Page MenuHomePhabricator

replacing "hidden by Article Feedback V5" link with the actual account
Closed, ResolvedPublic


if I request oversight, it automatically hides the post. That's great, but the message is "This post was hidden by Article Feedback V5 ". Article Feedback V5 is not a real account, and we shouldn't be treating it as if it is - it is likely to confuse. It also obscures the actual action; in those cases it should be "auto-hidden by $user-who-requested-oversight,-whoever-that-is".

Version: unspecified
Severity: enhancement



Event Timeline

bzimport raised the priority of this task from to Normal.Nov 22 2014, 12:17 AM
bzimport added a project: ArticleFeedbackv5.
bzimport set Reference to bz35501.

See our Google spreadsheet for exact wording to use for all messages confirming monitor or oversighter actions for feedback page:

elizabeth wrote:

Trying to keep track of a user who "triggered" the autohiding will be INCREDIBLY misleading for autohiding - remember that autohiding is not only triggered by manual oversighting but by other processes as well

For example - for abuse flagging, we autohide after a certain number of flags are chosen - this would make the lucky last person who "flagged for abuse" the "hider" even if they are an anonymous user

For the new spam filtering stuff, the person who POSTED the code will be recorded as the "hider" (this will really confuse people)

We are also not currently tracking if an item was "autohidden" in the db or not, so this would require more sql changes

Now - for the autohiding triggered solely by oversight/request oversight actions we can use the oversight user/oversight requestor as the hider easily - but then it will not be immediately apparent this was an automatic action

yoni wrote:

To add to the comment above: the abuse filtering requirements have actions that are capable of auto-hiding. This introduces new use cases and further complicates the proposed change.
Assigning this to Fabrice for discussion.

Elizabeth, thanks for your good points above.

I agree that we need to modify this change request to only be for Auto-hide events that result from Request Oversight. For that use case, the notices would be changed as proposed below:

Status line above post:
This post was auto-hidden by <user name> on <date>

Status line in article activity log:
<user name> auto-hid this post on <date>: <note>

Status line in central activity log:
<date> <user name> (talk) auto-hid the feedback <permalink>: <note>

I also believe that the same notices above could be used for use cases where an Oversighter oversights a post which was not previously hidden.

We will need different messages for other Auto-hide events that result from the Abuse filter or other automated causes (e.g: after 5 people have flagged a post for abuse), as proposed below:

Status line above post:
This post was auto-hidden by <Article Feedback> on <date>

Status line in article activity log:
<Article Feedback> auto-hid this post on <date>: <note>

Status line in central activity log:
<date> <Article Feedback> (talk) auto-hid the feedback <permalink>: <note>

  • NOTE: When <Article Feedback> is used above, the underlying link should be to the AFT FAQ that explains why some articles are auto-hidden or automatically acted on by the AFT extension. Ideally, that would be the Reader FAQ, for maximum transparency. This means Oliver would need to write an FAQ about this.

Going forward, please use the proposed language for all known actions to date, which is now posted on this Google page:

elizabeth wrote:

I am working on changes to the code to reflect the options shown in that Google page and most of that is easily doable, however I CANNOT remove the flag for abuse/unflag for abuse from the "central activity log" without also removing it from the article activity log.

What you need to understand is that the article activity log is just the items in the central activity log - filtered for an individual article and formatted in another way - a different "View" of the same information. I cannot have anything in the article activity log that is not also in the central activity log.

Thanks, Elizabeth.

Yes, please remove all 'flag for abuse' events from the central activity log for now, as requested in the Google doc. I understand that an event can only be in one section of that central activity log, but do not want to clutter that log with too many requests.

However, we would like to include Auto-flag events (from the Abuse filter) in the Article Feedback Activity section of that central log, if that's easy to do. (I moved that item up in the Google doc, and removed Auto-hide from abuse filter, as we don't expect to need that feature in the short term).

For now, all of these events should go in the current Article Feedback Activity section of the central log, unless specifically assigned to the Suppression log.

Does this work for you?

elizabeth wrote:


Let me repeat - if I remove anything from the central log, it will also remove it from the article log

They are the same log

You are just looking at two different views

elizabeth wrote:

and by article log I mean the "activity log" you get in the feedback page

yoni wrote:

Will be discussed and finalized at our call today (2012-04-03)

Thanks for the clarification, Elizabeth.

I now understand that all these logs are the same and that we cannot remove "Flag as abuse" events from these logs without also removing the "Auto-flag from abuse filter" function as well.

As discussed in today's call, we will continue to keep all "Flag as abuse" AND "Auto-flag from abuse filter" events in these logs. In the central activity log, they will all appear together in the "Article Feedback Activity Log".

Also, we do not expect "Auto-hide from abuse filter" to be used, so I removed that condition from our specification -- and replaced it with "Auto-flag from abuse filter" instead.

All these changes are now posted on our updated Google spreadsheet:

elizabeth wrote:

I have all the changes made EXCEPT for the "perpetrator" link in the central activity log - that can only be done by making a custom formatter for the log entry which seems like a lot of overhead

OK, let's remove the "perpetrator" requirement from this request. I have updated the spec on Google accordingly.

Since this is the Bugzilla ticket where we track the changes to the notices displayed on activity logs, I am adding this request here, as discussed in today's AFT5 weekly team meeting. This was also emailed to Elizabeth on April 7.

Hi Elizabeth,

I would like to propose some copy tweaks to make the Article Feedback Activity Log a bit more readable by casual users:

Fabrice Florin (talk | contribs) hid feedback post #4654 on the Mitt Romney page: "I am hiding this post because the user is SHOUTING opinions and not making any sense. Though this quote is particularly humorous: WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE HIPPOCRATIC OAT?" - 19:12, 6 April 2012

The psuedo-code for this request would look like this:

<user name> (<talk> | <contribs>) <action taken> <feedback post #[post ID]> on the <article name> page: <i>"<note>" - <date></i>


<date> <user name> (talk) hid the feedback <permalink>: <note>

Here is how it looks now on production:

(del/undel) 19:12, 6 April 2012 Fabrice Florin (talk | contribs) hid Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Mitt Romney/4654 (I am hiding this post because the user is SHOUTING opinions and not making any sense. Though this quote is particularly humorous: WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE HIPPOCRATIC OAT?)

I don't know if these proposed tweaks are feasible or not, but they do not add or remove new functionality, to my knowledge, only reposition the links. The most important change in my view is to replace this long URL: Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Mitt Romney/4654 … with something that common mortals can easily understand.

If this works for you, I can update column D of the Google requirements page for the rest of the actions, to conform with this proposed new format.



I also added the same request on Bug 35599, which may be a better place to respond, since it is more comprehensive than this specific ticket.

Let's use that ticket #35599 to track this question, instead of this one. (Sorry, but Bugzilla doesn't let me delete comments).