[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Page MenuHomePhabricator

Enable trusted global editors to configure Automoderator on small wikis
Open, Needs TriagePublic

Description

Background

Automoderator is a tool under development by the Moderator Tools team. It uses the revert risk models, developed by the Wikimedia Foundation Research team, to score edits, reverting any which score higher than a community-configurable threshold. There are two versions of this model:

As of September 2024 we are using the language-agnostic model, but investigating a shift to the multilingual model for supported wikis. For the purpose of global support for Automoderator detailed below, we would only be using the language-agnostic model. These models only support the main namespace of Wikipedia projects.

Automoderator can be configured at each wiki on which it is deployed via MediaWiki-extensions-CommunityConfiguration. However, we have a long tail of Wikipedias with very few active administrators or patrollers, who may not have the capacity or knowledge to configure Automoderator for their wiki. On such wikis a substantial volume of the anti-vandalism workload is carried out by global editors, who monitor edits across dozens or hundreds of wikis. In particular, Global Sysops and Stewards carry out administrative workflows. These editors would like Automoderator to run on small wikis, with control in the hands of trusted global contributors.

We could imagine giving Stewards a global configuration to control the running of Automoderator across these wikis. This would probably entail a single configuration that applies to all wikis, with on/off switches per wiki, in case of individual issues with its running. Local configuration should take priority if it exists, in case a wiki becomes interested in local configuration.

Technical direction

Per the discussion in T372413, we have decided that we would implement this functionality as internal MediaWiki configuration, rather than using Community Configuration. This is because there is additional CC work which would need to be done to support this workflow, and we have performance concerns about doing a HTTP lookup on almost every mainspace edit save across these wikis. This means Stewards would need to file Phabricator tickets to adjust the configuration, but we don't anticipate this being a very frequent requirement.

We will use one set of configuration across all small wikis, with the ability to turn Automoderator on or off on each wiki.

Data

We would want a centralised monitoring dashboard which presented high-level data about Automoderator's behaviour on those wikis, such as rate of reverts.

Questions
Exclusively technical questions are in T372413.

  • Q: Should this be Steward-only functionality, or also open to Global sysops?
    • A: Stewards and Meta admins control this kind of functionality for other tools (e.g. AbuseFilter), so it makes sense that they would also be the groups to configure Automoderator.
  • Q: What would Automoderator be called on these wikis? It probably isn't feasible to name it uniquely for each wiki.
    • A: We can make a firm decision about this later, but it can be named the same thing everywhere, such as 'Automoderator'.
  • How do we enable a false positive reporting flow for these wikis?
  • What data about Automoderator's behaviour would be needed in a centralised dashboard?
  • Q: How would we handle a community migrating from global control of Automoderator to local control?
    • A: Local consensus, communicated to global editors, should be sufficient. Stewards won't object if there is local consensus. There's an additional technical question about how to facilitate this.
  • How can local communities view Automoderator's configuration and speak to Stewards about it?
    • Perhaps we could have a Meta discussion page, and link to this + configuration on the global user page.

Event Timeline

Restricted Application added a subscriber: Aklapper. · View Herald Transcript

Should there be something about how can the local community on these smaller wikis can provide feedback / reach out to stewards if something has been incorrectly configured or isn't working as expected?
Also, along similar lines, should there be a way for the local community to see what the Automoderator config for their wiki looks like?

AM is already going to run based on on-wiki local .json files correct?

So perhaps just one central file on metawiki (e.g. Mediawiki:Automoderator_central_configuration.json) where central config items could live, and on the local project include a "include central config:true/false" value in some Mediawiki:Autoderator_local_configuration.json file that if TRUE will merge in the central config (then overwrite any values with anything in the local config). Combine that with a value "Enabled:true/false") to turn on or off at a project.

regarding AM's user name: In my opinion system accounts should always be SUL accounts (this has been requested for some years now T160666 / T214722)

Should there be something about how can the local community on these smaller wikis can provide feedback / reach out to stewards if something has been incorrectly configured or isn't working as expected?
Also, along similar lines, should there be a way for the local community to see what the Automoderator config for their wiki looks like?

I think these are great questions - added to the task description.

AM is already going to run based on on-wiki local .json files correct?

So perhaps just one central file on metawiki (e.g. Mediawiki:Automoderator_central_configuration.json) where central config items could live, and on the local project include a "include central config:true/false" value in some Mediawiki:Autoderator_local_configuration.json file that if TRUE will merge in the central config (then overwrite any values with anything in the local config). Combine that with a value "Enabled:true/false") to turn on or off at a project.

That's right! Thanks for the suggestion - I definitely think it's important for local wikis to have some way to take control of Automoderator like this. The merging may not even be required, just defaulting to local config if one exists - there aren't that many options.

regarding AM's user name: In my opinion system accounts should always be SUL accounts (this has been requested for some years now T160666 / T214722)

This would make things simpler, but if I understand correctly in this case we can just manually create an account, and then use the same username for Automoderator's system account, to achieve the same effect.

What data about Automoderator's behaviour would be needed in a centralised dashboard?

I spoke with @KCVelaga_WMF about this today and it sounds like it would be fairly straightforward to add a 'small wikis' filter to T369488: Develop a unified Automoderator Activity Dashboard (v1).

Responding with my own 2cs here:

Should this be Steward-only functionality, or also open to Global sysops? - Stewards and meta admins, global sysops don't have rights locally on meta.
How do we enable a false positive reporting flow for these wikis? - Probably stewards' noticeboard or a dedicated page, similar to what is done for global abusefilters.
What data about Automoderator's behaviour would be needed in a centralised dashboard? - Will leave this one to more technically savvy users.
How would we handle a community migrating from global control of Automoderator to local control? - Local consensus - they start a discussion and go to you once there is consensus to swap to local control, we won't object.
How can local communities view Automoderator's configuration and speak to Stewards about it? - Probably stewards' noticeboard or a dedicate page above; there should be view access to the configuration for some non-steward/admin users if possible.

How do we enable a false positive reporting flow for these wikis? - Probably stewards' noticeboard or a dedicated page, similar to what is done for global abusefilters.

Didn't know there's a dedicated page or any kind of reporting flow for global abusefilters ;) Usually affected users complain at their local wiki (or don't do anything, because they are confused). If there's an admin around, knowing about global abuse filters, they sometimes appear on meta, but if they do, most of them end up on Meta:RFH -> another reason why we should allow meta admins to change the configuration, just like meta admins are also involved with the global sbl and global af).

Should automoderator include a link to a metawiki reporting page in their edit summary or would that be a magnet for vandals?

Responding with my own 2cs here:
...
How can local communities view Automoderator's configuration and speak to Stewards about it? - Probably stewards' noticeboard or a dedicate page above; there should be view access to the configuration for some non-steward/admin users if possible.

Thanks! On this point - Automoderator's configuration is visible to community members as it is simply stored behind Community Configuration, which edits a MediaWiki namespace .json page. See Turkish Wikipedia's configuration here, for example: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:AutoModeratorConfig.json (the Community Configuration UI hasn't been enabled yet but can be seen on Beta: https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Special:CommunityConfiguration/AutoModerator)

How do we enable a false positive reporting flow for these wikis? - Probably stewards' noticeboard or a dedicated page, similar to what is done for global abusefilters.

...
Should automoderator include a link to a metawiki reporting page in their edit summary or would that be a magnet for vandals?

We added a new "report false positive" link to Automoderator's edit summary, as you can see here:

Screenshot 2024-09-10 at 12.47.27.png (268×1 px, 158 KB)

We could imagine having this point to a centralised Meta page for wikis in the scope of this support. After a few months and ~60 reverts on Turkish Wikipedia (they're currently using the strictest threshold setting) we've not seen that page be vandalised yet.