Do you think ClueBot NG has a substantial impact on the volume of edits you need to review?
Do you review ClueBot NG's edits or false positive reports? If so, how do you find this process?
Are there any feature requests you have for ClueBot NG?
Open questions about use on the English Wikipedia
How would English Wikipedia evaluate Automoderator to decide whether to use it?
To me at least, the really relevant portion is "what edits could Automoderator catch that ClueNG isn't already". So any evaluation would be easied by seeing examples/scale of what it's catching. Attached to that is being confident that automoderator isn't making more false positives than ClueNG (we could already configure ClueNG to catch way more problematic edits if we accepted twice the false positive rate, so 0.1% or less would be needed). Nosebagbear (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would the community rather test this software early (e.g. in log-only modes), or wait until further in development after other communities have trialled it?
What configuration options would you want to see in the tool?
Who specifically will be responsible for bug fixes and feature requests for this utility? If this includes paid WMF staff, are any SLOs going to be committed to? — xaosfluxTalk13:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where does Automerator sit in the workflow?
There are many steps of the publish workflow today, where in the workflow would this tool fucntion? Specifically before/after which step, keeping in mind certain existing/planned steps such as editcheck, captcha, sbl, abusefilter, ores, publish, copyvioscore, pagetriage. The description says "prevent or revert" - will it function at multiple layers? — xaosfluxTalk13:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
