Assuming that this is an extension request for now.

@Qgil, sure, its a placeholder for hackathon since you said that hackathon ideas needed placeholders in phab.

I was thinking of starting with a simple solution, a web form to gather information to be processed in a database:

• Reporter (username, email address, option to remain anonymous)
• Type of behavior (a simple checkbox list of options needing different teams to react + "other")
• Person being reported (username, email address, optional field just in case the situation is more complex)
• Is the reported person a Wikimedia Foundation employee? (HR to be notified when this is the case)
• URL of the diff, email, comment reported
• Comments (optional free form, suggestion to be concise)

We need a process that scales, allowing us to see rankings of reporters and people reported, so we can act first on the cases that accumulate most activity.

@Qgil we have to be careful about setting up expectations that we can't fulfil, additionally we don't want to create a firehose of inputs we can't manage. While I'm generally a fan of starting small and simple, getting this wrong could actually be worse than not doing it at all.

Thank you for your suggestions, they'll all be useful as we investigate the best way to move forward with this.

It might be worth our time to speak with any volunteers who currently handle any manner of problematic edits in day to day and escalated workflows. @Philippe-WMF - you've been talking with some folks, not sure what kind of input you think would be valuable, here.

Is this task intended to cover Wikimedia wikis? If so, which Wikimedia wikis?

The larger wikis generally already have a "Contact us" functionality built in, often involving the volunteer response team (OTRS), for better or worse. There are also generally dispute resolution and "report a problem" pages on large wikis (and usually smaller wikis as well). The forums where help is available are typically exposed in the site user interface (sidebar links and footer links) and are managed by the local communities.

What specifically is being requested here? As it is, this task has almost no chance of ever being resolved, in my opinion. It needs to be focused on particular actionable items, taking into account the past ten-plus years of reader–site communications infrastructure already built and supported.

Just chiming in here.... I have grave concerns about the functionality as proposed here, and about its impact on the culture of the Wikimedia Community.

There are layers upon layers of interlocking policy and process that will need to be integrated; someone will need to staff the reporting address, etc... and we're already pressed for volunteer and staff man-hours.

In addition, we risk grave damage to the reputation of the WMF if we build something here that is not responsive to community goals and does not represent a realistic workflow for administrators.

I strongly strongly recommend that this not move forward without a great deal more study and engagement from the Community Engagement team.

Philippe

For CE, the right contact is probably some combination of James, Maggie, and I. :)

CA is not going to be represented at the Hackathon, and for that reason I think it might be best to put this task on hold as they're vital stakeholders and I don't know that this project can move without CA's heavy involvement.

If you have the columns sorted by priority and you place a task in the "High" range, it will acquire the high priority.

Removing #Engineering-Community just to avoid too many cooks in this kitchen. If there are specific tasks for us, we will follow.