Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-10 Thread Todd Allen
I think making available and funding conflict resolution training is a good
idea (provided it's available online of course, it would not be reasonable
to expect a worldwide group of people to physically attend it). Making it
mandatory via a grant is a nonstarter, though, adminship standards are a
community decision. It could be proposed as a requirement through the
normal means, of course.

Todd

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Responding to a few different points:
>
> (1) I don't envision this training as being sufficient to make anyone an
> expert in harassment or incivility response; the goal isn't to train all
> administrators to handle large-scale harassment. Rather, the goal is to
> train the administrators who take this course (further discussions below on
> how wide the recruiting for that will be) to a baseline level of
> familiarity with how to handle harassment and incivility if and when they
> encounter it. I think of it this way: in the physical world, only a few
> police officers will specialize in investigating harassment cases, but all
> police officers ideally should have a basic familiarity with how to address
> incivility and harassment situations. Anecdotally, I rarely hear people
> complain about learning more or getting reinforcement about "people
> skills", communication, leadership skills, and self-awareness. On Wikimedia
> sites, administrators are often in the potision of being "first responders"
> to difficult situations, and it seems to me that training for how to handle
> those situations would be good. Of course, some wikis may have developed
> their own training programs, and this training would be in addition rather
> than a replacement.
>
> (2) Let me reiterate that while I support offering this training, I am not
> supportive of making this training mandatory until it has been widely
> tested. Even if there is a desire to make the training mandatory, I think
> it would be preferable that the decision be made by individual wiki
> communities who can adapt the training to their individual circumstances. I
> feel that a global mandate for administrators to take this training would
> be 2 years from now at the earliest, after administrators and communities
> who voluntarily adopt the training have had considerable time to test it,
> adapt it, and make suggestions about how to optimize it. With widespread
> feedback from multiple communities, we might eventually be able to offer a
> set of training modules that could be adaptable globally and that WMF could
> mandate with reasonable certainty that the benefits are worth the costs.
>
> (3) The training is not a panacea. It won't stop block evasion. It won't
> make administrators be superhumans who are always right. It won't stop the
> problem that there are a few administrators who cause enough problems that
> they shouldn't be administrators. But I feel that overall, if done
> carefully and well, training administrators could move us in a good
> direction.
>
> Pine
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Adrian Raddatz 
> wrote:
>
> > Many volunteer organisations have mandatory training for volunteers, so
> > that in itself is not a bad idea. But what about the cross-project
> > differences that Risker brings up?
> >
> > And more importantly, how could such training help when faced with the
> type
> > of harassment that is referenced 99% of the time here - block or lock
> > evasion after the system has already worked? Training would be a single
> > sentence: "rinse and repeat the block/hide process until they decide to
> > stop."
> >
> > Adrian Raddatz
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Risker  wrote:
> >
> > > Hmmm. I find this recommendation concerning.  There *might* be some
> > > validity on large projects with hundreds of administrators, but there
> > are a
> > > lot of projects with only a few admins, and they were "selected"
> because
> > > they were willing to do the grunt work of deletions, protections, and
> > > blocks. Nobody was selecting them to handle large-scale harassment.
> > > Indeed, I cannot think of a single administrator even on a large
> project
> > > who was selected because of their ability or their interest in handling
> > > harassment incidents.  There's pretty good evidence that it is not only
> > not
> > > a criterion seriously considered by communities, but that absent the
> > > interest or willingness to carry out other tasks or demonstration of
> > > aptitude for other areas of administrator work, an admin candidate
> would
> > > not be selected by most communities, even large ones where harassment
> is
> > a
> > > much more visible concern.
> > >
> > > There is also no basis for putting forward that mandatory training for
> > any
> > > administrator function would be useful on a global scale. How does one
> > set
> > > up a mandatory training program for carrying out page protection, given
> > > that every large 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-10 Thread Pine W
Responding to a few different points:

(1) I don't envision this training as being sufficient to make anyone an
expert in harassment or incivility response; the goal isn't to train all
administrators to handle large-scale harassment. Rather, the goal is to
train the administrators who take this course (further discussions below on
how wide the recruiting for that will be) to a baseline level of
familiarity with how to handle harassment and incivility if and when they
encounter it. I think of it this way: in the physical world, only a few
police officers will specialize in investigating harassment cases, but all
police officers ideally should have a basic familiarity with how to address
incivility and harassment situations. Anecdotally, I rarely hear people
complain about learning more or getting reinforcement about "people
skills", communication, leadership skills, and self-awareness. On Wikimedia
sites, administrators are often in the potision of being "first responders"
to difficult situations, and it seems to me that training for how to handle
those situations would be good. Of course, some wikis may have developed
their own training programs, and this training would be in addition rather
than a replacement.

(2) Let me reiterate that while I support offering this training, I am not
supportive of making this training mandatory until it has been widely
tested. Even if there is a desire to make the training mandatory, I think
it would be preferable that the decision be made by individual wiki
communities who can adapt the training to their individual circumstances. I
feel that a global mandate for administrators to take this training would
be 2 years from now at the earliest, after administrators and communities
who voluntarily adopt the training have had considerable time to test it,
adapt it, and make suggestions about how to optimize it. With widespread
feedback from multiple communities, we might eventually be able to offer a
set of training modules that could be adaptable globally and that WMF could
mandate with reasonable certainty that the benefits are worth the costs.

(3) The training is not a panacea. It won't stop block evasion. It won't
make administrators be superhumans who are always right. It won't stop the
problem that there are a few administrators who cause enough problems that
they shouldn't be administrators. But I feel that overall, if done
carefully and well, training administrators could move us in a good
direction.

Pine

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Adrian Raddatz  wrote:

> Many volunteer organisations have mandatory training for volunteers, so
> that in itself is not a bad idea. But what about the cross-project
> differences that Risker brings up?
>
> And more importantly, how could such training help when faced with the type
> of harassment that is referenced 99% of the time here - block or lock
> evasion after the system has already worked? Training would be a single
> sentence: "rinse and repeat the block/hide process until they decide to
> stop."
>
> Adrian Raddatz
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Risker  wrote:
>
> > Hmmm. I find this recommendation concerning.  There *might* be some
> > validity on large projects with hundreds of administrators, but there
> are a
> > lot of projects with only a few admins, and they were "selected" because
> > they were willing to do the grunt work of deletions, protections, and
> > blocks. Nobody was selecting them to handle large-scale harassment.
> > Indeed, I cannot think of a single administrator even on a large project
> > who was selected because of their ability or their interest in handling
> > harassment incidents.  There's pretty good evidence that it is not only
> not
> > a criterion seriously considered by communities, but that absent the
> > interest or willingness to carry out other tasks or demonstration of
> > aptitude for other areas of administrator work, an admin candidate would
> > not be selected by most communities, even large ones where harassment is
> a
> > much more visible concern.
> >
> > There is also no basis for putting forward that mandatory training for
> any
> > administrator function would be useful on a global scale. How does one
> set
> > up a mandatory training program for carrying out page protection, given
> > that every large project has a different policy?  What happens if an
> > administrator doesn't "pass" a mandatory program? Are they desysopped,
> over
> > the objections of their community?
> >
> > I'll point out in passing that there is not even consideration of a
> formal
> > global checkuser training program - again, the local policies vary
> widely,
> > and the types of issues addressed by checkusers on different projects is
> > very different.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On 7 June 2016 at 15:01, Sydney Poore  wrote:
> >
> > > My suggestion is to come up with a general type training that can work
> > for
> > > all 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-07 Thread Adrian Raddatz
Many volunteer organisations have mandatory training for volunteers, so
that in itself is not a bad idea. But what about the cross-project
differences that Risker brings up?

And more importantly, how could such training help when faced with the type
of harassment that is referenced 99% of the time here - block or lock
evasion after the system has already worked? Training would be a single
sentence: "rinse and repeat the block/hide process until they decide to
stop."

Adrian Raddatz

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Risker  wrote:

> Hmmm. I find this recommendation concerning.  There *might* be some
> validity on large projects with hundreds of administrators, but there are a
> lot of projects with only a few admins, and they were "selected" because
> they were willing to do the grunt work of deletions, protections, and
> blocks. Nobody was selecting them to handle large-scale harassment.
> Indeed, I cannot think of a single administrator even on a large project
> who was selected because of their ability or their interest in handling
> harassment incidents.  There's pretty good evidence that it is not only not
> a criterion seriously considered by communities, but that absent the
> interest or willingness to carry out other tasks or demonstration of
> aptitude for other areas of administrator work, an admin candidate would
> not be selected by most communities, even large ones where harassment is a
> much more visible concern.
>
> There is also no basis for putting forward that mandatory training for any
> administrator function would be useful on a global scale. How does one set
> up a mandatory training program for carrying out page protection, given
> that every large project has a different policy?  What happens if an
> administrator doesn't "pass" a mandatory program? Are they desysopped, over
> the objections of their community?
>
> I'll point out in passing that there is not even consideration of a formal
> global checkuser training program - again, the local policies vary widely,
> and the types of issues addressed by checkusers on different projects is
> very different.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 7 June 2016 at 15:01, Sydney Poore  wrote:
>
> > My suggestion is to come up with a general type training that can work
> for
> > all administrators and functionaries since all have the freedom and
> > permission to do all types of work on WMF projects. And that training
> > should be mandatory.
> >
> > Then people who are focusing on a particular type of administrative or
> > functionaries work can take more advanced courses that could be mandatory
> > for doing some types of work.
> >
> > Sydney
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sydney Poore
> > User:FloNight
> > Wiki Project Med Foundation
> > WikiWomen's User Group
> > Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Sydney,
> > >
> > > Thanks for that link. I think that for now I would suggest avoiding
> > making
> > > the training mandatory because we won't know how successful it is until
> > > after we've used it for awhile. After the training has been tested and
> > > refined based on feedback, and if the consensus is that the training is
> > > helpful, then at that point we could consider making this a required
> > annual
> > > training.
> > >
> > > I could foresee is that, on wikis that have arbitration committees or
> > > other systematic ways of dealing with administrators who mess up, the
> > > ArbComs and/or the community could say that those administrators who
> have
> > > demonstrated weakness in areas that are addressed by the training will
> be
> > > required to take or re-take the training as a condition of keeping
> their
> > > admin permissions.
> > >
> > > My hope is that the training will be of such good quality, and so
> > > interesting and useful to administrators, that many administrators will
> > > *want* to take the training or at least be curious enough to try it.
> Big
> > > carrot, small stick. We can escalate from there if the training
> develops
> > a
> > > track record of success.
> > >
> > > I would think of success as being measured in two ways: administrators'
> > > feedback about the training shows a consensus that they found it
> helpful,
> > > and communities report higher levels of satisfaction with their
> > > administrators as shown in the difference between surveys that are done
> > > before on multiple wikis (1) before the training starts and (2) after 6
> > or
> > > 12 months of the training being rolled out.
> > >
> > > Comments welcome, including suggestions about how to measure the
> success
> > > of the training.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Sydney Poore 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight suggested Annual Training during the
> > >> Harassment Consultation, 2015.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-07 Thread Anders Wennersten
I fully agree with Risker. I feel this discussion is only (mainly) 
looking at enwp. Harassment probably exist on all versions but the 
seriously of the issue look very differently.


Being the most active user and sysop on a smaller version (svwp) I do 
not recognize the issues being discussed. On our version we do not need 
any arbcom, we are getting very good to resolve all issues without, on a 
page where all are welcome to participate (and block of more then a day 
is not allowed of an productive contributor by just one admin, it must 
have been discussed first and reached consensus first) . And 
haressements are not more frequent than that is is possible to handle 
them individually (which we do and have a low tolerance level)


And besides from us being few that makes this issue easier to tackle, my 
opinion is that the key for us is the yearly confirmation of admin 
rights.  It is interesting to follow these over the years. First the 
reasons for non-support was if clear misuse, after a few years 
aggressive discussion style, but now it is being about the need to 
friendly and cooperative (but all OK to be tough on trolls, bad 
behaviour unserious editing)


perhaps instead of building up new rules etc, it could be worthwhile to 
study good working versions instead and learn from them?


Anders



Den 2016-06-07 kl. 21:18, skrev Risker:

Hmmm. I find this recommendation concerning.  There *might* be some
validity on large projects with hundreds of administrators, but there are a
lot of projects with only a few admins, and they were "selected" because
they were willing to do the grunt work of deletions, protections, and
blocks. Nobody was selecting them to handle large-scale harassment.
Indeed, I cannot think of a single administrator even on a large project
who was selected because of their ability or their interest in handling
harassment incidents.  There's pretty good evidence that it is not only not
a criterion seriously considered by communities, but that absent the
interest or willingness to carry out other tasks or demonstration of
aptitude for other areas of administrator work, an admin candidate would
not be selected by most communities, even large ones where harassment is a
much more visible concern.

There is also no basis for putting forward that mandatory training for any
administrator function would be useful on a global scale. How does one set
up a mandatory training program for carrying out page protection, given
that every large project has a different policy?  What happens if an
administrator doesn't "pass" a mandatory program? Are they desysopped, over
the objections of their community?

I'll point out in passing that there is not even consideration of a formal
global checkuser training program - again, the local policies vary widely,
and the types of issues addressed by checkusers on different projects is
very different.

Risker/Anne

On 7 June 2016 at 15:01, Sydney Poore  wrote:


My suggestion is to come up with a general type training that can work for
all administrators and functionaries since all have the freedom and
permission to do all types of work on WMF projects. And that training
should be mandatory.

Then people who are focusing on a particular type of administrative or
functionaries work can take more advanced courses that could be mandatory
for doing some types of work.

Sydney





Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wiki Project Med Foundation
WikiWomen's User Group
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore


On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Pine W  wrote:


Hi Sydney,

Thanks for that link. I think that for now I would suggest avoiding

making

the training mandatory because we won't know how successful it is until
after we've used it for awhile. After the training has been tested and
refined based on feedback, and if the consensus is that the training is
helpful, then at that point we could consider making this a required

annual

training.

I could foresee is that, on wikis that have arbitration committees or
other systematic ways of dealing with administrators who mess up, the
ArbComs and/or the community could say that those administrators who have
demonstrated weakness in areas that are addressed by the training will be
required to take or re-take the training as a condition of keeping their
admin permissions.

My hope is that the training will be of such good quality, and so
interesting and useful to administrators, that many administrators will
*want* to take the training or at least be curious enough to try it. Big
carrot, small stick. We can escalate from there if the training develops

a

track record of success.

I would think of success as being measured in two ways: administrators'
feedback about the training shows a consensus that they found it helpful,
and communities report higher levels of satisfaction with their
administrators as shown in the difference between surveys that are done
before on multiple 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-07 Thread Risker
Hmmm. I find this recommendation concerning.  There *might* be some
validity on large projects with hundreds of administrators, but there are a
lot of projects with only a few admins, and they were "selected" because
they were willing to do the grunt work of deletions, protections, and
blocks. Nobody was selecting them to handle large-scale harassment.
Indeed, I cannot think of a single administrator even on a large project
who was selected because of their ability or their interest in handling
harassment incidents.  There's pretty good evidence that it is not only not
a criterion seriously considered by communities, but that absent the
interest or willingness to carry out other tasks or demonstration of
aptitude for other areas of administrator work, an admin candidate would
not be selected by most communities, even large ones where harassment is a
much more visible concern.

There is also no basis for putting forward that mandatory training for any
administrator function would be useful on a global scale. How does one set
up a mandatory training program for carrying out page protection, given
that every large project has a different policy?  What happens if an
administrator doesn't "pass" a mandatory program? Are they desysopped, over
the objections of their community?

I'll point out in passing that there is not even consideration of a formal
global checkuser training program - again, the local policies vary widely,
and the types of issues addressed by checkusers on different projects is
very different.

Risker/Anne

On 7 June 2016 at 15:01, Sydney Poore  wrote:

> My suggestion is to come up with a general type training that can work for
> all administrators and functionaries since all have the freedom and
> permission to do all types of work on WMF projects. And that training
> should be mandatory.
>
> Then people who are focusing on a particular type of administrative or
> functionaries work can take more advanced courses that could be mandatory
> for doing some types of work.
>
> Sydney
>
>
>
>
>
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
> Wiki Project Med Foundation
> WikiWomen's User Group
> Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Hi Sydney,
> >
> > Thanks for that link. I think that for now I would suggest avoiding
> making
> > the training mandatory because we won't know how successful it is until
> > after we've used it for awhile. After the training has been tested and
> > refined based on feedback, and if the consensus is that the training is
> > helpful, then at that point we could consider making this a required
> annual
> > training.
> >
> > I could foresee is that, on wikis that have arbitration committees or
> > other systematic ways of dealing with administrators who mess up, the
> > ArbComs and/or the community could say that those administrators who have
> > demonstrated weakness in areas that are addressed by the training will be
> > required to take or re-take the training as a condition of keeping their
> > admin permissions.
> >
> > My hope is that the training will be of such good quality, and so
> > interesting and useful to administrators, that many administrators will
> > *want* to take the training or at least be curious enough to try it. Big
> > carrot, small stick. We can escalate from there if the training develops
> a
> > track record of success.
> >
> > I would think of success as being measured in two ways: administrators'
> > feedback about the training shows a consensus that they found it helpful,
> > and communities report higher levels of satisfaction with their
> > administrators as shown in the difference between surveys that are done
> > before on multiple wikis (1) before the training starts and (2) after 6
> or
> > 12 months of the training being rolled out.
> >
> > Comments welcome, including suggestions about how to measure the success
> > of the training.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Sydney Poore 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight suggested Annual Training during the
> >> Harassment Consultation, 2015.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Harassment_consultation_2015/Ideas/Annual_training
> >>
> >> If you've not seen it, it is worth your time to read the talk page
> >> discussion.
> >>
> >> Sydney
> >>
> >> Sydney Poore
> >> User:FloNight
> >> Wiki Project Med Foundation
> >> WikiWomen's User Group
> >> Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have created
> >>>
> >>>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Training_for_administrators
> >>> and would welcome feedback there.
> >>>
> >>> On the subject of block evasion, I have some ideas but would defer to
> our
> >>> experienced CheckUsers.
> >>>
> >>> Pine
> >>> ___
> >>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-07 Thread Pine W
Hi Sydney,

I think that if individual communities create a consensus to mandate
training, or if arbitration committees issue that mandate on particular
wikis, that's completely fine and good. I'm hesitant to say that WMF should
wield a stick to mandate this kind of training for administrators on all
wikis until we know that the training is successful; otherwise WMF might
push out a set of training with high cost and low effectiveness that would
quickly be resented by the community and make any further development in
this area nearly impossible.

I could see mandatory training happening further down the road, and it
might be a very good thing, but there are important steps before we make
that decision.

Pine

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Sydney Poore 
wrote:

> My suggestion is to come up with a general type training that can work for
> all administrators and functionaries since all have the freedom and
> permission to do all types of work on WMF projects. And that training
> should be mandatory.
>
> Then people who are focusing on a particular type of administrative or
> functionaries work can take more advanced courses that could be mandatory
> for doing some types of work.
>
> Sydney
>
>
>
>
>
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
> Wiki Project Med Foundation
> WikiWomen's User Group
> Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Hi Sydney,
>>
>> Thanks for that link. I think that for now I would suggest avoiding
>> making the training mandatory because we won't know how successful it is
>> until after we've used it for awhile. After the training has been tested
>> and refined based on feedback, and if the consensus is that the training is
>> helpful, then at that point we could consider making this a required annual
>> training.
>>
>> I could foresee is that, on wikis that have arbitration committees or
>> other systematic ways of dealing with administrators who mess up, the
>> ArbComs and/or the community could say that those administrators who have
>> demonstrated weakness in areas that are addressed by the training will be
>> required to take or re-take the training as a condition of keeping their
>> admin permissions.
>>
>> My hope is that the training will be of such good quality, and so
>> interesting and useful to administrators, that many administrators will
>> *want* to take the training or at least be curious enough to try it. Big
>> carrot, small stick. We can escalate from there if the training develops a
>> track record of success.
>>
>> I would think of success as being measured in two ways: administrators'
>> feedback about the training shows a consensus that they found it helpful,
>> and communities report higher levels of satisfaction with their
>> administrators as shown in the difference between surveys that are done
>> before on multiple wikis (1) before the training starts and (2) after 6 or
>> 12 months of the training being rolled out.
>>
>> Comments welcome, including suggestions about how to measure the success
>> of the training.
>>
>> Pine
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Sydney Poore 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight suggested Annual Training during the
>>> Harassment Consultation, 2015.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Harassment_consultation_2015/Ideas/Annual_training
>>>
>>> If you've not seen it, it is worth your time to read the talk page
>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> Sydney
>>>
>>> Sydney Poore
>>> User:FloNight
>>> Wiki Project Med Foundation
>>> WikiWomen's User Group
>>> Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>>>
 I have created

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Training_for_administrators
 and would welcome feedback there.

 On the subject of block evasion, I have some ideas but would defer to
 our
 experienced CheckUsers.

 Pine
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 

>>>
>>>
>>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-07 Thread Sydney Poore
My suggestion is to come up with a general type training that can work for
all administrators and functionaries since all have the freedom and
permission to do all types of work on WMF projects. And that training
should be mandatory.

Then people who are focusing on a particular type of administrative or
functionaries work can take more advanced courses that could be mandatory
for doing some types of work.

Sydney





Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wiki Project Med Foundation
WikiWomen's User Group
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore


On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Sydney,
>
> Thanks for that link. I think that for now I would suggest avoiding making
> the training mandatory because we won't know how successful it is until
> after we've used it for awhile. After the training has been tested and
> refined based on feedback, and if the consensus is that the training is
> helpful, then at that point we could consider making this a required annual
> training.
>
> I could foresee is that, on wikis that have arbitration committees or
> other systematic ways of dealing with administrators who mess up, the
> ArbComs and/or the community could say that those administrators who have
> demonstrated weakness in areas that are addressed by the training will be
> required to take or re-take the training as a condition of keeping their
> admin permissions.
>
> My hope is that the training will be of such good quality, and so
> interesting and useful to administrators, that many administrators will
> *want* to take the training or at least be curious enough to try it. Big
> carrot, small stick. We can escalate from there if the training develops a
> track record of success.
>
> I would think of success as being measured in two ways: administrators'
> feedback about the training shows a consensus that they found it helpful,
> and communities report higher levels of satisfaction with their
> administrators as shown in the difference between surveys that are done
> before on multiple wikis (1) before the training starts and (2) after 6 or
> 12 months of the training being rolled out.
>
> Comments welcome, including suggestions about how to measure the success
> of the training.
>
> Pine
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Sydney Poore 
> wrote:
>
>> Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight suggested Annual Training during the
>> Harassment Consultation, 2015.
>>
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Harassment_consultation_2015/Ideas/Annual_training
>>
>> If you've not seen it, it is worth your time to read the talk page
>> discussion.
>>
>> Sydney
>>
>> Sydney Poore
>> User:FloNight
>> Wiki Project Med Foundation
>> WikiWomen's User Group
>> Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>>
>>> I have created
>>>
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Training_for_administrators
>>> and would welcome feedback there.
>>>
>>> On the subject of block evasion, I have some ideas but would defer to our
>>> experienced CheckUsers.
>>>
>>> Pine
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 
>>>
>>
>>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-07 Thread Pine W
Hi Sydney,

Thanks for that link. I think that for now I would suggest avoiding making
the training mandatory because we won't know how successful it is until
after we've used it for awhile. After the training has been tested and
refined based on feedback, and if the consensus is that the training is
helpful, then at that point we could consider making this a required annual
training.

I could foresee is that, on wikis that have arbitration committees or other
systematic ways of dealing with administrators who mess up, the ArbComs
and/or the community could say that those administrators who have
demonstrated weakness in areas that are addressed by the training will be
required to take or re-take the training as a condition of keeping their
admin permissions.

My hope is that the training will be of such good quality, and so
interesting and useful to administrators, that many administrators will
*want* to take the training or at least be curious enough to try it. Big
carrot, small stick. We can escalate from there if the training develops a
track record of success.

I would think of success as being measured in two ways: administrators'
feedback about the training shows a consensus that they found it helpful,
and communities report higher levels of satisfaction with their
administrators as shown in the difference between surveys that are done
before on multiple wikis (1) before the training starts and (2) after 6 or
12 months of the training being rolled out.

Comments welcome, including suggestions about how to measure the success of
the training.

Pine

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Sydney Poore  wrote:

> Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight suggested Annual Training during the
> Harassment Consultation, 2015.
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Harassment_consultation_2015/Ideas/Annual_training
>
> If you've not seen it, it is worth your time to read the talk page
> discussion.
>
> Sydney
>
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
> Wiki Project Med Foundation
> WikiWomen's User Group
> Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> I have created
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Training_for_administrators
>> and would welcome feedback there.
>>
>> On the subject of block evasion, I have some ideas but would defer to our
>> experienced CheckUsers.
>>
>> Pine
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-06 Thread Sydney Poore
Hi James,

I more or less agree with your comments and suggestions. But one
consideration is the damage that comes from ideas left unchallenged and the
readers of the ideas feel dispirited or alienated that no one spoke up
pointing out the problems/concerns.

That is the reason that take the time to comment on talk pages about ideas
that I both like and don't like.
Warm regards,
Sydney

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wiki Project Med Foundation
WikiWomen's User Group
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore


On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 4:13 PM, James Alexander 
wrote:

> In general discussing specific cases on public mailings lists is not
> useful at helping the situation (Pax is, of course, feel free to do so if
> they feel it would be right). I think if people want to help then thinking
> about, and talking about, ways to do so is the best way to tackle the
> problem. Those discussions (and possible solutions) can take many forms and
> while the inspire campaign right now is a perfect (and tailor made)
> opportunity to do so it is in now way the only one.
>
> Some thoughts to help people having difficulty coming up with what to do:
>
> 1. Do you think that the social or policy rules that currently exist are
> not enough? Then talk about that on the pages and what you think should be
> changed (and why) and how to roll that out. Do we need another policy or a
> global one? Do we need to rewrite an old one? Should it be a local/global
> community policy or a part of the ToU? Something else entirely from the
> board?
>
> 2. Do you think that the current rules are enough but are not being
> enforced properly and/or not ABLE to be enforced properly? Then let's talk
> about what could help. Is it other community members ignoring or
> misunderstanding the rules? Is it people being able to evade too easily? Is
> it that those who enforce the rules get harassed themselves and back off?
> Are they just so overwhelmed that they can't keep up? Something else?
>
> What would be good for this? Is it social pressure or support to enforce
> the rules already in play? A global arbcom type body? Better blocking
> tools? (do we have ideas on better how?) A "reporting" tool that reports to
> admins/the community in some fashion with the ability to escalate to the
> WMF (either harassment specific or made to deal with other reports as well
> such as vandalism or COI)?
>
> These and others have all been brought up to me in conversations by
> community members so I know people are thinking about it. We want to get it
> down where everyone can think about it. On a personal basis I think it's
> likely it's a mix of different things + something we haven't thought about
> before but we can only do so much at once obviously.
>
> If someone sees a proposal that you think would cause more harm then good
> I would strongly encourage them to consider making other proposals that
> they think WOULD help rather then targeting and attacking those who created
> other proposals (or even attacking the proposals themselves). Doing so has
> a tendency only to help people feel harassed and attacked and moves them to
> belittle and ignore your concerns. What we need is more ideas, not more
> shit slung over the fence.
>
> In the end I do agree that any idea that harassment is "not real" or not a
> major problem right now is, at best, naive and could overall be very
> dangerous not only to our users but the projects as a whole. That does not,
> of course, mean we know the answer. In fact, we know we don't, it's what
> we're (all) trying to figure out.
>
> James Alexander
> Manager, Trust & Safety
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jun 5, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Patrick. The community regularly expends considerable volunteer
> > time and effort to protect the intrgrity of article content and to deal
> > with block evasion. I think it would be helpful if further efforts could
> be
> > made to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of tools and processes
> > for addressing block evasion, including the use of Legal Department
> > resources as appropriate. Block evasion is a problem that affects many
> > aspects of Wikimedia, including article integrity and loss of volunteer
> > time as already mentioned, as well as the harms to harassment victims,
> the
> > stress on the volunteer admins and functionaries, and negative impact on
> > community population and health.
> >
> > Thanks for working on this. Is there anything more that you can do to
> > assist with Pax's situation in particular?
> >
> > Pine
> >> On Jun 5, 2016 11:11, "Patrick Earley"  wrote:
> >>
> >> Pine,
> >>
> >> As many of our admins and functionaries are well aware, both the
> Wikimedia
> >> sites, and the internet architecture as a whole, favour anonymity and
> >> protection of privacy over the ability to track individuals.  When a
> user
> >> is technically proficient in hiding themselves, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-06 Thread Sydney Poore
Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight suggested Annual Training during the Harassment
Consultation, 2015.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Harassment_consultation_2015/Ideas/Annual_training

If you've not seen it, it is worth your time to read the talk page
discussion.

Sydney

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wiki Project Med Foundation
WikiWomen's User Group
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore


On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> I have created
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Training_for_administrators
> and would welcome feedback there.
>
> On the subject of block evasion, I have some ideas but would defer to our
> experienced CheckUsers.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-06 Thread Pine W
I have created
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Training_for_administrators
and would welcome feedback there.

On the subject of block evasion, I have some ideas but would defer to our
experienced CheckUsers.

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-06 Thread Pax Ahimsa Gethen
Thank you, Sydney/FloNight. More outspoken editors with attitudes like 
yours would help make Wikipedia in general and the Inspire Campaign in 
specific a safer and more welcoming space for editors from diverse 
backgrounds.


- Pax


On 6/6/16 3:10 PM, Sydney Poore wrote:

Thank you, Pax/Funcrunch, for bringing this topic to the broad wikimedia
community. I'm sorry that you've had a bad experience contributing to
Wikipedia. And I'm glad that you are staying around to add and improve
content, and also to offer your ideas about how to address harassment.

I appreciate that the WMF staff is working on keeping the Inspire Campaign
pages a safe and friendly place to contribute ideas. I hope that some
people with admin, oversight, and checkuser privileges on meta are helping
out, too, because it will be better if it is a shared job.

I too am disappointed that so many of the options getting broad support are
suggesting that the target of harassment needs to be fixed or that they
should leave or reduce their participation in the wikimedia movement in
order to reduce disruption on wiki.

I know that there are many oversighter, checkusers, and stewards all across
the movement who are working hard to fight disruption from trolls and
harassers. But right now we are stuck without outdated tools and processes
to combat harassment.

I know that if we put our minds to finding better solutions, we will! :-)

I look forward to reading more ideas!
Warm regards,
Sydney







Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wiki Project Med Foundation
WikiWomen's User Group
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore


On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen <
list-wikime...@funcrunch.org> wrote:


Hi all, I'm Pax aka Funcrunch [1]. I've been a Wikipedian since 2008, but
this is my first post to this mailing list. (I've been reading list
messages on the archives page occasionally for the last several months.)

I'm writing because of a concern I have about the community's attitude
toward harassment on Wikipedia. I got a Wikinotice about this month's
Inspire Campaign, which specifically asks: "What ideas do you have that can
help prevent and generally address cases of harassment?" [2] As a victim of
several of the harassing behaviors mentioned as examples - " name calling,
threats, discrimination, stalking, and impersonation" - I was encouraged to
see that this problem was (hopefully) being taken seriously by the
Foundation, and submitted a proposal.

Looking at the other proposals submitted, I soon noticed that the most
popular "ideas" on the list included complaints of "political correctness"
and suggesting we shouldn't be so sensitive [3], and that we should just
get some sleep and exercise and reconsider why we're so offended. [4] (That
first "idea" has since been recategorized by a WMF staffer to remove it
from the current campaign.)

It really bothers me that a campaign specifically designed to combat
harassment - which is a very serious and real problem for people of
marginalized identities like myself [5]- is being co-opted by people saying
things like " Harassment doesn't cause actual damage," " The existence of
harassment is an opportunity to improve ourselves further through
self-discipline," and " Harassment on Wikimedia has been exaggerated." I
suggest that people who honestly believe this, but are willing to accept
that they might be wrong, read a recent essay about online harassment by
Anil Dash: "The Immortal Myths About Online Abuse." [6]

I'm not "looking to be offended," and I'm not trying to "censor" people
who simply disagree with me. I'm trying to help build an encyclopedia,
without being harassed by block-evading stalkers hurling hate speech my
way. The existing tools and policies are *not* sufficient to deal with
this. That's (what I thought was) the point of this Inspire campaign, not
complaining about censorship and " crybullying."

I've posted a much shorter version of this concern on the Inspire Campaign
talk page [7], so feel free to weigh in there instead of here on the list
if that's more appropriate. Thank you for reading.

- Pax, aka Funcrunch


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Funcrunch
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Stop_%22Political_Correctness%22_as_gauge
!
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Don't_feed_the_trolls
[5] Queer, trans, and black, in my case.
[6]
https://medium.com/humane-tech/the-immortal-myths-about-online-abuse-a156e3370aee
[7]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Inspire/Meta#Blaming_the_victim

--
Pax Ahimsa Gethen | p...@funcrunch.org | http://funcrunch.org





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-06 Thread Sydney Poore
Thank you, Pax/Funcrunch, for bringing this topic to the broad wikimedia
community. I'm sorry that you've had a bad experience contributing to
Wikipedia. And I'm glad that you are staying around to add and improve
content, and also to offer your ideas about how to address harassment.

I appreciate that the WMF staff is working on keeping the Inspire Campaign
pages a safe and friendly place to contribute ideas. I hope that some
people with admin, oversight, and checkuser privileges on meta are helping
out, too, because it will be better if it is a shared job.

I too am disappointed that so many of the options getting broad support are
suggesting that the target of harassment needs to be fixed or that they
should leave or reduce their participation in the wikimedia movement in
order to reduce disruption on wiki.

I know that there are many oversighter, checkusers, and stewards all across
the movement who are working hard to fight disruption from trolls and
harassers. But right now we are stuck without outdated tools and processes
to combat harassment.

I know that if we put our minds to finding better solutions, we will! :-)

I look forward to reading more ideas!
Warm regards,
Sydney







Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wiki Project Med Foundation
WikiWomen's User Group
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore


On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen <
list-wikime...@funcrunch.org> wrote:

> Hi all, I'm Pax aka Funcrunch [1]. I've been a Wikipedian since 2008, but
> this is my first post to this mailing list. (I've been reading list
> messages on the archives page occasionally for the last several months.)
>
> I'm writing because of a concern I have about the community's attitude
> toward harassment on Wikipedia. I got a Wikinotice about this month's
> Inspire Campaign, which specifically asks: "What ideas do you have that can
> help prevent and generally address cases of harassment?" [2] As a victim of
> several of the harassing behaviors mentioned as examples - " name calling,
> threats, discrimination, stalking, and impersonation" - I was encouraged to
> see that this problem was (hopefully) being taken seriously by the
> Foundation, and submitted a proposal.
>
> Looking at the other proposals submitted, I soon noticed that the most
> popular "ideas" on the list included complaints of "political correctness"
> and suggesting we shouldn't be so sensitive [3], and that we should just
> get some sleep and exercise and reconsider why we're so offended. [4] (That
> first "idea" has since been recategorized by a WMF staffer to remove it
> from the current campaign.)
>
> It really bothers me that a campaign specifically designed to combat
> harassment - which is a very serious and real problem for people of
> marginalized identities like myself [5]- is being co-opted by people saying
> things like " Harassment doesn't cause actual damage," " The existence of
> harassment is an opportunity to improve ourselves further through
> self-discipline," and " Harassment on Wikimedia has been exaggerated." I
> suggest that people who honestly believe this, but are willing to accept
> that they might be wrong, read a recent essay about online harassment by
> Anil Dash: "The Immortal Myths About Online Abuse." [6]
>
> I'm not "looking to be offended," and I'm not trying to "censor" people
> who simply disagree with me. I'm trying to help build an encyclopedia,
> without being harassed by block-evading stalkers hurling hate speech my
> way. The existing tools and policies are *not* sufficient to deal with
> this. That's (what I thought was) the point of this Inspire campaign, not
> complaining about censorship and " crybullying."
>
> I've posted a much shorter version of this concern on the Inspire Campaign
> talk page [7], so feel free to weigh in there instead of here on the list
> if that's more appropriate. Thank you for reading.
>
> - Pax, aka Funcrunch
>
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Funcrunch
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Stop_%22Political_Correctness%22_as_gauge
> !
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Don't_feed_the_trolls
> [5] Queer, trans, and black, in my case.
> [6]
> https://medium.com/humane-tech/the-immortal-myths-about-online-abuse-a156e3370aee
> [7]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Inspire/Meta#Blaming_the_victim
>
> --
> Pax Ahimsa Gethen | p...@funcrunch.org | http://funcrunch.org
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-05 Thread Trillium Corsage
Obviously racial criticisms and so forth are awful like Pax said, but on the 
matter of "troublemakers who are banned" I say it's a greatly overblown issue 
chiefly emphasized by administrative participants who feel their authority is 
threatened. One should really look to the nature of the ban-evading edits. If 
they are productive edits, I quarrel with the actions of those that revert them 
because of the supposed villainous character of any bannee or their 
psychological need to "teach the bannee a lesson" or temperamental or 
intellectual inability to actually appraise the edits.

Take a look at Russavia. He did an immense amount of contributions. He's banned 
by WMF  for, what, an escapade in which he got Australian novelty artist 
"Pricasso" who paints with his penis to do a portrait of Jimbo Wales, who 
quickly alleged "sexual harassment?" (That's one theory, but I'd argue that 
he's actually banned for, in his capacity as Wikimedia Commons administrator, 
attempting to investigate the real-life stalking of Dutch Wikipedia's 
MoiraMoira, which I say was a case that WMF wanted to quickly go away.) 
Russavia was an immensely productive participant, and he's been shabbily 
treated.

Consider that the makeup of (at least) English Wikipedia administrative 
structure is in fact a bullyocracy. There are so few controls on what are 
essentially "imperial administrators." There're an hundred more examples, but I 
think right now of "BWilkins" who actually told some poor editor to "rot in the 
hell that is is eternal block." And nobody even blinked at it. It and an array 
of his other horrific actions went to Arbcom, and they wouldn't even consent to 
hear it the first time. He ran amok for like two more years, before an 
genuinely Herculean effort by some editors, assisted by off-wiki criticicism, 
finally resulted in his desysoping. But what of all the good editors he'd done 
away with by that time. There's no repair system for that.

And WMF "san-fran-bans" are one thing. If you people are talking about 
"community bans," that's a complete misnomer for the actions of the regulars at 
WP:AN/ANI. There's no charter for WP:AN/ANI, there's no rules-based process for 
its "vote him or her off the island" mob violence, it's completely illegitimate 
mainly from the sadistic tendencies of some of those regulars that, I dunno, 
also want to feel superior and important.

Anyhow, I'm just trying to illuminate a different perspective on the hundreds 
and hundreds of wrongly perma-blocked editors, and as well the thousands and 
thousands of perma-blocked IP editors in this nearly completely unaccountable 
administrative system that attracts some of the worse kind of psychologies 
imaginable.

Trillium Corsage

05.06.2016, 17:49, "Pine W" :
> Hi Pax and Pete,
>
> It sounds like part of the issue in this case may be that may we need more
> effective tools for dealing with troublemakers who are banned but continue
> to return and cause problems. I'm wondering if Patrick Early can comment on
> what efforts WMF is making in terms of dealing with persistent block
> evasion.
>
> Pine
> On Jun 5, 2016 07:13, "Pax Ahimsa Gethen" 
> wrote:
>
>>  I am defining harassment primarily as personal attacks, not merely
>>  disputes (even strongly-worded disagreement) over content.
>>
>>  Some examples of what I consider harassment:
>>
>>  - Vandalizing an editor's user or talk page (hence my Inspire proposal:
>>  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Protect_user_space_by_default
>>  )
>>
>>  - Making derogatory comments about an editor's gender, sex, race,
>>  ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or (dis)ability
>>
>>  - Posting personal information about an editor that was gathered off-Wiki
>>
>>  - Evading bans with IP-hopping to do any of the above.
>>
>>  These actions not only cause "net harm to community health," they cause
>>  unnecessary, avoidable harm to specific individuals, and discourage
>>  marginalized people from participating in the project.
>>
>>  - Pax
>>
>>  On 6/5/16 5:09 AM, Pine W wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi Pax,
>>>
>>>  I agree that blaming the victim is an unsatisfactory resolution.
>>>
>>>  On the other hand, defining what is meant by "incivility" and "harassment"
>>>  can be very tricky. Just because there is a strong disagreement doesn't
>>>  imply that people are being uncivil, and we cannot expect that no one will
>>>  ever lose his or her temper when provoked. Similarly, a pattern of
>>>  disagreement doesn't necessarily imply harassment, and the presumption of
>>>  good faith is rebuttable which means that questioning the motives of
>>>  others
>>>  is occasionally OK.
>>>
>>>  So, as Sumana once said, we have a tricky situation with regards to
>>>  balancing free speech with hospitality.
>>>
>>>  I think there are situations in which behavior is egregious enough that it
>>>  is a net harm to community health and cannot be excused. For example,
>>>  comments that demean someone on the basis 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-05 Thread Pine W
Agreed that uncivil administrators can be a part of a negative feedback
loop of stress and cynicism, as can uncivil WMF staff and others in
positions of authority. However, there are no perfect human beings and if
we demanded that all administrators and WMF staff be perfect at all times
then there would be no one left to guard the fort, so we must accept that
we are all human beings who will occasionally mess up. People who mess up
in particularly significant ways, or who mess up repeatedly, can be sacked;
English Wikipedia's arbitration committee has not been shy about removing
admin rights of admins who mess up. Fortunately, it seems to me that the
vast majority of administrators are net assets to the community (perhaps I
am biased because I am an admin, although on small wikis.) I do think that
offering professionally designed training to administrators might be
helpful in certain areas, such as training administrators on how to deal
with harassment and conflict including how to de-escalate situations, and
how to interact with victims as well as bullies. For training sessions, I
think that videos and group discussions might be more memorable and
reinforcing than written materials for individual study.

I agree with James that we likely need a mix of approaches, one of them
being better ways of dealing with block evasion.

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-05 Thread Adrian Raddatz
Hi all,

As someone who deals with a lot of long-term abuse on the community side, I
can give a bit of a comment here. Most of the abuse response comes from the
community, not the WMF- they only get involved through their Trust & Safety
team on the worst cases.

Our ability to deal with block evasion is limited at best. Anyone who wants
to is able to by-pass a block through a mobile range or a proxy, and often
times to deal with block evasion we end up blocking ranges which include a
lot of collateral damage. The Inspire campaign doesn't seem to be directed
at this, but there are ways that we could improve our abuse response - the
primary one being an email requirement on account creation, and giving some
users the ability to check accounts based on their email. This has been
done on Wikia, and when combined with IP blocks has been very effective in
reducing long-term abuse. But it is very unlikely to happen here.

It will never be possible to totally remove this sort of harassment,
because these are cases where the system has initially worked, but the user
is evading the system. As an open website, we only have a limited ability
to protect against that, and that will always be the case. And
unfortunately, this isn't an area that a code of conduct or any of those
proposals would help with.

Adrian Raddatz

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Pax and Pete,
>
> It sounds like part of the issue in this case may be that may we need more
> effective tools for dealing with troublemakers who are banned but continue
> to return and cause problems. I'm wondering if Patrick Early can comment on
> what efforts WMF is making in terms of dealing with persistent block
> evasion.
>
> Pine
> On Jun 5, 2016 07:13, "Pax Ahimsa Gethen" 
> wrote:
>
> > I am defining harassment primarily as personal attacks, not merely
> > disputes (even strongly-worded disagreement) over content.
> >
> > Some examples of what I consider harassment:
> >
> > - Vandalizing an editor's user or talk page (hence my Inspire proposal:
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Protect_user_space_by_default
> > )
> >
> > - Making derogatory comments about an editor's gender, sex, race,
> > ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or (dis)ability
> >
> > - Posting personal information about an editor that was gathered off-Wiki
> >
> > - Evading bans with IP-hopping to do any of the above.
> >
> > These actions not only cause "net harm to community health," they cause
> > unnecessary, avoidable harm to specific individuals, and discourage
> > marginalized people from participating in the project.
> >
> > - Pax
> >
> >
> > On 6/5/16 5:09 AM, Pine W wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Pax,
> >>
> >> I agree that blaming the victim is an unsatisfactory resolution.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, defining what is meant by "incivility" and
> "harassment"
> >> can be very tricky. Just because there is a strong disagreement doesn't
> >> imply that people are being uncivil, and we cannot expect that no one
> will
> >> ever lose his or her temper when provoked. Similarly, a pattern of
> >> disagreement doesn't necessarily imply harassment, and the presumption
> of
> >> good faith is rebuttable which means that questioning the motives of
> >> others
> >> is occasionally OK.
> >>
> >> So, as Sumana once said, we have a tricky situation with regards to
> >> balancing free speech with hospitality.
> >>
> >> I think there are situations in which behavior is egregious enough that
> it
> >> is a net harm to community health and cannot be excused. For example,
> >> comments that demean someone on the basis of race, gender, age,
> >> nationality, or religious or political beliefs, are generally out of
> >> bounds.
> >>
> >> I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about how we should define
> >> harassment, and how we should seek to reduce the frequency of it on
> >> Wikimedia sites.
> >>
> >> Thank you for speaking up.
> >>
> >> Pine
> >> On Jun 4, 2016 19:15, "Pax Ahimsa Gethen"  >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all, I'm Pax aka Funcrunch [1]. I've been a Wikipedian since 2008,
> but
> >>> this is my first post to this mailing list. (I've been reading list
> >>> messages on the archives page occasionally for the last several
> months.)
> >>>
> >>> I'm writing because of a concern I have about the community's attitude
> >>> toward harassment on Wikipedia. I got a Wikinotice about this month's
> >>> Inspire Campaign, which specifically asks: "What ideas do you have that
> >>> can
> >>> help prevent and generally address cases of harassment?" [2] As a
> victim
> >>> of
> >>> several of the harassing behaviors mentioned as examples - " name
> >>> calling,
> >>> threats, discrimination, stalking, and impersonation" - I was
> encouraged
> >>> to
> >>> see that this problem was (hopefully) being taken seriously by the
> >>> Foundation, and submitted a proposal.
> >>>
> >>> Looking at the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-05 Thread James Alexander
In general discussing specific cases on public mailings lists is not useful at 
helping the situation (Pax is, of course, feel free to do so if they feel it 
would be right). I think if people want to help then thinking about, and 
talking about, ways to do so is the best way to tackle the problem. Those 
discussions (and possible solutions) can take many forms and while the inspire 
campaign right now is a perfect (and tailor made) opportunity to do so it is in 
now way the only one.

Some thoughts to help people having difficulty coming up with what to do:

1. Do you think that the social or policy rules that currently exist are not 
enough? Then talk about that on the pages and what you think should be changed 
(and why) and how to roll that out. Do we need another policy or a global one? 
Do we need to rewrite an old one? Should it be a local/global community policy 
or a part of the ToU? Something else entirely from the board?

2. Do you think that the current rules are enough but are not being enforced 
properly and/or not ABLE to be enforced properly? Then let's talk about what 
could help. Is it other community members ignoring or misunderstanding the 
rules? Is it people being able to evade too easily? Is it that those who 
enforce the rules get harassed themselves and back off? Are they just so 
overwhelmed that they can't keep up? Something else?

What would be good for this? Is it social pressure or support to enforce the 
rules already in play? A global arbcom type body? Better blocking tools? (do we 
have ideas on better how?) A "reporting" tool that reports to admins/the 
community in some fashion with the ability to escalate to the WMF (either 
harassment specific or made to deal with other reports as well such as 
vandalism or COI)? 

These and others have all been brought up to me in conversations by community 
members so I know people are thinking about it. We want to get it down where 
everyone can think about it. On a personal basis I think it's likely it's a mix 
of different things + something we haven't thought about before but we can only 
do so much at once obviously.

If someone sees a proposal that you think would cause more harm then good I 
would strongly encourage them to consider making other proposals that they 
think WOULD help rather then targeting and attacking those who created other 
proposals (or even attacking the proposals themselves). Doing so has a tendency 
only to help people feel harassed and attacked and moves them to belittle and 
ignore your concerns. What we need is more ideas, not more shit slung over the 
fence. 

In the end I do agree that any idea that harassment is "not real" or not a 
major problem right now is, at best, naive and could overall be very dangerous 
not only to our users but the projects as a whole. That does not, of course, 
mean we know the answer. In fact, we know we don't, it's what we're (all) 
trying to figure out. 

James Alexander
Manager, Trust & Safety
Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 5, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Patrick. The community regularly expends considerable volunteer
> time and effort to protect the intrgrity of article content and to deal
> with block evasion. I think it would be helpful if further efforts could be
> made to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of tools and processes
> for addressing block evasion, including the use of Legal Department
> resources as appropriate. Block evasion is a problem that affects many
> aspects of Wikimedia, including article integrity and loss of volunteer
> time as already mentioned, as well as the harms to harassment victims, the
> stress on the volunteer admins and functionaries, and negative impact on
> community population and health.
> 
> Thanks for working on this. Is there anything more that you can do to
> assist with Pax's situation in particular?
> 
> Pine
>> On Jun 5, 2016 11:11, "Patrick Earley"  wrote:
>> 
>> Pine,
>> 
>> As many of our admins and functionaries are well aware, both the Wikimedia
>> sites, and the internet architecture as a whole, favour anonymity and
>> protection of privacy over the ability to track individuals.  When a user
>> is technically proficient in hiding themselves, platforms and even law
>> enforcement can have little luck in determining who or where they are.
>> Anonymity has great benefits, but also can allow great abuses.
>> 
>> There are of course "easy" solutions that would involve changes to our
>> site accessibility - for instance, requiring secondary identification, such
>> as social media accounts or verified emails.  However, those are decisions
>> that the community as a whole needs to discuss, and not something I or my
>> department can change unilaterally. That said, improving Wikimedia's
>> blocking tools and detection methods is an area where some progress can be
>> made.
>> 
>> One of the benefits that this Inspire campaign can provide is open
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-05 Thread Pine W
Thanks, Patrick. The community regularly expends considerable volunteer
time and effort to protect the intrgrity of article content and to deal
with block evasion. I think it would be helpful if further efforts could be
made to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of tools and processes
for addressing block evasion, including the use of Legal Department
resources as appropriate. Block evasion is a problem that affects many
aspects of Wikimedia, including article integrity and loss of volunteer
time as already mentioned, as well as the harms to harassment victims, the
stress on the volunteer admins and functionaries, and negative impact on
community population and health.

Thanks for working on this. Is there anything more that you can do to
assist with Pax's situation in particular?

Pine
On Jun 5, 2016 11:11, "Patrick Earley"  wrote:

> Pine,
>
> As many of our admins and functionaries are well aware, both the Wikimedia
> sites, and the internet architecture as a whole, favour anonymity and
> protection of privacy over the ability to track individuals.  When a user
> is technically proficient in hiding themselves, platforms and even law
> enforcement can have little luck in determining who or where they are.
> Anonymity has great benefits, but also can allow great abuses.
>
> There are of course "easy" solutions that would involve changes to our
> site accessibility - for instance, requiring secondary identification, such
> as social media accounts or verified emails.  However, those are decisions
> that the community as a whole needs to discuss, and not something I or my
> department can change unilaterally. That said, improving Wikimedia's
> blocking tools and detection methods is an area where some progress can be
> made.
>
> One of the benefits that this Inspire campaign can provide is open
> discussion and consideration of new approaches.
>
> Pax, I am disheartened to see how some of the IdeaLabs are being used to
> belittle this problem, and am working over the weekend to keep at least the
> worst instances of abuse and hate-speech off of the pages :(
>
> Best,
>
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Hi Pax and Pete,
>>
>> It sounds like part of the issue in this case may be that may we need
>> more effective tools for dealing with troublemakers who are banned but
>> continue to return and cause problems. I'm wondering if Patrick Early can
>> comment on what efforts WMF is making in terms of dealing with persistent
>> block evasion.
>>
>> Pine
>> On Jun 5, 2016 07:13, "Pax Ahimsa Gethen" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am defining harassment primarily as personal attacks, not merely
>>> disputes (even strongly-worded disagreement) over content.
>>>
>>> Some examples of what I consider harassment:
>>>
>>> - Vandalizing an editor's user or talk page (hence my Inspire proposal:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Protect_user_space_by_default
>>> )
>>>
>>> - Making derogatory comments about an editor's gender, sex, race,
>>> ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or (dis)ability
>>>
>>> - Posting personal information about an editor that was gathered off-Wiki
>>>
>>> - Evading bans with IP-hopping to do any of the above.
>>>
>>> These actions not only cause "net harm to community health," they cause
>>> unnecessary, avoidable harm to specific individuals, and discourage
>>> marginalized people from participating in the project.
>>>
>>> - Pax
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/5/16 5:09 AM, Pine W wrote:
>>>
 Hi Pax,

 I agree that blaming the victim is an unsatisfactory resolution.

 On the other hand, defining what is meant by "incivility" and
 "harassment"
 can be very tricky. Just because there is a strong disagreement doesn't
 imply that people are being uncivil, and we cannot expect that no one
 will
 ever lose his or her temper when provoked. Similarly, a pattern of
 disagreement doesn't necessarily imply harassment, and the presumption
 of
 good faith is rebuttable which means that questioning the motives of
 others
 is occasionally OK.

 So, as Sumana once said, we have a tricky situation with regards to
 balancing free speech with hospitality.

 I think there are situations in which behavior is egregious enough that
 it
 is a net harm to community health and cannot be excused. For example,
 comments that demean someone on the basis of race, gender, age,
 nationality, or religious or political beliefs, are generally out of
 bounds.

 I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about how we should define
 harassment, and how we should seek to reduce the frequency of it on
 Wikimedia sites.

 Thank you for speaking up.

 Pine
 On Jun 4, 2016 19:15, "Pax Ahimsa Gethen" 
 wrote:

 Hi all, I'm Pax aka Funcrunch [1]. I've been a Wikipedian 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-05 Thread Pine W
Hi Pax and Pete,

It sounds like part of the issue in this case may be that may we need more
effective tools for dealing with troublemakers who are banned but continue
to return and cause problems. I'm wondering if Patrick Early can comment on
what efforts WMF is making in terms of dealing with persistent block
evasion.

Pine
On Jun 5, 2016 07:13, "Pax Ahimsa Gethen" 
wrote:

> I am defining harassment primarily as personal attacks, not merely
> disputes (even strongly-worded disagreement) over content.
>
> Some examples of what I consider harassment:
>
> - Vandalizing an editor's user or talk page (hence my Inspire proposal:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Protect_user_space_by_default
> )
>
> - Making derogatory comments about an editor's gender, sex, race,
> ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or (dis)ability
>
> - Posting personal information about an editor that was gathered off-Wiki
>
> - Evading bans with IP-hopping to do any of the above.
>
> These actions not only cause "net harm to community health," they cause
> unnecessary, avoidable harm to specific individuals, and discourage
> marginalized people from participating in the project.
>
> - Pax
>
>
> On 6/5/16 5:09 AM, Pine W wrote:
>
>> Hi Pax,
>>
>> I agree that blaming the victim is an unsatisfactory resolution.
>>
>> On the other hand, defining what is meant by "incivility" and "harassment"
>> can be very tricky. Just because there is a strong disagreement doesn't
>> imply that people are being uncivil, and we cannot expect that no one will
>> ever lose his or her temper when provoked. Similarly, a pattern of
>> disagreement doesn't necessarily imply harassment, and the presumption of
>> good faith is rebuttable which means that questioning the motives of
>> others
>> is occasionally OK.
>>
>> So, as Sumana once said, we have a tricky situation with regards to
>> balancing free speech with hospitality.
>>
>> I think there are situations in which behavior is egregious enough that it
>> is a net harm to community health and cannot be excused. For example,
>> comments that demean someone on the basis of race, gender, age,
>> nationality, or religious or political beliefs, are generally out of
>> bounds.
>>
>> I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about how we should define
>> harassment, and how we should seek to reduce the frequency of it on
>> Wikimedia sites.
>>
>> Thank you for speaking up.
>>
>> Pine
>> On Jun 4, 2016 19:15, "Pax Ahimsa Gethen" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all, I'm Pax aka Funcrunch [1]. I've been a Wikipedian since 2008, but
>>> this is my first post to this mailing list. (I've been reading list
>>> messages on the archives page occasionally for the last several months.)
>>>
>>> I'm writing because of a concern I have about the community's attitude
>>> toward harassment on Wikipedia. I got a Wikinotice about this month's
>>> Inspire Campaign, which specifically asks: "What ideas do you have that
>>> can
>>> help prevent and generally address cases of harassment?" [2] As a victim
>>> of
>>> several of the harassing behaviors mentioned as examples - " name
>>> calling,
>>> threats, discrimination, stalking, and impersonation" - I was encouraged
>>> to
>>> see that this problem was (hopefully) being taken seriously by the
>>> Foundation, and submitted a proposal.
>>>
>>> Looking at the other proposals submitted, I soon noticed that the most
>>> popular "ideas" on the list included complaints of "political
>>> correctness"
>>> and suggesting we shouldn't be so sensitive [3], and that we should just
>>> get some sleep and exercise and reconsider why we're so offended. [4]
>>> (That
>>> first "idea" has since been recategorized by a WMF staffer to remove it
>>> from the current campaign.)
>>>
>>> It really bothers me that a campaign specifically designed to combat
>>> harassment - which is a very serious and real problem for people of
>>> marginalized identities like myself [5]- is being co-opted by people
>>> saying
>>> things like " Harassment doesn't cause actual damage," " The existence of
>>> harassment is an opportunity to improve ourselves further through
>>> self-discipline," and " Harassment on Wikimedia has been exaggerated." I
>>> suggest that people who honestly believe this, but are willing to accept
>>> that they might be wrong, read a recent essay about online harassment by
>>> Anil Dash: "The Immortal Myths About Online Abuse." [6]
>>>
>>> I'm not "looking to be offended," and I'm not trying to "censor" people
>>> who simply disagree with me. I'm trying to help build an encyclopedia,
>>> without being harassed by block-evading stalkers hurling hate speech my
>>> way. The existing tools and policies are *not* sufficient to deal with
>>> this. That's (what I thought was) the point of this Inspire campaign, not
>>> complaining about censorship and " crybullying."
>>>
>>> I've posted a much shorter version of this concern on the Inspire

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-05 Thread Pete Forsyth
Pine, as one of the admins who has worked to fend off this sustained
attack, I can attest it is exactly that. Your point is a valid one, but it
does not apply to this situation.
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Jun 5, 2016 7:13 AM, "Pax Ahimsa Gethen" 
wrote:

> I am defining harassment primarily as personal attacks, not merely
> disputes (even strongly-worded disagreement) over content.
>
> Some examples of what I consider harassment:
>
> - Vandalizing an editor's user or talk page (hence my Inspire proposal:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Protect_user_space_by_default
> )
>
> - Making derogatory comments about an editor's gender, sex, race,
> ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or (dis)ability
>
> - Posting personal information about an editor that was gathered off-Wiki
>
> - Evading bans with IP-hopping to do any of the above.
>
> These actions not only cause "net harm to community health," they cause
> unnecessary, avoidable harm to specific individuals, and discourage
> marginalized people from participating in the project.
>
> - Pax
>
>
> On 6/5/16 5:09 AM, Pine W wrote:
>
>> Hi Pax,
>>
>> I agree that blaming the victim is an unsatisfactory resolution.
>>
>> On the other hand, defining what is meant by "incivility" and "harassment"
>> can be very tricky. Just because there is a strong disagreement doesn't
>> imply that people are being uncivil, and we cannot expect that no one will
>> ever lose his or her temper when provoked. Similarly, a pattern of
>> disagreement doesn't necessarily imply harassment, and the presumption of
>> good faith is rebuttable which means that questioning the motives of
>> others
>> is occasionally OK.
>>
>> So, as Sumana once said, we have a tricky situation with regards to
>> balancing free speech with hospitality.
>>
>> I think there are situations in which behavior is egregious enough that it
>> is a net harm to community health and cannot be excused. For example,
>> comments that demean someone on the basis of race, gender, age,
>> nationality, or religious or political beliefs, are generally out of
>> bounds.
>>
>> I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about how we should define
>> harassment, and how we should seek to reduce the frequency of it on
>> Wikimedia sites.
>>
>> Thank you for speaking up.
>>
>> Pine
>> On Jun 4, 2016 19:15, "Pax Ahimsa Gethen" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all, I'm Pax aka Funcrunch [1]. I've been a Wikipedian since 2008, but
>>> this is my first post to this mailing list. (I've been reading list
>>> messages on the archives page occasionally for the last several months.)
>>>
>>> I'm writing because of a concern I have about the community's attitude
>>> toward harassment on Wikipedia. I got a Wikinotice about this month's
>>> Inspire Campaign, which specifically asks: "What ideas do you have that
>>> can
>>> help prevent and generally address cases of harassment?" [2] As a victim
>>> of
>>> several of the harassing behaviors mentioned as examples - " name
>>> calling,
>>> threats, discrimination, stalking, and impersonation" - I was encouraged
>>> to
>>> see that this problem was (hopefully) being taken seriously by the
>>> Foundation, and submitted a proposal.
>>>
>>> Looking at the other proposals submitted, I soon noticed that the most
>>> popular "ideas" on the list included complaints of "political
>>> correctness"
>>> and suggesting we shouldn't be so sensitive [3], and that we should just
>>> get some sleep and exercise and reconsider why we're so offended. [4]
>>> (That
>>> first "idea" has since been recategorized by a WMF staffer to remove it
>>> from the current campaign.)
>>>
>>> It really bothers me that a campaign specifically designed to combat
>>> harassment - which is a very serious and real problem for people of
>>> marginalized identities like myself [5]- is being co-opted by people
>>> saying
>>> things like " Harassment doesn't cause actual damage," " The existence of
>>> harassment is an opportunity to improve ourselves further through
>>> self-discipline," and " Harassment on Wikimedia has been exaggerated." I
>>> suggest that people who honestly believe this, but are willing to accept
>>> that they might be wrong, read a recent essay about online harassment by
>>> Anil Dash: "The Immortal Myths About Online Abuse." [6]
>>>
>>> I'm not "looking to be offended," and I'm not trying to "censor" people
>>> who simply disagree with me. I'm trying to help build an encyclopedia,
>>> without being harassed by block-evading stalkers hurling hate speech my
>>> way. The existing tools and policies are *not* sufficient to deal with
>>> this. That's (what I thought was) the point of this Inspire campaign, not
>>> complaining about censorship and " crybullying."
>>>
>>> I've posted a much shorter version of this concern on the Inspire
>>> Campaign
>>> talk page [7], so feel free to weigh in there instead of here on the list
>>> if that's more appropriate. 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-05 Thread Pax Ahimsa Gethen
I am defining harassment primarily as personal attacks, not merely 
disputes (even strongly-worded disagreement) over content.


Some examples of what I consider harassment:

- Vandalizing an editor's user or talk page (hence my Inspire proposal: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Protect_user_space_by_default)


- Making derogatory comments about an editor's gender, sex, race, 
ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or (dis)ability


- Posting personal information about an editor that was gathered off-Wiki

- Evading bans with IP-hopping to do any of the above.

These actions not only cause "net harm to community health," they cause 
unnecessary, avoidable harm to specific individuals, and discourage 
marginalized people from participating in the project.


- Pax


On 6/5/16 5:09 AM, Pine W wrote:

Hi Pax,

I agree that blaming the victim is an unsatisfactory resolution.

On the other hand, defining what is meant by "incivility" and "harassment"
can be very tricky. Just because there is a strong disagreement doesn't
imply that people are being uncivil, and we cannot expect that no one will
ever lose his or her temper when provoked. Similarly, a pattern of
disagreement doesn't necessarily imply harassment, and the presumption of
good faith is rebuttable which means that questioning the motives of others
is occasionally OK.

So, as Sumana once said, we have a tricky situation with regards to
balancing free speech with hospitality.

I think there are situations in which behavior is egregious enough that it
is a net harm to community health and cannot be excused. For example,
comments that demean someone on the basis of race, gender, age,
nationality, or religious or political beliefs, are generally out of bounds.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about how we should define
harassment, and how we should seek to reduce the frequency of it on
Wikimedia sites.

Thank you for speaking up.

Pine
On Jun 4, 2016 19:15, "Pax Ahimsa Gethen" 
wrote:


Hi all, I'm Pax aka Funcrunch [1]. I've been a Wikipedian since 2008, but
this is my first post to this mailing list. (I've been reading list
messages on the archives page occasionally for the last several months.)

I'm writing because of a concern I have about the community's attitude
toward harassment on Wikipedia. I got a Wikinotice about this month's
Inspire Campaign, which specifically asks: "What ideas do you have that can
help prevent and generally address cases of harassment?" [2] As a victim of
several of the harassing behaviors mentioned as examples - " name calling,
threats, discrimination, stalking, and impersonation" - I was encouraged to
see that this problem was (hopefully) being taken seriously by the
Foundation, and submitted a proposal.

Looking at the other proposals submitted, I soon noticed that the most
popular "ideas" on the list included complaints of "political correctness"
and suggesting we shouldn't be so sensitive [3], and that we should just
get some sleep and exercise and reconsider why we're so offended. [4] (That
first "idea" has since been recategorized by a WMF staffer to remove it
from the current campaign.)

It really bothers me that a campaign specifically designed to combat
harassment - which is a very serious and real problem for people of
marginalized identities like myself [5]- is being co-opted by people saying
things like " Harassment doesn't cause actual damage," " The existence of
harassment is an opportunity to improve ourselves further through
self-discipline," and " Harassment on Wikimedia has been exaggerated." I
suggest that people who honestly believe this, but are willing to accept
that they might be wrong, read a recent essay about online harassment by
Anil Dash: "The Immortal Myths About Online Abuse." [6]

I'm not "looking to be offended," and I'm not trying to "censor" people
who simply disagree with me. I'm trying to help build an encyclopedia,
without being harassed by block-evading stalkers hurling hate speech my
way. The existing tools and policies are *not* sufficient to deal with
this. That's (what I thought was) the point of this Inspire campaign, not
complaining about censorship and " crybullying."

I've posted a much shorter version of this concern on the Inspire Campaign
talk page [7], so feel free to weigh in there instead of here on the list
if that's more appropriate. Thank you for reading.

- Pax, aka Funcrunch


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Funcrunch
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Stop_%22Political_Correctness%22_as_gauge
!
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Don't_feed_the_trolls
[5] Queer, trans, and black, in my case.
[6]
https://medium.com/humane-tech/the-immortal-myths-about-online-abuse-a156e3370aee
[7]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Inspire/Meta#Blaming_the_victim



--
Pax Ahimsa Gethen | p...@funcrunch.org | 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-05 Thread Pine W
Hi Pax,

I agree that blaming the victim is an unsatisfactory resolution.

On the other hand, defining what is meant by "incivility" and "harassment"
can be very tricky. Just because there is a strong disagreement doesn't
imply that people are being uncivil, and we cannot expect that no one will
ever lose his or her temper when provoked. Similarly, a pattern of
disagreement doesn't necessarily imply harassment, and the presumption of
good faith is rebuttable which means that questioning the motives of others
is occasionally OK.

So, as Sumana once said, we have a tricky situation with regards to
balancing free speech with hospitality.

I think there are situations in which behavior is egregious enough that it
is a net harm to community health and cannot be excused. For example,
comments that demean someone on the basis of race, gender, age,
nationality, or religious or political beliefs, are generally out of bounds.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about how we should define
harassment, and how we should seek to reduce the frequency of it on
Wikimedia sites.

Thank you for speaking up.

Pine
On Jun 4, 2016 19:15, "Pax Ahimsa Gethen" 
wrote:

> Hi all, I'm Pax aka Funcrunch [1]. I've been a Wikipedian since 2008, but
> this is my first post to this mailing list. (I've been reading list
> messages on the archives page occasionally for the last several months.)
>
> I'm writing because of a concern I have about the community's attitude
> toward harassment on Wikipedia. I got a Wikinotice about this month's
> Inspire Campaign, which specifically asks: "What ideas do you have that can
> help prevent and generally address cases of harassment?" [2] As a victim of
> several of the harassing behaviors mentioned as examples - " name calling,
> threats, discrimination, stalking, and impersonation" - I was encouraged to
> see that this problem was (hopefully) being taken seriously by the
> Foundation, and submitted a proposal.
>
> Looking at the other proposals submitted, I soon noticed that the most
> popular "ideas" on the list included complaints of "political correctness"
> and suggesting we shouldn't be so sensitive [3], and that we should just
> get some sleep and exercise and reconsider why we're so offended. [4] (That
> first "idea" has since been recategorized by a WMF staffer to remove it
> from the current campaign.)
>
> It really bothers me that a campaign specifically designed to combat
> harassment - which is a very serious and real problem for people of
> marginalized identities like myself [5]- is being co-opted by people saying
> things like " Harassment doesn't cause actual damage," " The existence of
> harassment is an opportunity to improve ourselves further through
> self-discipline," and " Harassment on Wikimedia has been exaggerated." I
> suggest that people who honestly believe this, but are willing to accept
> that they might be wrong, read a recent essay about online harassment by
> Anil Dash: "The Immortal Myths About Online Abuse." [6]
>
> I'm not "looking to be offended," and I'm not trying to "censor" people
> who simply disagree with me. I'm trying to help build an encyclopedia,
> without being harassed by block-evading stalkers hurling hate speech my
> way. The existing tools and policies are *not* sufficient to deal with
> this. That's (what I thought was) the point of this Inspire campaign, not
> complaining about censorship and " crybullying."
>
> I've posted a much shorter version of this concern on the Inspire Campaign
> talk page [7], so feel free to weigh in there instead of here on the list
> if that's more appropriate. Thank you for reading.
>
> - Pax, aka Funcrunch
>
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Funcrunch
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Stop_%22Political_Correctness%22_as_gauge
> !
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Don't_feed_the_trolls
> [5] Queer, trans, and black, in my case.
> [6]
> https://medium.com/humane-tech/the-immortal-myths-about-online-abuse-a156e3370aee
> [7]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Inspire/Meta#Blaming_the_victim
>
> --
> Pax Ahimsa Gethen | p...@funcrunch.org | http://funcrunch.org
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-04 Thread Pax Ahimsa Gethen
Hi all, I'm Pax aka Funcrunch [1]. I've been a Wikipedian since 2008, 
but this is my first post to this mailing list. (I've been reading list 
messages on the archives page occasionally for the last several months.)


I'm writing because of a concern I have about the community's attitude 
toward harassment on Wikipedia. I got a Wikinotice about this month's 
Inspire Campaign, which specifically asks: "What ideas do you have that 
can help prevent and generally address cases of harassment?" [2] As a 
victim of several of the harassing behaviors mentioned as examples - " 
name calling, threats, discrimination, stalking, and impersonation" - I 
was encouraged to see that this problem was (hopefully) being taken 
seriously by the Foundation, and submitted a proposal.


Looking at the other proposals submitted, I soon noticed that the most 
popular "ideas" on the list included complaints of "political 
correctness" and suggesting we shouldn't be so sensitive [3], and that 
we should just get some sleep and exercise and reconsider why we're so 
offended. [4] (That first "idea" has since been recategorized by a WMF 
staffer to remove it from the current campaign.)


It really bothers me that a campaign specifically designed to combat 
harassment - which is a very serious and real problem for people of 
marginalized identities like myself [5]- is being co-opted by people 
saying things like " Harassment doesn't cause actual damage," " The 
existence of harassment is an opportunity to improve ourselves further 
through self-discipline," and " Harassment on Wikimedia has been 
exaggerated." I suggest that people who honestly believe this, but are 
willing to accept that they might be wrong, read a recent essay about 
online harassment by Anil Dash: "The Immortal Myths About Online Abuse." [6]


I'm not "looking to be offended," and I'm not trying to "censor" people 
who simply disagree with me. I'm trying to help build an encyclopedia, 
without being harassed by block-evading stalkers hurling hate speech my 
way. The existing tools and policies are *not* sufficient to deal with 
this. That's (what I thought was) the point of this Inspire campaign, 
not complaining about censorship and " crybullying."


I've posted a much shorter version of this concern on the Inspire 
Campaign talk page [7], so feel free to weigh in there instead of here 
on the list if that's more appropriate. Thank you for reading.


- Pax, aka Funcrunch


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Funcrunch
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire
[3] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Stop_%22Political_Correctness%22_as_gauge!

[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Don't_feed_the_trolls
[5] Queer, trans, and black, in my case.
[6] 
https://medium.com/humane-tech/the-immortal-myths-about-online-abuse-a156e3370aee
[7] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Inspire/Meta#Blaming_the_victim


--
Pax Ahimsa Gethen | p...@funcrunch.org | http://funcrunch.org


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,