Talk:Product Safety and Integrity/Incident Reporting System
Add topic The following Wikimedia Foundation staff monitor this page:
|
2025 plans?
[edit]The last update was the implementation of this tool on Portuguese Wikipedia, Wednesday, December 11, 2024.
- Is there a link to documentation for this in Portuguese Wikipedia? Desired documentation:
- Any Wikimedia community reactions to this
- Any data about any reports which have been done, such as how many, what kinds, and their general outcome
- Is there any documentation on next steps?
- When is the WMF bringing this to any other language or sister project?
- What is the projected date for bringing this to English Wikipedia?
Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello @Bluerasberry, this just a note to acknowledge your message. I will get back to you on Monday with details. Have a good weekend. STei (WMF) (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Bluerasberry the main mode of communication for deployment to ptwiki was via their village pump. There were very few reactions like this onewhich was left on this talk page. The MVP was warmly received overall.
- About data collection, we have been collecting some data and we are planning on sharing it this quarter with the entire community, not just ptwiki. The timeline for this is not yet agreed.
- We have discussed the next set of pilots for this quarter as well, however we plan to engage admins, U4C members and more stakeholders before deploying. The next steps will be published on the project page soon. STei (WMF) (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- 👍 Bluerasberry (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- I've never been to this page before. But I know for a fact that "The MVP was warmly received overall" could not be further from the case based on Steward and U4C feedback given as of April 2025. The feedback since then has, at least from what I've seen, been warmer but I want the history of this system has evolved to be clear. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks @Barkeep49! I guess you haven't been to this page before because it's been moved from Meta, and I'm redesigning it to make it clear what the current state and thinking is. The evolution is meandrous and challenging to present, but I will try to document it well - at least the recent months, since early 2025. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
From diffs
[edit]There should be also access from diffs. Incidents in other places than discussions should be treated the same way, with same tools available to ease. Other reasons include disabling Discussion Tools or broken formatting making impossible to recognize and select comment.
Also, when tested I noticed this function is available through old revisions rendering. It is good - sometimes comment may be reverted, but still needs to be reported by this new system after, but how it works now to include information about revision? And the other way - what helps to find comment deleted after report? DT does not search in old revisions, only on other pages in their current version. wargo (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Feedback from Superzerocool
[edit]Hello. I see the current proposal (October 2025) two times, and here is some feedback based on the shared mockups:
- It seems easy to create a new report for newcomers and veteran users. I assume the reporting person is registered and has made some edits before reporting anything.
- It may be improved with some tooltips to understand what each behavior means, just so the reporter can review the meaning of a behavior before filling out the form.
- How many forms can I send in a fixed time? (e.g., 3 in the same day). I see a few toxic users in my community who could fill out a form for every sysop or veteran user. I understand the report is based on comments on a Talk page and not on the user's page, but a toxic user could report every single comment to abuse the system.
- What happens with false reporting? I'm working on a similar system (outside the Wikimedia movement), and false reporting has legal consequences. In the mockup, there is no warning about false accusations.
I'll review again in the next days or just if someone has new feedback from my feedback :) Superzerocool (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi again, additional feedback after a few days and revisiting:
- Seems there is a possible misunderstanding about the process when I read the statement in the step and information in step 3 ("Unacceptable behaviour is managed by the Wikipedia Community" and "this will not send a (...) to the community"), so it feels like "who will see this?".
- After ending the flow, there is no indicator if anyone will contact me with any updates. Consider that even X uses a follow-up email after any decision is made.
- The information about copyright violation seems... off-site(?). If you're discussing illegal content, do we need to specify the jurisdiction? (ask legal team for this issue)
Kindly, Superzerocool (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Feedback from Conde Edmond Dantès
[edit]I believe my conversations with the team have contributed to the creation of this new proposal from October 2025, an information I have no intention of hiding, since I am constantly targeted precisely for reporting harmful practices like doxing. I view the initiative positively, as long as it is widely disseminated within the communities, since many of the doxing victims who contacted me didn’t know how to respond to the attacks. The question is: what measures are being taken to reduce false reports or those driven by editorial disagreements? Conde Edmond Dantès (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Reporting on chat or article?
[edit]Hi, I'm from idwiki that is piloting IRS.
I can understand that IRS deployed in discussion threads whether in usertalk or elsewhere, but I also saw the "Report" button in article. Is this on purpose or not?
When I click the "Report" in an article, the same pop-up showed up, but the wording clearly meant for something else (e.g. "Get help with: unacceptable user behavior; or Report: Immediate threat or physical harm") clearly doesn't apply for articles. Bennylin (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks @Bennylin! We are grateful that you've noticed this and brought it up here. It's a bug - the tool is only meant to be available from talk pages. We will work on it.
- (On a side note, just for the future, it's best to create new phab tickets for newly noticed bugs and for new ideas for features. It's much easier to track work if different issues are discussed in separate tickets, because unfortunately it's not possible to split tasks or move comments between them. Here's a form for a new bug report.)
- Thanks again! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- You're welcome. At first I didn't know if it was intended or not. But you're right, I could've made a bug, and if it's not a bug, it could be closed immediately. Bennylin (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
copied Meta-Wiki discussion to here
[edit]The archive is at Talk:Product Safety and Integrity/Incident Reporting System/Archive 2
It was blanked and hard to access at
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Incident_Reporting_System&oldid=29022576
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Incident_Reporting_System/Archive_1&oldid=25870962
Moving it here preserves the community feedback and discussion over the past few years. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Disputes with another user
[edit]Why are "disputes with other users" described as "Unacceptable user behavior"? (See, e.g., File:IRS - Unwanted behavior categories (enwiki trial).png) At the English Wikipedia, we expect editors to occasionally disagree with each other. Discussions about those disagreements are called "disputes" (even when they're 100% polite).
.png){kind=link}
Years ago, I read about what happened when everyone got phones (and therefore cameras) for Christmas. The day after Christmas, Facebook staff woke up to a huge number of reports about inappropriate or illegal photos: The posed family photo in matching sweaters was "harassment", a cute puppy was "pornographic", and so forth. What they determined is that they had a UX failure, and they needed a self-service option instead of flooding their ordinary responders. They added a category along the lines of "It's embarrassing". If someone chose that, then instead of routing those to other people, they suggested that the complainer personally ask the poster to take down the unwanted photo. Most of the time, the dispute got resolved that way.
I'm not on any social media platforms, so I don't know what the state of the art is these days, but I think we need some sort of third option. Otherwise, we will probably get reports that are both avoidable (the person wouldn't have made the report if another option were recommended) and unnecessary (they're not going to get what they want anyway). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing For the EnWiki deployment, you may also wish to chat at/watch En:Wikipedia talk:Incident Reporting System. The "Disputes with other users" is the third option. Originally, there were only options for harassment and really serious stuff, so we added disputes with other users to provide a more casual instruction. Currently, the text of that option says "Disagreements on Wikipedia are normal; editors will frequently disagree with each other, particularly on content decisions. Editors are expected to engage in good faith to resolve their disputes, and must not personalize disputes. Many disputes can be resolved without external input, through gradual editing, discussion, and attempts to understand the legitimate objections of others. Please see the guidance on dispute resolution. If discussion stalemates, editors can seek outside input to help resolve the dispute." (En:MediaWiki:Reportincident-nonemergency-userdispute-nextstep-default) CaptainEek (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
- If that's the third option, why isn't it at the top level? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing Do you suggest it should start from least severe to most severe? Its currently (roughly) the other way around. CaptainEek (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- I think it should be in the box that says:
- What would you like to doGet help with:○ Bullying, harassment, exposing private information, discriminatory behavior, vandalism, or disputes with other usersReport:○ Intending to commit violence against an individual, harming oneself, or an act of mass violence
- There are two radio buttons in this box. I think there should be three, or even four. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- Well, right now that divides it into the two flows: emergency, and non-emergency. What would you envision as the third or fourth flows? CaptainEek (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- Non-emergency of one type, non-emergency of another type, possibly even non-emergency of a third type, and emergency. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- I guess I'm not seeing a natural way to divide non-emergency flows beyond say the ways we already have? Like, what options do you feel are missing? I know it's a bit hard because you can't see all the paths and wording on EnWiki unless you are part of the 5% A/B test right now, though that number is going up soon. CaptainEek (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- If you're confused, I'm probably not explaining this well. I'm looking for something like this:
- What would you like to doGet help with:○ Vandalism○ Disagreements about article content, edit warring○ Bullying, harassment, discriminatory behavior○ Exposing private informationReport:○ Intending to commit violence against an individual, harming oneself, or an act of mass violence
- The order should be from most common to least. The categories can be based loosely on where the user will end up (e.g., w:WP:AIV, w:en:WP:DR, w:WP:ANI, w:WP:OS). It's okay if the second screen has duplicate options (e.g., if the buttons for both "Discriminatory behavior" and "Exposing private information" both offer a link to the oversight team).
- The point of this approach is to help people start thinking early about what's going on, so that they are less likely to "report" a runaway bot as "an act of mass violence". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- I think this A/B test will be useful to test whether the UX works. If it's generating false positives to the TnS queue, then that's clearly an issue; if not, it's probably fine? CaptainEek (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- Since this will be on talk pages, it also needs an off-topic/spam/irrelevant category. The top level shouldn't have too many options, so we'll have to condense them, but if you want to test the user experience, you need to give the user an experience that is basically functional and that you're not already planning to change significantly. For example, if you test with two radio buttons, and then switch to five, you need to re-test. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- I think this A/B test will be useful to test whether the UX works. If it's generating false positives to the TnS queue, then that's clearly an issue; if not, it's probably fine? CaptainEek (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- Non-emergency of one type, non-emergency of another type, possibly even non-emergency of a third type, and emergency. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- Well, right now that divides it into the two flows: emergency, and non-emergency. What would you envision as the third or fourth flows? CaptainEek (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing Do you suggest it should start from least severe to most severe? Its currently (roughly) the other way around. CaptainEek (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- If that's the third option, why isn't it at the top level? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2026 (UTC)