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 <risker...@gmail.com> 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 <sydney.po...@gmail.com> 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 <wiki.p...@gmail.com> 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 <sydney.po...@gmail.com>
> > > 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 <wiki.p...@gmail.com> 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,
> > >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to