| Iniquity | |
| Jul 24 2025, 8:07 PM |
| F65668283: image.png | |
| Jul 24 2025, 8:07 PM |
Steps to replicate the issue (include links if applicable):
What happens?:
What should have happened instead?:
The graph should reflect the actual number of edits: https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Служебная:Вклад/Ibidem&target=Ibidem&offset=20250708163341&limit=500
I think that’s because we only have up to 1,000 edits, due to limitations in how much data we can query.
To avoid overloading the system and check more edits, it can be replaced the label from "no edits" to "no data" and make part of the graph gray.
Specifically for this user, the data we get from GrowthExperiments-ImpactModule is:
"editCountByDay": { "2025-07-08": 24, "2025-07-09": 65, "2025-07-10": 40, "2025-07-11": 82, "2025-07-13": 91, "2025-07-14": 86, "2025-07-15": 83, "2025-07-16": 35, "2025-07-17": 24, "2025-07-18": 89, "2025-07-19": 37, "2025-07-20": 60, "2025-07-21": 46, "2025-07-22": 110, "2025-07-23": 71, "2025-07-24": 57 },
@Niharika @KColeman-WMF in a scenario like this, would it make sense to have the chart only span the date range of July 8 to July 24, and indicate this in the label for the chart (Instead of showing "last 60 days")?
If there is a 1,000-item limit for some of the data, that should be clearly stated somewhere. It causes many issues; some are listed at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Product_Safety_and_Integrity/Anti-abuse_signals/User_Info#Data_is_wrong_for_reverted_edits,_edits_in_last_60_days,_and_probably_more
@Niharika @KColeman-WMF in a scenario like this, would it make sense to have the chart only span the date range of July 8 to July 24, and indicate this in the label for the chart (Instead of showing "last 60 days")?
Yes, that would be better.
For the long term is it possible to consider querying more than 1000 edits?
What's happening on this task? These info cards still provide significant amounts of misleading information. Please at least add a disclaimer.
Change #1213107 had a related patch set uploaded (by Kosta Harlan; author: Kosta Harlan):
[mediawiki/extensions/CheckUser@master] UserInfoCard: Hide activity graph when it's likely to be inaccurate
I don't think we need to hide the graph. Please just add the word "maximum" before the number "1,000". That provides enough information.
@Jonesey95 the current graph is misleading. I don't think simply adding "maximum" adds enough clarity. We should ideally have a way to display within the graph itself when we hit the 1000 edit cap.
Since we don't have too many editors with more than 1000 edits in 60 days, we decided to hide the graph just for those users. It's not going to impact most use cases. We will come back to this ticket later to implement a more thought through fix (CC @KieranMcCann-WMF).
Change #1213107 merged by jenkins-bot:
[mediawiki/extensions/CheckUser@master] UserInfoCard: Hide activity graph when it's likely to be inaccurate
Change #1213970 had a related patch set uploaded (by Kosta Harlan; author: Kosta Harlan):
[mediawiki/extensions/CheckUser@wmf/1.46.0-wmf.5] UserInfoCard: Hide activity graph when it's likely to be inaccurate
Change #1213970 merged by jenkins-bot:
[mediawiki/extensions/CheckUser@wmf/1.46.0-wmf.5] UserInfoCard: Hide activity graph when it's likely to be inaccurate
Mentioned in SAL (#wikimedia-operations) [2025-12-02T10:25:43Z] <kharlan@deploy2002> Started scap sync-world: Backport for [[gerrit:1213970|UserInfoCard: Hide activity graph when it's likely to be inaccurate (T400409)]]
Mentioned in SAL (#wikimedia-operations) [2025-12-02T10:27:49Z] <kharlan@deploy2002> kharlan: Backport for [[gerrit:1213970|UserInfoCard: Hide activity graph when it's likely to be inaccurate (T400409)]] synced to the testservers (see https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mwdebug). Changes can now be verified there.
Mentioned in SAL (#wikimedia-operations) [2025-12-02T10:36:09Z] <kharlan@deploy2002> Finished scap sync-world: Backport for [[gerrit:1213970|UserInfoCard: Hide activity graph when it's likely to be inaccurate (T400409)]] (duration: 10m 26s)