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 <wiki.p...@gmail.com> 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 <ajradd...@gmail.com>
> 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 <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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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