One thought I have on this is that the logs needn't persist forever - we could delete old entries after, say, 30 days. I can't imagine a community wanting to analyse more data than that. If it would be a ton of work then maybe we don't need to bother, but if there's some existing log-culling capability then I think we could use it here.

Automoderator links to the local Community Configuration page

Wouldn't it make more sense to link it to a page explaining Automoderator?

In T418248#11650491, @ItsNyoty wrote:

Automoderator links to the local Community Configuration page

Wouldn't it make more sense to link it to a page explaining Automoderator?

Possibly - I wasn't sure what the best destination would be for this link. Some options:

• Local configuration page (e.g. https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CommunityConfiguration/AutoModerator)
• Local user page (e.g. https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AutoModeratorTest)
• MediaWiki project page (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Moderator_Tools/Automoderator)

We may not be able to guarantee that the local user page will exist yet, because we'll need to update the deployment steps, which may involve having that setup after launching the extension in logging mode. The MediaWiki page could be a useful destination, but takes you off the project to MediaWiki. The Configuration page doesn't actually tell you much about Automoderator, but we know it will exist.

Perhaps we could do both the configuration page and MediaWiki, like so?

00:00, 1 January 1970 Automoderator would revert edit 123456 by Alice with score 0.1234 (learn more)

Where Automoderator still links to the configuration page, but learn more takes you to MediaWiki?

One thing to consider is that I assume the only people looking at these logs will be familiar with Automoderator already, since they're only designed to help with assessing its behaviour.

I think that would be better, or the “Learn more” link could be a configurable link, with the default value set to MediaWiki.

Would these logged to-be actions show in RecentChanges or not? On one hand that'd make everything feel crowded, but on the other hand isolating them to a unique Special:Log/ page might make context surrounding the suggested revert harder to understand.

In T418248#11656201, @A09 wrote:

Would these logged to-be actions show in RecentChanges or not? On one hand that'd make everything feel crowded, but on the other hand isolating them to a unique Special:Log/ page might make context surrounding the suggested revert harder to understand.

I'm open to thoughts on this. My rationale for start with logs was that if communities don't trust Automoderator yet, we might want to avoid prominent/user-facing ways of logging this information. At the same time, we could do something like tagging edits. That would still give an easy log to peruse (filter Recent Changes for the tag), but it would result in a user-facing element signifying an edit should be reverted. I suppose there is the option of making it a hidden tag, so you only see it if you look to filter for it (though this requires advance knowledge of its existence).

I think it would be better to net show it in RC at first, since it would "flood" it on more active communities

In T418248#11658206, @Samwalton9-WMF wrote:

In T418248#11656201, @A09 wrote:

Would these logged to-be actions show in RecentChanges or not? On one hand that'd make everything feel crowded, but on the other hand isolating them to a unique Special:Log/ page might make context surrounding the suggested revert harder to understand.

I'm open to thoughts on this. My rationale for start with logs was that if communities don't trust Automoderator yet, we might want to avoid prominent/user-facing ways of logging this information. At the same time, we could do something like tagging edits. That would still give an easy log to peruse (filter Recent Changes for the tag), but it would result in a user-facing element signifying an edit should be reverted. I suppose there is the option of making it a hidden tag, so you only see it if you look to filter for it (though this requires advance knowledge of its existence).

As I mentioned on Discord, tagging edits (or using hidden tags) to allow filtering for potential vandalism would be great!

We should split this task to 'implement logging mode' and 'surface that in community configuration'.

We're going to move forward with logging, rather than tagging, for now. Logging gives us the additional benefit of being able to include the Revert Risk score in the log summary, which a tag system wouldn't provide an easy way to implement. I'm not against a tagging mode in the future if that's still desirable.

Is there a way to see the log where the edits that automoderator suggests which have been rollbacked and which haven't? i.g. with a tag? Now it's just a list with suggestions but you don't know if anyone has checked it already

Also, it's logging double

In T418248#11936223, @ItsNyoty wrote:

Is there a way to see the log where the edits that automoderator suggests which have been rollbacked and which haven't? i.g. with a tag? Now it's just a list with suggestions but you don't know if anyone has checked it already

Not a direct log, no. Let me look into whether we could set up some data queries or something.

Also, it's logging double

A known issue! T426401: Fix unexpected log-only logs in Automoderator