Training modules/Online harassment/Discussion hub
What counts as "actionable"?Edit
SituationEdit
User A contacts you to indicate that they feel unsafe because of the way User B has conducted himself in an on-wiki talk page dispute. In reviewing the talk page, you see some minimally aggressive discussion where User B is dismissive of User A's opinions and suggestions without giving a lot of explanation. Several edit summaries may be considered personal attacks, referring to User A's comments as "stupid" or "trolling," while User A's comments appear reasonable.
On deeper review, you find a long history of disagreements between User A and User B, including an incident the previous year where User B complained about personal attacks from User A to local administrators and it was recommended that User A avoid antagonizing User B. What further context could be useful to you in determining your appropriate response?
What if, all other circumstances being the same, User B had resorted to stronger language in the current confrontation? What if in your review you discovered that User A had been following User B's contributions?
Comments and opinionsEdit
Add your thoughts and opinions on what you might do in this situation on its talk page. This is a hypothetical situation, but think about what the ideal course of action is.
It might be a good idea to review the "Handling reports" module.
Training modules/Online harassment/Discussion hub/What counts as "actionable"?
I will acknowledge to User A the complaint that has come to my attention and then will go ahead and investigate the background of their discussions and also verify the accounts so that to certain the truth. Then I will give a tentative date of when I will get back to User A as a complainant.
Challenge question: closing a case that involves advanced user rightsEdit
SituationEdit
Your team has just finished discussing how to handle a case where user:X was alleged to have harassed user:Z. You believe the evidence shows that user:X, who is also a Steward, has used their access to Z's private information to harass Z off-wiki. While your team believes that banning X from your project is an appropriate action, you are also concerned about X's continued access to private information through their Steward user right. As a local project team, however, you have no ability to revoke the Steward user right. In fact, the only body with that power appears to be either the other Stewards, or the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety team.
Comments and opinionsEdit
Add your thoughts and opinions on what you might do in this situation on its talk page. This is a hypothetical situation, but think about what the ideal course of action is.
It might be a good idea to review the "Closing cases" module.
Training modules/Online harassment/Discussion hub/Challenge question: closing a case that involves advanced user rights After consulting i will take the on-wiki action your team has deemed fit. I will place a block or ban on a user Z, first, before notifying the sanctioned userZ. After this i then inform userZ why a sanction has been placed on them. then i will notify User X. Of course i will be factual and non-judgmental.
I will also contact a steward or bureaucrat to request removal of those rights.
Closing a non-actionable caseEdit
SituationEdit
Your team has just finished discussing a case where you were unable to agree on whether the evidence proved that user:B is the person who conducted a harassment campaign against user:A, with some team members being convinced and others remaining skeptical. Deadlocked as a group, you are therefore are taking no action. You are in charge of notifying the involved parties that the case has been closed with no action, and you write to user:A to explain that while you understand their concerns, your team will not be able to take action against user:B. You suggest a few support organizations that may be able to help user:A cope with the situation.
User:A replies to your notification to express their disagreement with the conclusion of the case and make the following points:
- Asking you to give specifics about what evidence your team did not believe
- Suggesting that since the majority of your team is not part of the marginalized group A is part of, your team may have had a flawed perspective on the evidence
User:A asks that, particularly in light of point 2, your team either reconsider the evidence or pass the case to another, more qualified team to evaluate. They add that if your team is unable to handle situations like theirs, they may be forced to apply pressure via public comment.
Comments and opinionsEdit
Add your thoughts and opinions on what you might do in this situation on its talk page. This is a hypothetical situation, but think about what the ideal course of action is.
It might be a good idea to review the "Closing cases" module.
Training modules/Online harassment/Discussion hub/Closing a non-actionable case
Answering questions about a caseEdit
SituationEdit
After an on-wiki dispute with user:A that escalates, user:B is blocked from Wikipedia for a month. During that period, user:B creates an account on Anti-Wikipedia, a wiki where users who have left Wikipedia for various reasons create satirical content about Wikipedia and its users. B uses their new Anti-Wikipedia account to create an article there about user:A, in which they post information supposedly about A, including a photo, a home address, and the names of A's children and the school they attend. The article encourages readers to call A's home "for a good time."
Shortly before B's month-long block expires, A is made aware of the Anti-Wikipedia article about them. They contact your team to ask for help, noting that B does not seem to have let go of their disagreement and saying that they, A, are now concerned for the safety of themselves and their children. Since B has been open both on Wikipedia and on Anti-Wikipedia about owning both of those accounts, there is little question that the Anti-Wikipedia page was created by B. B rejects a private request from your team that they stop publicly posting information about A.
Your team determines that this behavior is enough of a threat to community safety that B should no longer be allowed to edit Wikipedia. You place a ban on B and post the following statement on your project's administrative noticeboard: "For engaging in conduct that violates Wikipedia's Harassment Policy, user:B is banned from Wikipedia. They may appeal privately to [your team name]".
Community members subsequently begin to ask questions about your team's justification for this action, noting that user:B has not edited Wikipedia, even on their talk page, for more than a month, and that B has no block log or sanction history involving harassment. Some of the community members asking these questions appear to believe your team may have exaggerated or misinterpreted whatever behavior you banned B for, since you aren't willing to describe it.
Your team knows you need to post a reply to these questions, but you are concerned about how you can justify this action to the community without releasing information that can be used to identify one or more of the target, the venue for the harassment, or the content of the harassment.
Comments and opinionsEdit
Add your thoughts and opinions on what you might do in this situation on its talk page. This is a hypothetical situation, but think about what the ideal course of action is.
It might be a good idea to review the "Closing cases" module.
Training modules/Online harassment/Discussion hub/Answering questions about a case