Grants talk:IdeaLab/Speedy access to a user-to-user help team

This seems a very good idea. Thank you. Lotje (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A concern

I like the general idea of a specialist team – I've suggested several times since 2007 that the Foundation hire a harassment expert – but it would have to be a specialist team. The idea that anyone could sign up to this would make it worse than useless, possibly dangerous. SarahSV ^talk 15:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"Comprehensive plan"

@FT2: I like this proposal the best of anything else that I've seen in the Inspire campaign in the sense that it could lead to a "comprehensive plan". I don't mean that this has everything needed, or that other proposals aren't needed. Rather without a speedy reporting system, nothing else would work as well as it otherwise would - this is probably the central piece of the puzzle.

I agree with @SlimVirgin: above that this isn't something that just anybody could join in. 1st, there would have to be serious training for all the volunteers. I don't think admins should be exempt - my feeling is that there are a very few admins who are/were an active part of the harassment problem, but their existence (send me an e-mail for an example) has poisoned the well for regular users to trust all admins. The major problem with admins, however, is that they simply haven't enforced WP:Civil, so how are regular users going to trust them regarding harassment? In short, this would need to be a very select and committed group. I'll 2nd Sarah's call for a WMF staffer to do this, or at least serve as a backup or supervisor. If you want to guarantee immediate reporting 24*7 = 168 hrs/week, then maybe 4 staffers!

Likely a volunteer force could reduce the need for WMF staff. I'd have the WMF staff check or confirm each volunteer in the role. Then, if you could get each volunteer to commit to one 8 hr. shift per week, you'd need at least 21 volunteers to cover the clock for an immediate response.

This service could be used very extensively and could be abused by harassers pretending to be harassed (expect it to happen) or even by inexperienced users who over-react the first time they run into a direct or brusque experienced editor who opposes them in some way. The "switchboard" could be overwhelmed!

The reason that I consider this proposal central to solving the problem is that a victim of harassment must be able to convince themselves that there is something that they can do to deal with the problem. This is the easiest way to "do something", but it will need to be followed up by some sort of action. Just calling in your situation and getting no effective response could be worse than having no reporting system. There will be complaints like "I contacted them, and then nothing happened."

To get some sort of visible response, ultimately some quick blocks will have be made. That might require a change in Policy (or perhaps not, we've got WP:Civil). You're going to need some satisfied folks who have used the service and not been burned in return. Then the word will get out and the system will be up and running. Smallbones (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Smallbones: What we need is a staffer who is an actual expert on harassment, and that person should then advise on whether and how to implement things like this proposal. We've had admins who have engaged in harassment; harassers who managed to become admins; and at least one who gained access to CU. (And I'm using the term harassment here to mean harassment by any standard, not simply disputes that got a bit too rigorous.) SarahSV ^talk 21:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

So if I'm reading Sarah right, she's saying that we can't trust admins at all, even if we use a well-trained, committed group, selected (or confirmed) by a WMF staffer. If that's the case, I'll suggest @SlimVirgin: make her own proposal on how to get a staffer at the WMF to handle this. We can't just throw up our hands and say nothing is possible.

Another possibility is Grants:IdeaLab/Make it very easy to report harassment to an anti-harassment force, but that isn't fully-fleshed out either. Smallbones (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing in what I wrote that leads to "we can't trust admins at all." A lot depends on how the word harassment is being used. If we mean on-wiki bullying, a group of volunteers could be trained to spot it. Many editors have suggested such a thing. But if you're talking about real harassment, dealing with that requires a lot of skill, empathy and consistency of approach. It would be difficult to find the right volunteers, and they would definitely need expert training. SarahSV ^talk 02:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it unlawful to have decoys on the scene? Lotje (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment on above by idea creator

Thanks for the feedback - and good to see you still around, SV. (I remember the help you gave years ago).

After reflecting, I don't think we need the main support to be a specialist harassment team for this. It's a bit like OTRS in a way - the team handles a great deal of legal related stuff, but is not staffed by lawyers, because most matters can be dealt with by ordinary editors and usual know-how. On OTRS, it is only a minority of issues that are more serious, which need legal input, and are forwarded to the legal team or more experienced people. Without minimizing harassment, I suspect that most help requests would be "Someone is behaving badly on-wiki" (wikistalking, "wikibullying" me over an article Im trying to create or contribute to, making offensive/uncivil comments to me), rather than "I am at actual risk and need an anti-harassment specialist".

It seems likely that the majority of harassment is probably closer to "bad behavior" (civility, personal attacks, OWNing, bad editorship, usually targeting a user because of edits rather than personal acquaintanceship), where the user would feel happy to ask for help to resolve it on-wiki, if only they knew how or it was made easy. It isn't life-and-safety, or clear present danger. In the vast majority of cases the immediate help needed is support to navigate the system and address in "usual ways". I think in most cases, that trust placed in experienced users to provide ordinary hand-holding would not be misplaced.

What matters is that this isn't the route when more serious cases of endangerment arise, and that such cases are quickly distinguished from "everyday" ones. Perhaps we need to consider these separately, to ensure both are covered effectively. That might mean (a) the form gets a checkbox, "Check this box if you feel that you, or anyone else, might be at actual risk of safety or wellbeing", to trigger more senior review, (b) requests get triaged first, or (c) the form states among its brief list of "follow another route", to do something different in more serious cases.

Tentatively, I'm in favor of (c) because of my suspicion that most cases of harassment can be dealt with effectively by experienced editors and that it is more often clarity and hand-holding which is lacking, and much less often, specialist anti-harassment expertise. Also because then the user themself can decide if they need more specialist help, rather than third parties, and because this route keeps the majority of handling simple and leverages the community, while the minority that need expertise do not get shown to the community members but go a different route from the start.

I'm undecided about training, especially if we also have a specialist team/officer 'on call' for more serious cases, mainly because nobody has suggested what form such training might take. (Example: hand-holding or supervision period + good quality team guidance would be very sensible; mandatory 'real-world' courses to attend might not be.) I'd like to see how feedback looks from users of the service before jumping to conclusions. Bear in mind that OTRS seems to do an effective job in specialist areas (legal + defamatory attack + copyright) by providing help based on community handling. It seems likely to me that most cases of harassing behavior can be effectively addressed by providing clear information, review, hand-holding and the like. The comment by Robert Walker on the main idea page illustrates the kind of case I think can be effectively met by regular users. Although not all cases are of this type, I think most can be helped this way, and fixing the poor leveraging of the community, the opacity of our guidance, and the lack of easy access to general support, is needed to empower victims for the majority of cases.

What I'd probably do is two things:

1. The "brief list" on the form, which reads something like this:

   If your issue is any of these items, please do not use this form. Click this link for specialist help:

   • Someone is, or could be, at actual risk of harm, or has been threatened in a way that provokes actual fear;
   • Child abuse or safety (including sexual approaches to, or abuse of, any minor);
   • Illegal acts are being promoted or alleged;
   • The harasser is also harassing or making contact outside Wikipedia (including work, school, police, or other 'real world' contexts) or has threatened to do so.

2. In parallel to how serious legal matters can be referred to a WMF legal specialist, ensure that the Foundation has a specialist safety/protection officer. That doesn't mean this person (and team) handle every case of harassment. It does mean the serious ones have someone specialist to be passed to, and I think we should have that. We do get those serious cases often enough to warrant it.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Interested in applying for a WMF Grant?

@FT2: thanks for your work on this idea during the Inspire Campaign to create a team for the express purpose of user support. Having read over the proposal, I wanted to ask if you were seeking funding through a Wikimedia Foundation grant to implement the project: We have Rapid Grants for projects requiring up to USD 2,000 (applications are welcome anytime), and Project Grants for projects requiring more substantial funding (applications for the current round will be due Aug. 2nd). If you are interested, I wanted to offer my support in helping you develop your proposal. A few things you could do to get started include:

• In terms of building the UI necessary to connect users together, was there anyone with the appropriate skill set you had in mind?
• I really like the idea of modeling this kind of help based on the assistance already provided through OTRS. I think it is possible though, that a lot of people could be required to field questions in a timely manner. What sort of ways were you thinking about inviting people to join in this kind of work?

As you work on your proposal, we also have sessions on Google Hangouts on July 20th, 29th, and Aug. 2nd to advise and answer questions about preparing grant proposals. If you'd like to chat about your idea at a different time, let me know and we'll try to arrange something individually. Thanks again, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Grants to improve your project

Greetings! The Project Grants program is currently accepting proposals for funding. The deadline for draft submissions is tommorrow. If you have ideas for software, offline outreach, research, online community organizing, or other projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request.

• Submit a grant request
• Learn from examples of completed Individual Engagement Grants or Project and Event Grants

The next open call for Project Grants will be in October 2016. You can also consider applying for a Rapid Grant, if your project does not require a large amount of funding, as applications can be submitted anytime. Feel free to ping me if you need help getting your proposal started. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 22:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)