Page MenuHomeMiraheze

Create comprehensive flagging and investigation system for wikis
Open, LowPublic

Description

As approved in this vote

The idea is to create a system where wikis that are likely to violate or suspected of violating the Content Policy or where multiple individual violations have been detected can be flagged. This would not only facilitate enforcement of the Content Policy but would also allow for more 'generous' wiki creations as creators would not have to fear that the wiki might violate the CP if they know that it can be reviewed afterwards. Here is what would be implemented

  • the possibility to flag a wiki for review in Special:ManageWiki (and via Special:RequestWiki for wiki creators next to the approve option). There would ideally be a box to tick as flagged but also a reason/textbox that pops up once that's done so that the reason for flagging can be registered
  • the creation of a Special:FlaggedWikis (or similar) which would contain a table similar to RequestWikiQueue or WikiDiscover with all wikis that are flagged. This table would only be accessible to Stewards/GlobalSysops.
  • the possibility to have multiple statuses for a flagged wiki (i.e. "to be investigated", "investigation in process", "review in 2 weeks", "wiki closed", "wiki warned", "no action taken", etc.)
  • similarly to wiki requests, there should be pages like Special:FlaggedWikis/1 for each flagged wiki where stewards/GS can leave comments about what they do in relation to a flagged wiki. (instead of the "Request comments" feature for RequestWiki)

Here is an example of what I'd imagine it looking like. Any suggestions or improvements are appreciated.

image.png (771×1 px, 59 KB)

Event Timeline

Reception123 created this task.

Part of this can be put on hold while assessing the possibility of TSPortal integration. The part that can be done is having a cw_flagged and cw_flagged_reason.

Unknown Object (User) removed a project: Universal Omega.Mar 18 2023, 03:40
Herald removed a subscriber: Unknown Object (User). · View Herald TranscriptMar 18 2023, 03:40

I've begun working on something that's very preliminary but basically, it uses a page similar to Special:DeletedWikis that holds the reason why a wiki was flagged + who flagged it and I also added a "Flag this wiki?" checkmark in ManageWiki which supports a drop-down to select a reason but honestly, something akin to RequestWikiQueue would be best instead of a DeletedWikis-esque page.

@Agent_Isai To clarify, is the intention to allow all users (not just CVT) to see which wikis have been flagged? If it was a ManageWiki checkmark, it would be publicly viewable, regardless of ability to check/uncheck.

AmandaCath subscribed.

I would support this idea, but would be opposed to making the table only viewable to stewards/sysadmins/CVT. I am a staunch supporter of transparency, and IMO anything that doesn't reveal private information just by viewing it should be publicly viewable, even if no action can be taken by an unprivileged user.

I would support this idea, but would be opposed to making the table only viewable to stewards/sysadmins/CVT. I am a staunch supporter of transparency, and IMO anything that doesn't reveal private information just by viewing it should be publicly viewable, even if no action can be taken by an unprivileged user.

Having active wiki investigations public wouldn't be advisable as that would allow users to simply try to evade us while we look into them. If you look at real life the police doesn't make ongoing investigations publicly available. The investigations/flagged wikis could be made public after action is taken.

Point taken, but the counter-argument would be that if users are aware that they are under investigation, that gives them an opportunity to cease the inappropriate behavior before the investigation is completed and action ends up needing to be taken. Unfortunately some people don't take warnings seriously, and will only change their behavior if they know that more serious consequences are imminent (of course genuine bad actors won't change at all regardless, but I'd like to assume those people are outliers). An exception could be made for potential legal issues, but IMO investigations into, for example, content policy violations that don't have legal ramifications don't need to be concealed.

I would not support full transparency of flagged wikis under investigation. I am a supporter of making investigations that have been concluded publicly viewable (and all PII stated in the investigation, if any, can be redacted somehow), but making current investigations would not be good. Instead of fixing their behavior, they could attempt to revdel anything that shows CP violations, and then bring it back after. Of course, legal issues are their own thing and should not be publicly viewable under any circumstances (as is currently with Trust and Safety).

Additionally, what you are proposing would likely require an RfC, as the current status quo by Trust and Safety is to not reveal subjects of investigations until after the investigations have been concluded. Stewards can have reports submitted to them on SN, but what wikis are actually under investigation is also private as far as I am aware.

current status quo by Trust and Safety is to not reveal subjects of investigations until after the investigations have been concluded.

The subjects of investigations are aware they are involved in an investigation

Instead of fixing their behavior, they could attempt to revdel anything that shows CP violations, and then bring it back after.

If someone actively hides evidence, that would be an aggravating factor in any investigations conducted. If revdelling content is enough to hide it from Stewards in an investigation, I would rather focus on how ineffective that investigation is, than focus on whether someone wishes to hide something.

The subjects of investigations are aware they are involved in an investigation

Yes, but as far as I am aware, the rest of the Miraheze community isn't. Per a recent discussion, it cannot be confirmed/denied if someone is the subject of an investigation.

If someone actively hides evidence, that would be an aggravating factor in any investigations conducted. If revdelling content is enough to hide it from Stewards in an investigation, I would rather focus on how ineffective that investigation is, than focus on whether someone wishes to hide something.

Point taken, but my argument from before stands, that the Miraheze community doesn't currently have access to a list of investigations that are being conducted. The user in question may know, but everyone else doesn't.

The subjects of investigations are aware they are involved in an investigation

Yes, but as far as I am aware, the rest of the Miraheze community isn't. Per a recent discussion, it cannot be confirmed/denied if someone is the subject of an investigation.

So indeed, but when you think about the ramifications here - T&S matters are vastly more sensitive than wiki content policy ones. So if T&S subjects can be told - why can't content policy subjects be told? T&S matters can't be public - but content policy ones definitely can be in a form in the sense everyone can know. I mean Stewards do also currently fairly commonly say "wiki x is under investigation" - so why not doing it by default rather?

In T10527#217212, @Owen wrote:

So indeed, but when you think about the ramifications here - T&S matters are vastly more sensitive than wiki content policy ones. So if T&S subjects can be told - why can't content policy subjects be told? T&S matters can't be public - but content policy ones definitely can be in a form in the sense everyone can know. I mean Stewards do also currently fairly commonly say "wiki x is under investigation" - so why not doing it by default rather?

I think yes that subjects could be told, but in that case the flagging system would have to be separated into many different parts, whereas if it was all the same in configuration, the implementation of said system would probably be faster. Content Policy investigations I suppose could theoretically be public to everyone, but I would want Stewards to weigh in with their 2c first.