[Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

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 | [hidden email] | http://funcrunch.org


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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" <[hidden email]>
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 | [hidden email] | http://funcrunch.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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" <[hidden email]>
> 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 | [hidden email] | http://funcrunch.org


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Pete Forsyth-2
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" <[hidden email]>
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" <[hidden email]>
>> 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 | [hidden email] | http://funcrunch.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Pine W
In reply to this post by Pax Ahimsa Gethen
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" <[hidden email]>
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" <[hidden email]>
>> 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 | [hidden email] | http://funcrunch.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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 <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]>
> 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" <[hidden email]
> >
> >> 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 | [hidden email] | http://funcrunch.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Patrick Earley
In reply to this post by Pine W
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 <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]>
> 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" <[hidden email]>
>>> 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 | [hidden email] | http://funcrunch.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>


--
Patrick Earley
Senior Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation
[hidden email]
(1) 415 975 1874
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]>
>> 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" <[hidden email]
>>>> >
>>>> 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 | [hidden email] | http://funcrunch.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Patrick Earley
> Senior Community Advocate
> Wikimedia Foundation
> [hidden email]
> (1) 415 975 1874
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

James Alexander-4
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 <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]>
>>> 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" <[hidden email]
>>>>> 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 | [hidden email] | http://funcrunch.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Patrick Earley
>> Senior Community Advocate
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> [hidden email]
>> (1) 415 975 1874
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Trillium Corsage
In reply to this post by Pine W
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" <email clipped>:

> 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" <email clipped>
> 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" <email clipped>
>>>  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 | [hidden email] | http://funcrunch.org
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>  New messages to: [hidden email]
>>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>  <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Sydney Poore
In reply to this post by Pax Ahimsa Gethen
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 <
[hidden email]> 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 | [hidden email] | http://funcrunch.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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 <
> [hidden email]> 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 | [hidden email] | http://funcrunch.org
>>
>>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Pine W
In reply to this post by Sydney Poore
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Sydney Poore
In reply to this post by James Alexander-4
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 <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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" <
> [hidden email]>
> >>> 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" <
> [hidden email]
> >>>>> 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 | [hidden email] | http://funcrunch.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
> >>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Patrick Earley
> >> Senior Community Advocate
> >> Wikimedia Foundation
> >> [hidden email]
> >> (1) 415 975 1874
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Pine W
In reply to this post by Sydney Poore
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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 <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Risker
In reply to this post by Sydney Poore
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12