⚓ T389443 [Tone Check] Present survey when people choose to "Decline" invitation to revise tone

⚓ T389443 [Tone Check] Present survey when people choose to "Decline" invitation to revise tone
Page Menu
Phabricator
Create Task
Maniphest
T389443
[Tone Check] Present survey when people choose to "Decline" invitation to revise tone
Closed, Resolved
Public
Actions
Edit Task
Edit Related Tasks...
Create Subtask
Edit Parent Tasks
Edit Subtasks
Merge Duplicates In
Close As Duplicate
Edit Related Objects...
Edit Commits
Edit Mocks
Mute Notifications
Protect as security issue
Assigned To
DLynch
Authored By
ppelberg
Mar 19 2025, 11:08 PM
2025-03-19 23:08:43 (UTC+0)
Tags
VisualEditor
(To Triage)
EditCheck
(Backlog)
Editing-team (Kanban Board)
OKR-Work
(Backlog)
Goal
MW-1.45-notes (1.45.0-wmf.9; 2025-07-08)
Verified
Referenced Files
F65721613: image.png
Aug 7 2025, 10:33 AM
2025-08-07 10:33:44 (UTC+0)
F63770472: Captura de pantalla 2025-07-10 a las 15.51.14.png
Jul 10 2025, 1:53 PM
2025-07-10 13:53:25 (UTC+0)
F63637169: Screenshot 2025-07-09 at 15.45.31.png
Jul 9 2025, 8:50 PM
2025-07-09 20:50:50 (UTC+0)
F63666726: Screenshot 2025-07-09 at 21.24.00.png
Jul 9 2025, 8:50 PM
2025-07-09 20:50:50 (UTC+0)
F62377958: image.png
Jun 26 2025, 9:52 AM
2025-06-26 09:52:29 (UTC+0)
F61850901: Screenshot 2025-06-06 at 2.47.15 PM.png
Jun 6 2025, 9:49 PM
2025-06-06 21:49:00 (UTC+0)
Subscribers
achou
Aklapper
bmartinezcalvo
DLynch
EAkinloose
Esanders
MNeisler
View All 11 Subscribers
Description
This task involves the work of reconsidering what happens when people elect to decline taking action on a Peacock Check that is presented to them.
The need for this exploration emerged during a 19 March Editing Team discussion wherein we came to align on the following disconnect:
Publishing an edit that introduces text written in – what experienced volunteers are likely to consider – a non-neutral tone is relatively disruptive
Dismissing a Peacock Check, at present, is relatively lightweight/seamless
The disconnect between "1." and "2.", we think, will send people encountering Peacock Check a conflicting message.
Stories
As a newcomer/Junior Contributor who has explicitly chosen to forego revising the tone of what they've written, I would like to know what information/content I can offer to the experienced volunteers who are likely to review/patrol this soon-to-be published edit, so that I can increase the likelihood that the contribution I consider to be useful and worthwhile remains on the wiki.
As an experienced volunteer who is reviewing an edit in which someone has a) added new text written in a tone considered to be non-neutral and b) decided NOT to revise the tone of said text, I would like to know why this person made this decision so that I can decide what – if any – action (e.g. revert the edit, post a message on the person who made the edit's talk page, etc.) to take in response
Requirements
User experience
When people choose to
Decline
revising the tone of the new text they are writing when Tone Check invites them to consider doing so...
Present the following "survey" (see mockup below) that prompts people to indicate
why
they've declined to revise the tone of what they've written by selecting one of the following three options:
The tone is appropriate
I’m not sure how to revise the tone
Other
(for now, we will only include the "Other" option without TextInput, and we will include it in
T397889
On desktop, the decline survey ought to be presented in the sidebar, per
T381610
The
Decline
response someone submits needs to be logged so that we can aggregate these responses
Based on what the Editing Team discussed offline on 12 May, this logging should happen automatically via VEFU.
Mockup
NOTE:
UX adjustments (e.g. button treatment, card title, etc.) should also be applied to the Reference Check decline survey
Decision(s) to be made
1) What - if any – modifications will we make to the Peacock Check's "decline path" to ensure it reinforces the importance of considering tone when adding new content to Wikipedia and the potential impact of
not
doing so?
See
===Requirements
2) How/if might we use the signal the decline path ideally captures/elicits could be useful for the model retraining the ML Team is planning in
T393103
We're deferring this question for now and will, instead, revisit this when we prioritize work on
T393103
3) Related to "2)," how might we surface the signal the decline path [ideally] captures to volunteers so they can use it as an input to improve moderation processes?
E.g. maintain an allow-list of sorts to avoid false positives.
One idea, might it be possible to look at the SHAP values the model returns for edits where some declines to revise what they've written and log this in some place?
Note: we're going to defer this question for now and instead revisit it when we prioritize work on
T395175
4) How – if at all – will we pass on the responses volunteers offer to the model/ML Team?
TBD; see
T393103
Done
Potential "Approaches" are documented
An "Approach" is chosen
Approach is implemented
⭐️ Editing QA to verify events are being emitted client-side as expected
@MNeisler
to verify decline responses are being logged in VEFU as expected
Details
Related Changes in Gerrit:
Subject
Repo
Branch
Lines +/-
EditCheckActionWidget: clean up the feedback form on togglecollapse
mediawiki/extensions/VisualEditor
master
+17
-7
Edit check: add a feedback survey to the decline step of tone check
mediawiki/extensions/VisualEditor
master
+33
-4
Edit check: refactor the feedback form into the ActionWidget
mediawiki/extensions/VisualEditor
master
+110
-91
Customize query in gerrit
Related Objects
Search...
Task Graph
Mentions
Status
Subtype
Assigned
Task
Open
None
T265163
Create a system to encode best practices into editing experiences
Open
None
T365300
Introduce Edit Checks that encourage behavior aligned with Manual of Style consensus
Open
None
T365301
Tone Check: Prompt people to revise promotional language
Open
None
T416406
[MILESTONE] Offer Tone Check as default-on feature (all wikis)
Resolved
Esanders
T413026
[MILESTONE] Offer Tone Check as default-on feature at partner wikis
Open
ppelberg
T392954
[FY25-26] WE 1.1: Increase constructive edits
Resolved
MNeisler
T387918
[MILESTONE] Run an A/B test to evaluate impact of Tone Check
Resolved
DLynch
T389443
[Tone Check] Present survey when people choose to "Decline" invitation to revise tone
Mentioned In
T406761: Add option to Tone Check decline survey for quotes
T401739: Implement v2 of Suggestion feedback flow
T397984: Tone Check: Clearly perform an action when selecting the "Revise" button
T397969: Present Check decline reason within diffs
T397889: [Edit Check] Update the "Other" option in the declining survey to be meaningful and actionable
T390310: Tone Check: Conduct holistic review of the proof of concepts
T395175: [Tone Check] Enable volunteers to see when and why someone elected to decline revising tone of what they wrote
T393103: Build Tone Check Model feedback-based retraining pipeline
Mentioned Here
T399883: Edit Check: adjust paddings
T387918: [MILESTONE] Run an A/B test to evaluate impact of Tone Check
T390248: Define Tone Check card/hint copy and calls to action
T397889: [Edit Check] Update the "Other" option in the declining survey to be meaningful and actionable
T397969: Present Check decline reason within diffs
T397178: Reference Check: Disable the card when the "Add a citation" popover is displayed
T381610: Move Reference Check decline survey into sidebar (desktop)
T395175: [Tone Check] Enable volunteers to see when and why someone elected to decline revising tone of what they wrote
T393103: Build Tone Check Model feedback-based retraining pipeline
Event Timeline
There are a very large number of changes, so older changes are hidden.
Show Older Changes
ppelberg
assigned this task to
nayoub
May 1 2025, 6:20 PM
2025-05-01 18:20:33 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
updated the task description.
(Show Details)
ppelberg
updated the task description.
(Show Details)
May 2 2025, 4:30 AM
2025-05-02 04:30:38 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
updated the task description.
(Show Details)
VPuffetMichel
added a project:
OKR-Work
May 8 2025, 2:03 PM
2025-05-08 14:03:29 (UTC+0)
bmartinezcalvo
subscribed.
May 9 2025, 10:07 AM
2025-05-09 10:07:32 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
updated the task description.
(Show Details)
May 12 2025, 7:36 PM
2025-05-12 19:36:49 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
moved this task from
Ready to Be Worked On
to
Doing
on the
Editing-team (Kanban Board)
board.
May 15 2025, 5:53 PM
2025-05-15 17:53:09 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
added a project:
Goal
May 15 2025, 7:21 PM
2025-05-15 19:21:39 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
mentioned this in
T395175: [Tone Check] Enable volunteers to see when and why someone elected to decline revising tone of what they wrote
May 24 2025, 12:06 AM
2025-05-24 00:06:17 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
updated the task description.
(Show Details)
ppelberg
added a comment.
May 27 2025, 5:21 PM
2025-05-27 17:21:15 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
Next step(s)
@nayoub
to add final design we converged on during last week's offline Editing Team meeting so that engineering can be work on implementation.
Aklapper
renamed this task from
[SPIKE] Reconsider the Peacock Check decline path
to
[SPIKE] Reconsider the Tone Check decline path
May 28 2025, 11:43 AM
2025-05-28 11:43:31 (UTC+0)
nayoub
updated the task description.
(Show Details)
Jun 6 2025, 9:49 PM
2025-06-06 21:49:00 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
removed
nayoub
as the assignee of this task.
Jun 9 2025, 5:56 PM
2025-06-09 17:56:20 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
moved this task from
Doing
to
Ready to Be Worked On
on the
Editing-team (Kanban Board)
board.
ppelberg
added a subscriber:
nayoub
ppelberg
mentioned this in
T390310: Tone Check: Conduct holistic review of the proof of concepts
Jun 12 2025, 5:55 PM
2025-06-12 17:55:55 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
updated the task description.
(Show Details)
Jun 18 2025, 8:23 PM
2025-06-18 20:23:38 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
added a subscriber:
MNeisler
ppelberg
mentioned this in
T397889: [Edit Check] Update the "Other" option in the declining survey to be meaningful and actionable
Jun 25 2025, 11:17 PM
2025-06-25 23:17:25 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
renamed this task from
[SPIKE] Reconsider the Tone Check decline path
to
[Tone Check] Present survey when people choose to "Decline" invitation to revise tone
Jun 25 2025, 11:20 PM
2025-06-25 23:20:07 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
updated the task description.
(Show Details)
ppelberg
updated the task description.
(Show Details)
Jun 25 2025, 11:25 PM
2025-06-25 23:25:41 (UTC+0)
bmartinezcalvo
added a comment.
Jun 26 2025, 9:52 AM
2025-06-26 09:52:29 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
As in
T397178: Reference Check: Disable the card when the "Add a citation" popover is displayed
, I would suggest improving this declining survey by:
Title:
Use the title from the Edit Check instead ("Revise tone") so users can easily relate this step to its Check. We can rely on the card's description to explain to users that this step is to share your reason about declining.
Buttons:
Update them to "Back" (Neutral Normal) + "Submit" (Primary Progressive)
Other:
include a TextInput to allow the user to input a custom response (see
Codex guidelines
Disable pagination
when this step is visible
Trizek-WMF
added a comment.
Jun 26 2025, 12:04 PM
2025-06-26 12:04:13 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
Regarding the text input, where will this information be posted? How can it be moderated? Some people add personal info in edit summaries, for instance: "that's how the text must be written as it is our page, if you disagree, call us at [phone number]".
With multi-check, we can have multiple declines, with multiple other inputs. How do we connect each "other" reasons to their respective paragraph?
My personal advice is to remove the "other" option.
DLynch
added a comment.
Jun 26 2025, 3:16 PM
2025-06-26 15:16:18 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
We previously chose not to do an "other" in the add-reference check, for the general reasons Benoit stated.
ppelberg
mentioned this in
T397969: Present Check decline reason within diffs
Jun 26 2025, 7:03 PM
2025-06-26 19:03:05 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
added a comment.
Jun 26 2025, 7:05 PM
2025-06-26 19:05:49 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
In
T389443#10949698
@bmartinezcalvo
wrote:
As in
T397178: Reference Check: Disable the card when the "Add a citation" popover is displayed
, I would suggest improving this declining survey by:
Title:
Use the title from the Edit Check instead ("Revise tone") so users can easily relate this step to its Check. We can rely on the card's description to explain to users that this step is to share your reason about declining.
Good spot and agreed. Requirements updated.
Buttons:
Update them to "Back" (Neutral Normal) + "Submit" (Primary Progressive)
Good spot and agreed. Requirements updated.
Other:
include a TextInput to allow the user to input a custom response (see
Codex guidelines
I'd like for us to defer this for now and instead, revisit the potential of adding this functionality in
T397889
Disable pagination
when this step is visible
Good spot and agreed. Requirements updated.
In
T389443#10950084
@Trizek-WMF
wrote:
Regarding the text input, where will this information be posted? How can it be moderated? Some people add personal info in edit summaries, for instance: "that's how the text must be written as it is our page, if you disagree, call us at [phone number]".
Per above, we're going to defer incorporating the text input for now. We'll, instead, explore the value and priority of including this in
T397889
With multi-check, we can have multiple declines, with multiple other inputs. How do we connect each "other" reasons to their respective paragraph?
Great spot. At present, we do not have a way of associating decline responses with the specific spans of text/content they are associated with. I've created
T397969
to track this work.
My personal advice is to remove the "other" option.
I'd like for us to keep the "other" option for now considering:
We're
not
implementing a text field along with it.
The inclusion of the
Other
option does nothing to affect the fact that, at present, we do not have the ability to relate a decline reason to the specific text/content it is relevant to.
ppelberg
assigned this task to
DLynch
Jun 27 2025, 9:16 PM
2025-06-27 21:16:15 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
updated the task description.
(Show Details)
gerritbot
added a comment.
Jun 28 2025, 2:41 AM
2025-06-28 02:41:27 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
Change #1164536 had a related patch set uploaded (by DLynch; author: DLynch):
[mediawiki/extensions/VisualEditor@master] Edit check: refactor the feedback form into the ActionWidget
gerritbot
added a project:
Patch-For-Review
Jun 28 2025, 2:41 AM
2025-06-28 02:41:28 (UTC+0)
DLynch
added a comment.
Jun 28 2025, 2:52 AM
2025-06-28 02:52:03 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
What should the text above the survey be? In the mockup (which shows the "add reference" decline survey) it has been changed to the generic "Other editors would value learning more about your decision to ignore." which is generic but sounds awkward.
For now I've put a generic one in the patch as "Other editors would value learning more about your decision to skip this check."
gerritbot
added a comment.
Jun 28 2025, 3:03 AM
2025-06-28 03:03:53 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
Change #1164538 had a related patch set uploaded (by DLynch; author: DLynch):
[mediawiki/extensions/VisualEditor@master] Edit check: add a feedback survey to the decline step of tone check
DLynch
moved this task from
Ready to Be Worked On
to
Code Review
on the
Editing-team (Kanban Board)
board.
Jun 28 2025, 3:04 AM
2025-06-28 03:04:46 (UTC+0)
bmartinezcalvo
updated the task description.
(Show Details)
Jun 30 2025, 10:25 AM
2025-06-30 10:25:33 (UTC+0)
bmartinezcalvo
added a comment.
Edited
Jun 30 2025, 10:31 AM
2025-06-30 10:31:29 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
El
T389443#10955712
@DLynch
escribió:
What should the text above the survey be? In the mockup (which shows the "add reference" decline survey) it has been changed to the generic "Other editors would value learning more about your decision to ignore." which is generic but sounds awkward.
For now I've put a generic one in the patch as "Other editors would value learning more about your decision to skip this check."
I would not say "check" in that form since that word is not appearing in the previous steps, so it could be confusing for users. What about:
"Other editors would value learning why you made this choice."
We could use this description in the surveys for all checks for consistency.
gerritbot
added a comment.
Jun 30 2025, 3:25 PM
2025-06-30 15:25:16 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
Change #1164536
merged
by jenkins-bot:
[mediawiki/extensions/VisualEditor@master] Edit check: refactor the feedback form into the ActionWidget
gerritbot
added a comment.
Jun 30 2025, 3:58 PM
2025-06-30 15:58:40 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
Change #1164538
merged
by jenkins-bot:
[mediawiki/extensions/VisualEditor@master] Edit check: add a feedback survey to the decline step of tone check
ReleaseTaggerBot
added a project:
MW-1.45-notes (1.45.0-wmf.8; 2025-07-01)
Jun 30 2025, 4:00 PM
2025-06-30 16:00:21 (UTC+0)
Maintenance_bot
removed a project:
Patch-For-Review
Jun 30 2025, 4:30 PM
2025-06-30 16:30:55 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
added a comment.
Jul 1 2025, 5:31 PM
2025-07-01 17:31:26 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
In
T390248#10964843
@DLynch
wrote:
In a follow-up (because of
) we're going to make it so that when a check loses focus during a survey its state is reset. (This is
sometimes
inevitable when we lose track of a check after a major change to the document.)
gerritbot
added a comment.
Jul 2 2025, 10:31 PM
2025-07-02 22:31:14 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
Change #1166004 had a related patch set uploaded (by DLynch; author: DLynch):
[mediawiki/extensions/VisualEditor@master] EditCheckActionWidget: clean up the feedback form on togglecollapse
gerritbot
added a project:
Patch-For-Review
Jul 2 2025, 10:31 PM
2025-07-02 22:31:15 (UTC+0)
gerritbot
added a comment.
Jul 7 2025, 4:59 PM
2025-07-07 16:59:05 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
Change #1166004
merged
by jenkins-bot:
[mediawiki/extensions/VisualEditor@master] EditCheckActionWidget: clean up the feedback form on togglecollapse
ReleaseTaggerBot
edited projects, added
MW-1.45-notes (1.45.0-wmf.9; 2025-07-08)
; removed
MW-1.45-notes (1.45.0-wmf.8; 2025-07-01)
Jul 7 2025, 5:00 PM
2025-07-07 17:00:37 (UTC+0)
Maintenance_bot
removed a project:
Patch-For-Review
Jul 7 2025, 5:30 PM
2025-07-07 17:30:56 (UTC+0)
Esanders
moved this task from
Code Review
to
QA
on the
Editing-team (Kanban Board)
board.
Jul 9 2025, 2:15 PM
2025-07-09 14:15:12 (UTC+0)
Esanders
added a project:
Editing QA
ppelberg
moved this task from
Inbox
to
High Priority
on the
Editing QA
board.
Jul 9 2025, 8:17 PM
2025-07-09 20:17:27 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
updated the task description.
(Show Details)
EAkinloose
subscribed.
Jul 9 2025, 8:50 PM
2025-07-09 20:50:49 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
✅ Survey is displayed as expected:
⚠️ On scroll, the popup goes under the sticky toolbar nav
bmartinezcalvo
added a comment.
Edited
Jul 10 2025, 1:53 PM
2025-07-10 13:53:25 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
Paddings are unbalanced. They should be fixed as follows:
Top padding in the white content should be
spacing-75
(12px), as the bottom one
(currently 8px)
Padding between the Radios and Buttons should be
spacing-100
(16px)
(currently 8px)
Trizek-WMF
added a comment.
Jul 10 2025, 3:04 PM
2025-07-10 15:04:02 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
Are we tagging the rejection reasons? Patrolling edits tagged for both will be super useful for experienced users!
DLynch
added a comment.
Jul 10 2025, 3:57 PM
2025-07-10 15:57:23 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
@Trizek-WMF
No tagging of rejection-reasons -- same as the reference check, where we removed the tagging.
ppelberg
edited parent tasks, added:
T387918: [MILESTONE] Run an A/B test to evaluate impact of Tone Check
; removed:
T387901: Build proof of concepts for Tone Check (mobile + desktop)
Jul 11 2025, 11:41 PM
2025-07-11 23:41:23 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
moved this task from
QA
to
Blocked / Needs More Work
on the
Editing-team (Kanban Board)
board.
Jul 11 2025, 11:43 PM
2025-07-11 23:43:28 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
In
T389443#10992528
@Trizek-WMF
wrote:
Are we tagging the rejection reasons? Patrolling edits tagged for both will be super useful for experienced users!
In
T389443#10992693
@DLynch
wrote:
@Trizek-WMF
No tagging of rejection-reasons -- same as the reference check, where we removed the tagging.
Note: we'll revisit the question of enabling volunteers to see the decline reason(s) on-wiki, on a per edit basis in
T387918
and/or
T395175
ppelberg
moved this task from
Blocked / Needs More Work
to
Ready to Be Worked On
on the
Editing-team (Kanban Board)
board.
Jul 14 2025, 5:10 PM
2025-07-14 17:10:58 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
Moving to ready to be worked on to address UI tweaks
@bmartinezcalvo
outlined in
T389443#10992107
Note: potential that the above might require upstream changes...
ppelberg
mentioned this in
T397984: Tone Check: Clearly perform an action when selecting the "Revise" button
Jul 15 2025, 7:39 PM
2025-07-15 19:39:31 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
added a comment.
Jul 16 2025, 8:30 PM
2025-07-16 20:30:10 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
In
T389443#10989950
@EAkinloose
wrote:
✅ Survey is displayed as expected:
⚠️ On scroll, the popup goes under the sticky toolbar nav
@EAkinloose
: as part of the QA of the decline survey UI you completed above, did you also QA the events the decline responses should be emitting? If so, could you please verify whether the events were being emitted as described in the task description?
EAkinloose
added a comment.
Jul 17 2025, 4:23 AM
2025-07-17 04:23:03 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
Yes, an
action-reject
event is emitted.
DLynch
added a comment.
Jul 17 2025, 4:31 AM
2025-07-17 04:31:57 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
You should see
feature: editCheck-tone, action: action-dismiss
when you click "decline", then
feature: editCheck-tone, action: edit-check-feedback-reason-[whatever you picked]
when you submit the feedback.
ppelberg
added a comment.
Jul 17 2025, 5:24 PM
2025-07-17 17:24:27 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
Next steps:
Get to the bottom of the survey response logging
T389443#11011813
(David + Esther)
Bárbara to create a new ticket for padding issue (
T389443#10992107
DLynch
moved this task from
Ready to Be Worked On
to
QA
on the
Editing-team (Kanban Board)
board.
Jul 17 2025, 5:24 PM
2025-07-17 17:24:53 (UTC+0)
bmartinezcalvo
added a comment.
Jul 17 2025, 5:38 PM
2025-07-17 17:38:04 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
El
T389443#11014540
@ppelberg
escribió:
Next steps:
Get to the bottom of the survey response logging
T389443#11011813
(David + Esther)
Bárbara to create a new ticket for padding issue (
T389443#10992107
Task created
T399883: Edit Check: adjust paddings
EAkinloose
closed this task as
Resolved
Jul 22 2025, 4:40 PM
2025-07-22 16:40:23 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
In
T389443#11014540
@ppelberg
wrote:
Next steps:
Get to the bottom of the survey response logging
T389443#11011813
(David + Esther)
Bárbara to create a new ticket for padding issue (
T389443#10992107
action: "action-dismiss"
editor_interface: "visualeditor"
feature: "editCheck-tone"
integration: "page"
is_bot: false
...
user_is_temp: false
wiki: "enwiki"
ppelberg
reopened this task as
Open
Jul 22 2025, 4:49 PM
2025-07-22 16:49:12 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
(I'd like to verify this)
MNeisler
added a comment.
Jul 23 2025, 3:56 PM
2025-07-23 15:56:02 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
I've verified that we are seeing these events logged in VEFU as expected based on test events logged to date.
The following decline survey events are logged with
feature = editCheck-tone
edit-check-feedback-reason-appropriate
edit-check-feedback-reason-other
edit-check-feedback-reason-uncertain
Test events have been logged on enwiki, eswiki, and frwiki so far. 1 event on mobile so far and 10 on desktop.
@DLynch
I noticed there's also a
edit-check-feedback-shown
event. Is this event sent each time the decline survey appears for either tone or reference check?
ppelberg
moved this task from
QA
to
Blocked / Needs More Work
on the
Editing-team (Kanban Board)
board.
Jul 24 2025, 7:48 PM
2025-07-24 19:48:48 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
moved this task from
Blocked / Needs More Work
to
Ready to Be Worked On
on the
Editing-team (Kanban Board)
board.
Jul 28 2025, 5:09 PM
2025-07-28 17:09:48 (UTC+0)
DLynch
moved this task from
Ready to Be Worked On
to
QA
on the
Editing-team (Kanban Board)
board.
Jul 28 2025, 7:48 PM
2025-07-28 19:48:13 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
@MNeisler
yeah, edit-check-feedback-shown will happen on the feature
editCheck-[type]
whenever any check uses the generic survey code.
EAkinloose
added a comment.
Aug 7 2025, 10:33 AM
2025-08-07 10:33:44 (UTC+0)
Comment Actions
As verified by
@MNeisler
, we get the events emitted and QA is complete here. Events for decline journey, up to the dialog being closed look like screenshot below:
EAkinloose
edited projects, added
Verified
; removed
Editing QA
Aug 7 2025, 10:34 AM
2025-08-07 10:34:04 (UTC+0)
EAkinloose
moved this task from
QA
to
Ready for Sign Off
on the
Editing-team (Kanban Board)
board.
Comment Actions
Leaving open for
@ppelberg
to double check for open comments if any and close out.
EAkinloose
updated the task description.
(Show Details)
Aug 7 2025, 10:36 AM
2025-08-07 10:36:14 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
mentioned this in
T401739: Implement v2 of Suggestion feedback flow
Aug 12 2025, 6:57 PM
2025-08-12 18:57:47 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
closed this task as
Resolved
Aug 13 2025, 10:13 PM
2025-08-13 22:13:48 (UTC+0)
ppelberg
mentioned this in
T406761: Add option to Tone Check decline survey for quotes
Oct 8 2025, 4:37 PM
2025-10-08 16:37:27 (UTC+0)
Log In to Comment
Content licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) 4.0 unless otherwise noted; code licensed under GNU General Public License (GPL) 2.0 or later and other open source licenses. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Code of Conduct.
Wikimedia Foundation
Code of Conduct
Disclaimer
CC-BY-SA
GPL
Credits