User talk:SPoore (WMF)

Dear Sydney, I came across your notices to a number of Portuguese languages admins. If you need any help with translation of such notices, please don't hesitate to drop me a line; I will be more than happy to help. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Rui Gabriel Correia I definitely would like your help. I'll be sending a new message out soon with an update about the design. We are particularly interested in learning people's ideas about how to log partial blocks. I'll contact you to show you the message. Thank you for the offer. SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sidney. Sure thing, I will be here and I am basically permanently logged in. I am a translator so as I work I often check terms to see how they have been translated in the Portuguese wiki and make a note to come back if I see anything that needs fixing. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

You commented a month or two ago on the discussion about partial blocks with an intriging comment on how Italian-wiki were using it. You'd noted that you could summarise it on the draft RfC talk page, but as it's not there I was wondering whether either you'd commented elsewhere or could say how they were using it here? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

∯WBG^converse 01:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SPoore. There's currently much talk of tweaking English Wikipedia's enforcement practices as a result of Framgate. At least on this page, the current majority view seems to be in favour of more forceful enforcement & scrutiny against editors.

It seems to me this may be the opposite of what the data would suggest is needed for our community to become more inclusive. From my ~10 years of occasional conversations with the public about Wikipedia, the reason people give for stopping editing is the difficulty in getting their contributions accepted. Not one person has mentioned being personally attacked as the reason they quickly gave up attempts to edit.

So I'd suspect what is needed is not more force, but more gentleness. This may not be easy for our policy enforcement crew to accept, but tagging , reverts & deletions are often experienced by new editors as hostility. The fact they are typically delivered with sterile polite language, sometimes even with superficial friendliness, does little to soften the apparent antagonism.

Once the Arb's review of Fram concludes, it would possibly be helpful to the communities internal efforts if you could share the WMFs data on what drives contributors away. If there is data that supports significant numbers leaving due to personal attacks/cussing/ passionate outbursts, then that might be an easy sell, as there seems to be some desire to crack down more on those things.

If there is data that suggests benefits to slightly relaxed enforcement – e.g. when a new users makes an edit that's sub optimal but not terrible, it might be best to let it stick for at least a few weeks rather than immediately reverting - then this would probably need to be robust enough to stand up to hostile scrutiny, and presented with some tact if it is to be accepted by the quality control crew. Sorry if this is all redundant to what you were planning to do anyway! FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FeydHuxtable, I'm pinging @PEarley (WMF): too to help figure out who in the Community Engagement Department is the best person to work with. I know that both the Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative and the Growth teams are interested in this topic. SPoore (WMF), Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. To be honest I wasn't expecting to be working on this with anyone. If it is the case that WMF data supports the idea that slightly less forceful enforcement might lift community health, Id not be the best person to help present that. As Im not well known, and to the extent I am, it's possibly as a hyper Inclusionist. If the Arbs are too busy and you wanted another volunteer editor to help out on this, I'm sure I could find someone more suitable for you. Certainly I think this sort of data could be most helpful in shaping the communities response, providing it's presented diplomatically so it doesn't impact the morale of our valuable quality control editors. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough one, FeydHuxtable - the balance of doing quality control at scale, and doing it in a human way. Perhaps one concrete improvement would be how we inform new editors about policy before they run into trouble. I know the Growth team is working on some pilots to help new editors get to a more fruitful start; this may help avoid the negative confrontations that come out of good-faith efforts that don't conform to policy. In terms of data, the CE Insights survey may highlight some opportunities ... Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Some excellent info in the CE Insights survey, though at first glance I'm not seeing much that's specific enough to inform the communities response to Framgates. It's interesting as back in 2010 I was shown some WMF presentations that had more specific reasons as to why folk were giving up editing - i.e. Deletions, reverts & excessive use of tagging / templates. They were on a laptop & seen at meetup, so I have nothing to link to. Perhaps it's just as well if there is not now more robust data of that sort, as it would likely be a tough sell to get consensus for change based on that sort of evidence. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Those I've talked to who have dropped out similarly haven't blamed direct incivility - impersonality is one of the big killers they've named (we know that templates are negative, but if customised messages were required the experienced editors would be overwhelmed. A happy medium to be found?). However if there's some precise data to be found that would always be good. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you posted that you're "available to answer questions about the User Reporting System and the Universal Code of Conduct." I hope that's still the case?

I was wondering, do you happen to know if the motivations for such a Code are mostly about the smaller projects, off-wiki channels, IRL events, and organization interaction, or mostly about the very large projects where most of the editors work? --Yair rand (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Yair rand:, I'm happy to answer your question.

The motivation initially came from the observed and reported existing gaps in the conduct policies in various communities, especially small communities that did not have the time and resources to develop comprehensive policies. With the expansion of the Wikimedia movement, both on and off wiki, the gap is getting bigger. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees recognizes the need to help the movement create a basic set of conduct policies to be in effect on and off wiki. The WMF Board guidance provided on May 22 also aligned with 2030 Movement strategy recommendations. It is intended to be a universal framework where smaller communities that lack local policy or enforcement (or both) can have a new set of polices, and larger communities with established policies and enforcement mechanisms can address any gaps in and improve. I hope that helps. SPoore (WMF), Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's very much a relief to hear. Thank you for the information. --Yair rand (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Community health initiative/Per user page, namespace, category, and upload blocking. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#Community health initiative/Per user page, namespace, category, and upload blocking until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]