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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight suggested Annual Training during the Harassment
If you've not seen it, it is worth your time to read the talk page
I have created
and would welcome feedback there.
On the subject of block evasion, I have some ideas but would defer to our
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
On Jun 5, 2016 7:13 AM, "Pax Ahimsa Gethen"
> I am
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:
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
Mail list logo