Welcome to our discussion! |
|
When participating in this discussion, please remember the following:
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Administrator confidence survey page. |
|
I read:
I don't remember ever having been trained. Neither do I remember ever having trained anybody else.
But then, many years ago when I was asked if I'd mind being nominated for admin, if I'd been told that this would involve being trained, I'd have declined. And now, if I were asked to train, I'd decline.
I'm asked about the degree to which I agree with:
This is the kind of question whose answer depends enormously on how I read it. Which itself depends on my mood, etc. Does "sockpuppetry" mean acknowledged sockpuppetry? If so, then yes, I can block every perp; but no, a new perp can pop up at any time, and I don't receive email helpfully telling me: "Two of the seven IP numbers previously used by RighteousWarrior81 and RighteousWarrior86, both of whom you blocked, are now being used by RighteousFighter21. Care to take a look at this UID's contributions to the article 'Kosovo'?" And so I can hardly start to solve determined socketpuppetry. OTOH anyone can intervene (a near-meaningless word): certainly the admin bit isn't required. As for suspected sockpuppetry, the constraints are on time and energy. I can't think of any Wikipedia/Mediawiki tool that might help me in the (usually tedious) job of going through numerous article histories, etc. Anyway, I interpreted the question, erm, booleanly; Yes I'm provided with enough resources to intervene; therefore I'm provided with enough resources to intervene OR do anything else; therefore yes. Which probably misses the point of the question. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
-- CSinders (WMF) ( talk) 19:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Regarding sock puppetry, it seems obvious to me that the relatively small subset of administrators who have CheckUser privileges have substantially greater resources to solve, mitigate or intervene than those who don't have this privilege. Confidence will vary in admins' ability to effectively use "behavioral criteria" to make a finding of sock puppetry (aka the "duck test"). Arguably administration of the duck test, and allegations of sock puppetry based on "behavioral criteria" can sometimes be a form of harassment. One way to mitigate such potential harassment is to eliminate the need to present behavioral evidence before running a Special:CheckUser, by setting up CheckUser bot that automatically ran such checks on all new users, and generated a report for admins with the CheckUser privilege to act upon by either blocking the new user and its sockmaster or whitelisting in the case of valid alternative accounts. This isn't the place to discuss the idea, but I'd appreciate a link to any related past discussions of the idea. I'm not keen on the idea of sock blocks based entirely on behavioral evidence, and more effective blocking based on hard evidence could mitigate the need for behavioral blocks. wbm1058 ( talk) 15:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I've just submitted my response. I have to say, the survey isn't exactly what I expected, in particular it completely neglects the issue of retaliatory harassment. I believe you should have asked:
It's all well and good that admins are able to recognize sockpuppetry, vandalism, wikihounding and harassment and take action against them, but we need to (1) be able to protect ourselves from any blowback that may result and (2) be confident in this ability. MER-C 05:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello
In response to the suggestions on this page, we are adding a final question that allows for a free form response about other barriers to successfully addressing cases of vandalism, sockpuppetry, wikihounding, and vandalism. The question will be automatically included if you have not filled out the survey form that I send out.
If you have already answered the Admin Confidence survey and want to answer the last question, you can email me and I'll send you the Final Question in a separate email.
Please don't fill out the full survey a second time! SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 20:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
The Administrator Confidence survey closed on Sept. 24. The Anti-harassment tools team will analyse responses and share the results in approximately 2 weeks. SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 14:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team Wikipedia English Administrator Confidence Survey results are in. Thank you to the 117 participants who filled out the survey. :-)
A copy of the raw results can be found on the results page. Initial impressions of the raw results are welcome on this talk page.
On Monday, October 2, 2017, the Anti-Harassment Tools team will share further results from the comments section of the survey and our preliminary analysis. The team wants to work with the community to identity significant findings and how that it could influence our team's work on tool development.
Later in October, we will have second discussion that will focus on the finding in the survey comments sections that are directed towards policy changes or different ways of reporting and managing cases.
Again, thank you for participating in the survey. And look forward to discussing the results on Monday. For Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 19:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the results, is this a first draft? Is the WMF planning on any further analysis of this data? I'm sure there are many ways to look at it, but as an example, I'm interested in (and disappointed to not find) some analysis/discussion of correlation between admins' confidence in identifying sockpuppetry versus their sense of having the tools to respond to it. I mean, it's great that 53.8% of respondents rate their confidence high (4 or better - my metric) and coincidentally that the same number feel they "usually" or "almost always" have the skills/tools to intervene, but what is the relationship between those two groups? Do more confident respondents also agree they have the tools, or are they more likely the ones who feel unsupported? That's the kind of thing I'd like to see, and which I think would be more useful to the Foundation or whoever is using this data. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 19:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Would it be possible to release a text version of the results (as in wikitext, say)? I can't deal with the PDF with my screen reader. Thanks! Graham 87 13:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello :-)
The Anti-Harassment Tools team reviewed the feedback from the Admin Confidence Survey and did a preliminary analysis of the comments related to tech tools. We are sharing these results today so that the English Wikipedia community can begin discussing the results.
In two weeks the Anti-Harassment Tools team will release more preliminary analysis about the survey comments related to policy, training, and reporting methods.
Again, thank you to everyone who participated in the survey. Whether you participated in the survey or not, we are interested in your thoughts about the results.
If you still would like to provide comments privately to the Anti-Harassment Tools team, you can email the Anti-Harassment Tools team.
For the Anti-Harassment Tools Team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 00:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Please share your reaction and thoughts about the survey.
The results page for the Administrator Confidence Survey has been updated to include comments from the survey about policy, reporting, harassment, and community culture.
Thank you for taking the time to give this feedback. And especially thanks to those of you who requested a space to give free form comments.
Major themes include: Harassment policy as written interferes with enforcement, Social barriers to addressing harassment, Chilling effects of harassment on administrators' work, Victim blaming, More training and resources needed, Time intensive, Specialization, AN/I related, and the Role of WMF.
The Community Health Initiative team is using the survey comments to guide our prioritization for tool development and plan next steps for research around the topics of harassment and conflict resolution. We are interested in hearing your thoughts about the results and your ideas about how they should influence future decision making. SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 19:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to our discussion! |
|
When participating in this discussion, please remember the following:
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Administrator confidence survey page. |
|
I read:
I don't remember ever having been trained. Neither do I remember ever having trained anybody else.
But then, many years ago when I was asked if I'd mind being nominated for admin, if I'd been told that this would involve being trained, I'd have declined. And now, if I were asked to train, I'd decline.
I'm asked about the degree to which I agree with:
This is the kind of question whose answer depends enormously on how I read it. Which itself depends on my mood, etc. Does "sockpuppetry" mean acknowledged sockpuppetry? If so, then yes, I can block every perp; but no, a new perp can pop up at any time, and I don't receive email helpfully telling me: "Two of the seven IP numbers previously used by RighteousWarrior81 and RighteousWarrior86, both of whom you blocked, are now being used by RighteousFighter21. Care to take a look at this UID's contributions to the article 'Kosovo'?" And so I can hardly start to solve determined socketpuppetry. OTOH anyone can intervene (a near-meaningless word): certainly the admin bit isn't required. As for suspected sockpuppetry, the constraints are on time and energy. I can't think of any Wikipedia/Mediawiki tool that might help me in the (usually tedious) job of going through numerous article histories, etc. Anyway, I interpreted the question, erm, booleanly; Yes I'm provided with enough resources to intervene; therefore I'm provided with enough resources to intervene OR do anything else; therefore yes. Which probably misses the point of the question. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
-- CSinders (WMF) ( talk) 19:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Regarding sock puppetry, it seems obvious to me that the relatively small subset of administrators who have CheckUser privileges have substantially greater resources to solve, mitigate or intervene than those who don't have this privilege. Confidence will vary in admins' ability to effectively use "behavioral criteria" to make a finding of sock puppetry (aka the "duck test"). Arguably administration of the duck test, and allegations of sock puppetry based on "behavioral criteria" can sometimes be a form of harassment. One way to mitigate such potential harassment is to eliminate the need to present behavioral evidence before running a Special:CheckUser, by setting up CheckUser bot that automatically ran such checks on all new users, and generated a report for admins with the CheckUser privilege to act upon by either blocking the new user and its sockmaster or whitelisting in the case of valid alternative accounts. This isn't the place to discuss the idea, but I'd appreciate a link to any related past discussions of the idea. I'm not keen on the idea of sock blocks based entirely on behavioral evidence, and more effective blocking based on hard evidence could mitigate the need for behavioral blocks. wbm1058 ( talk) 15:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I've just submitted my response. I have to say, the survey isn't exactly what I expected, in particular it completely neglects the issue of retaliatory harassment. I believe you should have asked:
It's all well and good that admins are able to recognize sockpuppetry, vandalism, wikihounding and harassment and take action against them, but we need to (1) be able to protect ourselves from any blowback that may result and (2) be confident in this ability. MER-C 05:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello
In response to the suggestions on this page, we are adding a final question that allows for a free form response about other barriers to successfully addressing cases of vandalism, sockpuppetry, wikihounding, and vandalism. The question will be automatically included if you have not filled out the survey form that I send out.
If you have already answered the Admin Confidence survey and want to answer the last question, you can email me and I'll send you the Final Question in a separate email.
Please don't fill out the full survey a second time! SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 20:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
The Administrator Confidence survey closed on Sept. 24. The Anti-harassment tools team will analyse responses and share the results in approximately 2 weeks. SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 14:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team Wikipedia English Administrator Confidence Survey results are in. Thank you to the 117 participants who filled out the survey. :-)
A copy of the raw results can be found on the results page. Initial impressions of the raw results are welcome on this talk page.
On Monday, October 2, 2017, the Anti-Harassment Tools team will share further results from the comments section of the survey and our preliminary analysis. The team wants to work with the community to identity significant findings and how that it could influence our team's work on tool development.
Later in October, we will have second discussion that will focus on the finding in the survey comments sections that are directed towards policy changes or different ways of reporting and managing cases.
Again, thank you for participating in the survey. And look forward to discussing the results on Monday. For Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 19:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the results, is this a first draft? Is the WMF planning on any further analysis of this data? I'm sure there are many ways to look at it, but as an example, I'm interested in (and disappointed to not find) some analysis/discussion of correlation between admins' confidence in identifying sockpuppetry versus their sense of having the tools to respond to it. I mean, it's great that 53.8% of respondents rate their confidence high (4 or better - my metric) and coincidentally that the same number feel they "usually" or "almost always" have the skills/tools to intervene, but what is the relationship between those two groups? Do more confident respondents also agree they have the tools, or are they more likely the ones who feel unsupported? That's the kind of thing I'd like to see, and which I think would be more useful to the Foundation or whoever is using this data. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 19:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Would it be possible to release a text version of the results (as in wikitext, say)? I can't deal with the PDF with my screen reader. Thanks! Graham 87 13:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello :-)
The Anti-Harassment Tools team reviewed the feedback from the Admin Confidence Survey and did a preliminary analysis of the comments related to tech tools. We are sharing these results today so that the English Wikipedia community can begin discussing the results.
In two weeks the Anti-Harassment Tools team will release more preliminary analysis about the survey comments related to policy, training, and reporting methods.
Again, thank you to everyone who participated in the survey. Whether you participated in the survey or not, we are interested in your thoughts about the results.
If you still would like to provide comments privately to the Anti-Harassment Tools team, you can email the Anti-Harassment Tools team.
For the Anti-Harassment Tools Team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 00:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Please share your reaction and thoughts about the survey.
The results page for the Administrator Confidence Survey has been updated to include comments from the survey about policy, reporting, harassment, and community culture.
Thank you for taking the time to give this feedback. And especially thanks to those of you who requested a space to give free form comments.
Major themes include: Harassment policy as written interferes with enforcement, Social barriers to addressing harassment, Chilling effects of harassment on administrators' work, Victim blaming, More training and resources needed, Time intensive, Specialization, AN/I related, and the Role of WMF.
The Community Health Initiative team is using the survey comments to guide our prioritization for tool development and plan next steps for research around the topics of harassment and conflict resolution. We are interested in hearing your thoughts about the results and your ideas about how they should influence future decision making. SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 19:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)