wrote:

@IKhitron Sorry, I wasn't trying to dissuade you. I think your first idea has merit as new feature proposal, but as @TheDJ said we'll need to discuss it further before building them.

Internal links currently work (e.g. [[Cats]]) but external links do not work (e.g. [http://www.google.com cats]) (example). HTML links (e.g. <a href=") probably shouldn't be supported thought, in my opinion.

I see. thank you. But looks it will not happen.

In T32750#4035406, @IKhitron wrote:

• Adding url parsing (or at least pure html, with no []).

There is a task about that: T16892: Linkify plain external links in revision editsummary and log reason

Will user subpages be included? The first of the acceptance criteria above is not clear on this point.

Notifications will be delivered if a user types in [[User:*]] in the edit summary.

As written this would match both [[User:Foo]] and [[User:Foo/Bar]].

As a real-world example, I have a UserTalkCleaner script that leaves the edit summary remove automated messages using [[User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/UserTalkCleaner.js]]. I don't want this to ping me every time it's used (although I don't think that this particular script is used by anyone other than me).

No, subpages will not trigger this.

I think that log summaries should be consistent with edit ones. What do you think ? I'm not sure if I have to create a patch for this without any more consensus/discussion.

In T32750#4048021, @Framawiki wrote:

I think that log summaries should be consistent with edit ones. What do you think ? I'm not sure if I have to create a patch for this without any more consensus/discussion.

I agree that it's a reasonable expectation that all summaries should have similar behavior, but I think it needs to be thought through before implementation. Our experience on T60485 we have found it difficult to link all logs up with reasonable places to link to (and therefore to discuss.) I'd say it should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Hi, it still does not work in yesterday's deployment. Should it work? Thank you.

In T32750#4052798, @IKhitron wrote:

Hi, it still does not work in yesterday's deployment. Should it work? Thank you.

No, it will be deployed today.

Thank you.

Initially, thanks for all of this work.

But few users on arwiki (including me) complained from incredible nuisance that this feature make.

If any user rollback or revert any edit to your version on the page you receive a notification that the user mentioned you!

For example, when user:أحمد ناجي rollback IP edit, I received a notification that user:أحمد ناجي mentioned me. I received many notifications like that on the last days!

Also, another user complain on Keegan announcement about this feature.

So any suggestion here?

In T32750#4060410, @alanajjar wrote:

Initially, thanks for all of this work.

But few users on arwiki (including me) complained from incredible nuisance that this feature make.

If any user rollback or revert any edit to your version on the page you receive a notification that the user mentioned you!

For example, when user:أحمد ناجي rollback IP edit, I received a notification that user:أحمد ناجي mentioned me. I received many notifications like that on the last days!

Also, another user complain on Keegan announcement about this feature.

So any suggestion here?

I see it raised here T189819

@alanajjar Indeed, the problem will be fixed this week when the patch is deployed.

@alanajjar In the meantime, I've edited the MediaWiki:Revertpage message, to avoid such pings on arwiki.

Amazing. Thanks a lot @Niharika and @Keegan