The Ally Skills Workshop at Wikimania 2015

[Zoloft]

I get the Punch and Judy reference.

Believe it or not.

In my opinion it's missing the point of Vigilant's posts (not all of which I agree with, btw - sometimes he and I have philosophical disagreements over post content).

[Zoloft]

Neotarf has been banned for making, and then failing to substantiate, an extremely inflammatory post.

Yes, someone said (eight months ago) something really unwise. However, it was reasonably established at the time to pose no threat.

All mentions of the post have been removed. Do not repeat any part of the post unless you want to immediately join Neotarf. Please move on.

[Randy from Boise]

Minding the Gendergap Task Force, continued:

Hi folks,

Several people have asked whether the Ally Skills Workshop will be an unpleasant experience for women attending - specifically, whether men will dominate the conversation, dismiss what women say, etc. We spend the first 20 minutes of the workshop setting up discussion rules so that this doesn't happen - in fact, the workshop is real-world practice in how to have a discussion in ways that give women an equal chance to be respectfully heard.

Another question is whether people can find out who else will be attending the workshop. I can't release the attendee list, but I can tell you that I have a 5-person review committee looking at each application and checking people's wiki contributions and online output. We reject anyone who seems unlikely to contribute positively to the workshop, whether that's because they don't have much experience in contributing to Wikimedia projects, they don't have the background to contribute to the workshop right away, or they seem like trolls. I have kicked people out of the workshop in the past and will do it at this workshop if necessary (but I'm pretty sure it won't be).

All that being said, the workshop already has enough people registered that if we closed applications today we'd have a fantastic workshop. Applications are still open for now but we will probably close them soon.

And I'm working on getting it on the official programme! Sorry for the trouble there.

https://adainitiative.org/2015/06/apply ... ania-2015/

Thanks everyone for their helpful comments and suggestions and see
y'all in Mexico City!

-VAL

linkhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/g ... 05840.html[/link]

Now we know why it takes thousands of dollars of donor money to run this invitation-only workshop — they need a five person committee to weed out potential intrusions of WrongThought.

Sickening.

Oh, wait, Eric already said something like that somewhere...

RfB

[Ihatemyusername]

Minding the Gendergap Task Force, continued:

Hi folks,

Several people have asked whether the Ally Skills Workshop will be an unpleasant experience for women attending - specifically, whether men will dominate the conversation, dismiss what women say, etc. We spend the first 20 minutes of the workshop setting up discussion rules so that this doesn't happen - in fact, the workshop is real-world practice in how to have a discussion in ways that give women an equal chance to be respectfully heard.

Another question is whether people can find out who else will be attending the workshop. I can't release the attendee list, but I can tell you that I have a 5-person review committee looking at each application and checking people's wiki contributions and online output. We reject anyone who seems unlikely to contribute positively to the workshop, whether that's because they don't have much experience in contributing to Wikimedia projects, they don't have the background to contribute to the workshop right away, or they seem like trolls. I have kicked people out of the workshop in the past and will do it at this workshop if necessary (but I'm pretty sure it won't be).

All that being said, the workshop already has enough people registered that if we closed applications today we'd have a fantastic workshop. Applications are still open for now but we will probably close them soon.

And I'm working on getting it on the official programme! Sorry for the trouble there.

https://adainitiative.org/2015/06/apply ... ania-2015/

Thanks everyone for their helpful comments and suggestions and see
y'all in Mexico City!

-VAL

linkhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/g ... 05840.html[/link]

Now we know why it takes thousands of dollars of donor money to run this invitation-only workshop — they need a five person committee to weed out potential intrusions of WrongThought.

Sickening.

Oh, wait, Eric already said something like that somewhere...

RfB

This literally the dumbest thing I have ever read ever (metaphorically). What kind of clowns set up a workshop that "teaches men simple, everyday ways to support women in their communities" and then ban men who are reluctant to be supportive? It's like banning people who've received complaints of sexual harassment from sexual consent/harassment workshops. Workshops like these are meant to target groups/people with bad reputations in these regards, not ban them. Otherwise it'll just be a pointless preaching to the choir exercise that's a waste of money.

[MMAR]

Why on Earth would a workshop designed to teach people how to deal with trolls want to invite trolls? I don't follow your logic at all.

[MMAR]

Now we know why it takes thousands of dollars of donor money to run this invitation-only workshop — they need a five person committee to weed out potential intrusions of WrongThought.

Sickening.

Oh, wait, Eric already said something like that somewhere...

RfB

Has he really? Where?

[Ihatemyusername]

Why on Earth would a workshop designed to teach people how to deal with trolls want to invite trolls? I don't follow your logic at all.

For the same reason you'd make it mandatory for a misbehaving sports team with a bad reputation to attend a workshop like this. Workshops like these which I have encountered try to make themselves mandatory, such as student unions pushing for mandatory sexual consent workshops. The vast majority of people who would attend a non mandatory sexual consent workshop, would likely already know about proper sexual consent (unless they came for free food). The idea of making a workshop like that selective to exclude people with bad reputations, just goes against the entire point of such a workshop. I find it highly doubtful that any of the "trolls" (or at least most) actually would consider themselves trolls, and are probably people more in the style of the anti ggtf grouping on WP. Of course I could be wrong and these people could be super obvious trolls, but if they were I'd hardly see why a five person panel would be necessary to catch them. The fact that all other organisers of events like these which I've encountered have been pushing to make them mandatory with a certain society/organisation, is why this 5 person panel raises alarm bells in my head.

[Lightbreather]

Neotarf has been banned for making, and then failing to substantiate, an extremely inflammatory post.

Yes, someone said (eight months ago) something really unwise. However, it was reasonably established at the time to pose no threat.

All mentions of the post have been removed. Do not repeat any part of the post unless you want to immediately join Neotarf. Please move on.

I don't always "get" Neotarf, but the way you worded that makes it sound like maybe there was no substance - even though you were able to approximate when the insubstantial thing happened.

Anyway, this was the discussion - Can admins/arbitrators reveal text of threats to possible subjects? - and let's leave it to others to draw their own conclusions.

[MMAR]

I would imagine it's a 5 person panel to spread the workload and make it seem like a consensus decision in case it's a close call. As for whether or not the trolls should attend, I just think you've seriously misunderstood the purpose of the workshop. Mandatory workshops obviously have no place in any part of the wiki movement, except of course for WMF employees or official community positions. It would obviously cause a riot, but on current evidence, the few hundred active admins on Wikipedia sorely need to be forced to attend a few workshops on various issues, if only to weed out the ones who are only holding onto the power for the wrong reasons.

[Vigilant]

I would imagine it's a 5 person panel to spread the workload and make it seem like a consensus decision in case it's a close call. As for whether or not the trolls should attend, I just think you've seriously misunderstood the purpose of the workshop. Mandatory workshops obviously have no place in any part of the wiki movement, except of course for WMF employees or official community positions. It would obviously cause a riot, but on current evidence, the few hundred active admins on Wikipedia sorely need to be forced to attend a few workshops on various issues, if only to weed out the ones who are only holding onto the power for the wrong reasons.

I think a mandatory workshop for admin candidates would be an excellent idea.
Some Rorschach blots, an EKG, colonoscopy, taser resistance, pepper spray tolerance all the usual...

[Malleus]

Neotarf has been banned for making, and then failing to substantiate, an extremely inflammatory post.

Yes, someone said (eight months ago) something really unwise. However, it was reasonably established at the time to pose no threat.

All mentions of the post have been removed. Do not repeat any part of the post unless you want to immediately join Neotarf. Please move on.

I don't always "get" Neotarf, but the way you worded that makes it sound like maybe there was no substance - even though you were able to approximate when the insubstantial thing happened.

Anyway, this was the discussion - Can admins/arbitrators reveal text of threats to possible subjects? - and let's leave it to others to draw their own conclusions.

No, that's not it all; it was to do with the Ally Workshop.

[Randy from Boise]

Minding the Gendergap Task Force, continued:

Hi folks,

Several people have asked whether the Ally Skills Workshop will be an unpleasant experience for women attending - specifically, whether men will dominate the conversation, dismiss what women say, etc. We spend the first 20 minutes of the workshop setting up discussion rules so that this doesn't happen - in fact, the workshop is real-world practice in how to have a discussion in ways that give women an equal chance to be respectfully heard.

Another question is whether people can find out who else will be attending the workshop. I can't release the attendee list, but I can tell you that I have a 5-person review committee looking at each application and checking people's wiki contributions and online output. We reject anyone who seems unlikely to contribute positively to the workshop, whether that's because they don't have much experience in contributing to Wikimedia projects, they don't have the background to contribute to the workshop right away, or they seem like trolls. I have kicked people out of the workshop in the past and will do it at this workshop if necessary (but I'm pretty sure it won't be).

All that being said, the workshop already has enough people registered that if we closed applications today we'd have a fantastic workshop. Applications are still open for now but we will probably close them soon.

And I'm working on getting it on the official programme! Sorry for the trouble there.

https://adainitiative.org/2015/06/apply ... ania-2015/

Thanks everyone for their helpful comments and suggestions and see
y'all in Mexico City!

-VAL

linkhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/g ... 05840.html[/link]

Now we know why it takes thousands of dollars of donor money to run this invitation-only workshop — they need a five person committee to weed out potential intrusions of WrongThought.

Sickening.

Oh, wait, Eric already said something like that somewhere...

RfB

This literally the dumbest thing I have ever read ever (metaphorically). What kind of clowns set up a workshop that "teaches men simple, everyday ways to support women in their communities" and then ban men who are reluctant to be supportive? It's like banning people who've received complaints of sexual harassment from sexual consent/harassment workshops. Workshops like these are meant to target groups/people with bad reputations in these regards, not ban them. Otherwise it'll just be a pointless preaching to the choir exercise that's a waste of money.

To be precise: it is pointless preaching to a carefully-vetted choir in a semi-secret and thoroughly secure location.

And yes, it is a waste of money.

RfB

P.S. This is clearly a political faction-organizing exercise. "Let's meet, greet, and strategize..."

[Randy from Boise]

Now we know why it takes thousands of dollars of donor money to run this invitation-only workshop — they need a five person committee to weed out potential intrusions of WrongThought.

Sickening.

Oh, wait, Eric already said something like that somewhere...

RfB

Has he really? Where?

Do we forget what set Eric off in his latest topic ban? Or are we just here to troll?

RfB

[Malleus]

Now we know why it takes thousands of dollars of donor money to run this invitation-only workshop — they need a five person committee to weed out potential intrusions of WrongThought.

Sickening.

Oh, wait, Eric already said something like that somewhere...

RfB

Has he really? Where?

Do we forget what set Eric off in his latest topic ban? Or are we just here to troll?

RfB

Just here to troll I think.

Whenever I see the name "Eric" here I automatically assume it's Eric Barbour, not me.

[Lightbreather]

P.S. This is clearly a political faction-organizing exercise. "Let's meet, greet, and strategize..."

Meeting, greeting, and strategizing for positive change is a good thing.

[Zoloft]

P.S. This is clearly a political faction-organizing exercise. "Let's meet, greet, and strategize..."

Meeting, greeting, and strategizing for positive change is a good thing.

I was invited to the workshop, but too late to actually attend.

I'm thinking of posting a blog entry here about the workshop, and what I think constitutes an 'ally.'

[MMAR]

Now we know why it takes thousands of dollars of donor money to run this invitation-only workshop — they need a five person committee to weed out potential intrusions of WrongThought.

Sickening.

Oh, wait, Eric already said something like that somewhere...

RfB

Has he really? Where?

Do we forget what set Eric off in his latest topic ban? Or are we just here to troll?

RfB

What he said wasn't even close to that. Take a look yourself:

I find postings such as this one on WMF sites to be grossly offensive "The Ally Skills Workshop teaches men simple, everyday ways to support women in their communities."[https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/g ... 05818.html] So what do I do, abuse women in my community? Callanecc can block me again for as long as he likes, for whatever reason takes his fancy, but to my mind this is simply unacceptable.

[Randy from Boise]

P.S. This is clearly a political faction-organizing exercise. "Let's meet, greet, and strategize..."

Meeting, greeting, and strategizing for positive change is a good thing.

I agree.

Unfortunately, this is a mutual make-out session for the Friendly Space Cadets, which is not the same thing.

RfB

[Sitush]

P.S. This is clearly a political faction-organizing exercise. "Let's meet, greet, and strategize..."

Meeting, greeting, and strategizing for positive change is a good thing.

I was invited to the workshop, but too late to actually attend.

I'm thinking of posting a blog entry here about the workshop, and what I think constitutes an 'ally.'

Well, I wish someone would do something because I still haven't got a clue what these ally skills workshops do/are intended to do, other than what has been said specifically about this one. And this one sounds like an echo chamber for the promotion of meatpuppetry.

[Midsize Jake]

...I still haven't got a clue what these ally skills workshops do/are intended to do, other than what has been said specifically about this one. And this one sounds like an echo chamber for the promotion of meatpuppetry.

Do you believe it's possible to defend someone without agreeing with him/her? Isn't that the essence of egalitarian democracy, a society governed by the rule of law based on fundamental rights, and not the whims of capricious hereditary or even self-appointed authority figures? If not, then you may be a Wikipedian.

Besides, this workshop is meant for admins. According to Accepted Wikipedia Dogma, admins can't be "meatpuppets."

[Sitush]

...I still haven't got a clue what these ally skills workshops do/are intended to do, other than what has been said specifically about this one. And this one sounds like an echo chamber for the promotion of meatpuppetry.

Do you believe it's possible to defend someone without agreeing with him/her? Isn't that the essence of egalitarian democracy, a society governed by the rule of law based on fundamental rights, and not the whims of capricious hereditary or even self-appointed authority figures? If not, then you may be a Wikipedian.

Besides, this workshop is meant for admins. According to Accepted Wikipedia Dogma, admins can't be "meatpuppets."

Lawyers do it, and indeed often jump through hoops to enable it, so of course it is possible. However, I'm unsure of the relevance of your comment. Look, you simply have to understand that I have never heard of these things before - perhaps it seems incredible to you but I'm not prone to making things up. I've also never heard of "stretch funding", which is a term mentioned in the annual review thing currently being discussed in another thread here.

[Midsize Jake]

Lawyers do it, and indeed often jump through hoops to enable it, so of course it is possible. However, I'm unsure of the relevance of your comment. Look, you simply have to understand that I have never heard of these things before - perhaps it seems incredible to you but I'm not prone to making things up. I've also never heard of "stretch funding", which is a term mentioned in the annual review thing currently being discussed in another thread here.

I'd never heard of "Ally Skills Workshops" either before this came up. I mean, let's be rational here - this is a WMF-funded, WMF-implemented program taking place at a WMF annual conference, so it's bound to be a travesty and not live up to even the most pessimistic predictions of what it can accomplish. None of us here (that I know of) are trying to promote this thing, but at the same time, we can use our imaginations and try to think of what they want it to accomplish. I do believe that the people behind it are, almost certainly, sincere in their wanting it to succeed in some way. (How they'll measure that success is another, and perhaps even more pertinent, question, so no one at the WMF will even attempt to answer it.)

Basically, I think we can assume that an "ally" is supposed to be someone, male or female, who sees a problematic incident occurring between male and female users and, given that it's Wikipedia, immediately swoops in and maximizes drama until it reaches catastrophic levels of stupid. But the outcome isn't the point; the point is, they're maximizing drama for the benefit of one or more members of the minority class, in this case women - who might not otherwise receive any assistance in maximizing the drama, by anyone, in any way whatsoever, simply because they're women. Which, quite frankly, is just not fair.

The lawyer analogy isn't bad, though. I might have gone with something like a position coach on a rugby team, who takes an inexperienced female scrum-half aside during a game and says, "sorry you're getting killed in there, we didn't realize this was the men's rugby league, but no matter - we'll fight tooth and freaking nail to prevent them from moving you to the hooker position out of pure spite, as this would be against Wikipedia policy. (Moving you, that is, not doing things out of pure spite.)"

But again, we have to tailor the analogy for the Wikipedia audience, meaning it has to involve some sort of automobile. I'm thinking it would be something like this:

You're driving through heavy traffic and, through absolutely no fault of your own, nearly cause a 90-car pileup. A man in a 2007 Buick LeSabre yells at you, something about how women drivers should be banned from the road. Your 'ally,' then, is the person in the 24-ton road grader two lanes over who mutters something about Buick having only manufactured the LeSabre until 2005, and when the man objects, crushes it (the Buick) to a near-singularity.

Does that make more sense?

"Stretch funding" is a recently-invented term, by the way, so no shame in not knowing that one either. Let's say you need $10,000 to begin manufacturing Jimbo Wales Inflatable Underpants, and you decide to try "crowdfunding" on Kickstarter or a similar website to get the dosh. You might promise a pair of the underpants to everyone who donates $20, 3 pairs to everyone who donates $50, and so on, but at the same time you could tell everyone that if you get a total of $15,000, you'll be able to produce the undies in both brown and yellow, so people can choose, mix 'n' match, launch modeling careers, etc. The $15,000 becomes your "stretch goal," in that it allows you to do something you couldn't (or wouldn't) do without the extra $5,000 in "stretch funding." You might even add a $20,000 goal whereby you would make the underpants capable of stretching so that you can actually put them on. This would be both "stretch funding" and "stretching funding," which would be confusing, but it wouldn't matter because you won't even get that first $20 with such a silly idea as Jimbo Wales Inflatable Underpants.

[Vigilant]

Awesome post!

[MMAR]

So, even though Sitush has no clue what the worskshop is even for, he's not shy in telling anyone and everyone what he thinks it's for. Why? Because he benefits from people believing this fantasy - playing the victim, as always.

[Ihatemyusername]

P.S. This is clearly a political faction-organizing exercise. "Let's meet, greet, and strategize..."

Meeting, greeting, and strategizing for positive change is a good thing.

I was invited to the workshop, but too late to actually attend.

I'm thinking of posting a blog entry here about the workshop, and what I think constitutes an 'ally.'

Well, I wish someone would do something because I still haven't got a clue what these ally skills workshops do/are intended to do, other than what has been said specifically about this one. And this one sounds like an echo chamber for the promotion of meatpuppetry.

I've attended something like this in the past (wasn't called an "ally skills workshop" though). Basically they're about how to behave in a positive supportive way towards others (with the focus usually being on women). They do a few scenarios, like "you're with your friends on a night out and one of them drunkenly insults a random woman and calls her a whore or something: what do you do?" or "you're in bed with a woman and she suddenly changes her mind and says she's not interested:what do you do?" and then have a roundtable discussion where everyone shares their opinions. The workshops organiser shares a few stats on abuse, harassment and the like. I thought the one I went to was pretty decent and informative. Am slightly suspicious that the people organising the WMF one have no clue what they're doing though, for reasons I've stated earlier. But then again I've never been involved in organising something like this so I could be wrong.

[Sitush]

So, even though Sitush has no clue what the worskshop is even for, he's not shy in telling anyone and everyone what he thinks it's for. Why? Because he benefits from people believing this fantasy - playing the victim, as always.

I really do think you are here to troll and little else.

I have been explicit in saying that I was unaware of ally skills workshops generally and that I was reading and commenting on the details of the WMF version, which seemed bizarre and, to be frank, still does. Lightbreather seemed at one stage incredulous that I'd never heard of the things in a more general context, hence my follow-up query about that.

My thanks to those who have helped expand my knowledge.

[MMAR]

So, even though Sitush has no clue what the worskshop is even for, he's not shy in telling anyone and everyone what he thinks it's for. Why? Because he benefits from people believing this fantasy - playing the victim, as always.

I really do think you are here to troll and little else.

I have been explicit in saying that I was unaware of ally skills workshops generally and that I was reading and commenting on the details of the WMF version, which seemed bizarre and, to be frank, still does. Lightbreather seemed at one stage incredulous that I'd never heard of the things in a more general context, hence my follow-up query about that.

My thanks to those who have helped expand my knowledge.

Look, I know the default position on Wikipedia when someone is saying things you don't like is to accuse them of trolling in the hope a friendly admin takes that as the pretext to ban them, but it's really not going to work here. Quite the reverse in fact. Please note that Eric was quickly facing threats of being banned (and may actually be banned, I don't know how to check) from here pretty soon after he started down this path of accusing others of trolling. Why? Because for the last week he'd actually shown that all he was interested in doing here was playing dumb, engaging in pathetic word games and claiming black was white. This is not Wikipedia, that sort of stuff is not considered OK.

Now, onto your post. Can you please explain where someone might find in the details of this specific workshop anything that remotely justifies your warped description of it (which was a little bit more specific than calling it bizarre). I think the only reason you're making these sort of comments is because the workshop will be helping people identify and prevent the sort of behaviours you have frequently been guilty of in your attempts to further a pretty obvious harassment agenda.

[Randy from Boise]

[Sitush]

MMAR, the issues relating to this specific workshop have been mentioned before - eg: stuff at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... eatpuppets, which has been referred to somewhere here, and much other stuff from various people earlier in this thread, which it seems possible you may not have read from the top. Note that the goals include working out/strategising on how to change policy, which seems to me like borderline meatpuppetry given the context of a closed-session, invitation-only meeting of like-minded people discussing a narrow and presently contentious issue.

As for the trolling thing, the issue is that you seem incapable of saying much here without digging at Eric Corbett or me, and with a huge chip on your shoulder about the gender thing even though your WP efforts were completely unrelated. You read rather like Neotarf, including with mis-representations (mis-statements?) such as the issue picked upon by a new member in the private area here in a message timestamped Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:23 pm. Still, I'm not the greatest spotter of reincarnations, so I'll drop it now with apologies for any inadvertent inappropriateness in raising this.

[Midsize Jake]

Note that the goals include working out/strategising on how to change policy, which seems to me like borderline meatpuppetry given the context of a closed-session, invitation-only meeting of like-minded people discussing a narrow and presently contentious issue.

The exact wording they're using is "how to best use Wikipedia policies to support women (or advocate for changes in policies)," which to me doesn't necessarily mean "strategizing." But let's assume your interpretation is valid and these sessions will devolve into strategy meetings for deciding what policies to change, how to change them, and how to maintain unity among the workshop participants in pushing for those changes. I guess my question would be, haven't there been lots of Wikimania conference workshops over the years that have done (or could do, at least potentially) pretty much the same thing? And if so, what makes those different, assuming those aren't also unacceptable?

I understand the position that all such discussions, etc., regarding proposed changes to Wikipedia policies should take place on the website itself, particularly since a fair number of people are in situations like yours where "offline" participation like this is difficult if not impossible. I just don't see how you can (practically speaking) prevent, control, or stigmatize participation in such things, though... It sounds like your solution is to ensure that a list of the participants is made public so that you can later analyze the similarities in their positions on related issues, and treat any similarities as a rationale to devalue their influence in the decision-making process (i.e., "weight" their votes and such as if they were a single unit instead of several individuals). If so, I suspect they won't like that idea very much at all.

[Randy from Boise]

As for the trolling thing, the issue is that you seem incapable of saying much here without digging at Eric Corbett or me, and with a huge chip on your shoulder about the gender thing even though your WP efforts were completely unrelated.

Oh, Sitush, stop trying to guess who might be owner of this obvious sockpuppet account... There is a whole Gendergap mailing list, with probably 30 people on it of both genders who think in The Official Manner, who are sure that you two "Manchester Gangbanners" are a conspiracy to destroy modern feminism. You patriarchal hegemonist, you!!!

RfB

[Notvelty]

P.S. This is clearly a political faction-organizing exercise. "Let's meet, greet, and strategize..."

Meeting, greeting, and strategizing for positive change is a good thing.

I was invited to the workshop, but too late to actually attend.

I'm thinking of posting a blog entry here about the workshop, and what I think constitutes an 'ally.'

Well, I wish someone would do something because I still haven't got a clue what these ally skills workshops do/are intended to do, other than what has been said specifically about this one. And this one sounds like an echo chamber for the promotion of meatpuppetry.

I've attended something like this in the past (wasn't called an "ally skills workshop" though). Basically they're about how to behave in a positive supportive way towards others (with the focus usually being on women). They do a few scenarios, like "you're with your friends on a night out and one of them drunkenly insults a random woman and calls her a whore or something: what do you do?" or "you're in bed with a woman and she suddenly changes her mind and says she's not interested:what do you do?" and then have a roundtable discussion where everyone shares their opinions. The workshops organiser shares a few stats on abuse, harassment and the like. I thought the one I went to was pretty decent and informative. Am slightly suspicious that the people organising the WMF one have no clue what they're doing though, for reasons I've stated earlier. But then again I've never been involved in organising something like this so I could be wrong.

You needed some information on what to do in these circumstances did you? Are you an idiot?

I am not a fan of these sorts of "courses" in this sort of environment. They don't teach anything to any of the participants and exist only as a junket for the like minded and to supply an over-payment of funds to mates.

I can see the point of them where people are forced to attend - in schools or in prisons (same thing?), just in case there are one or two people that were so poorly brought up by their parents that they didn't already know this AND are actually able to reform.

Any other situation creates an echo chamber of like minded simpletons who, not having any actual villains to convert to justify the money, go looking for new ones.

[Notvelty]

Note that the goals include working out/strategising on how to change policy, which seems to me like borderline meatpuppetry given the context of a closed-session, invitation-only meeting of like-minded people discussing a narrow and presently contentious issue.

The exact wording they're using is "how to best use Wikipedia policies to support women (or advocate for changes in policies)," which to me doesn't necessarily mean "strategizing." But let's assume your interpretation is valid and these sessions will devolve into strategy meetings for deciding what policies to change, how to change them, and how to maintain unity among the workshop participants in pushing for those changes.

Devolve? So long as the participants are upfront and honest (which is obviously impossible, but let's dream), that sounds like a very good use of the time to me. Far better than spending the time and money just sitting around agreeing that being mean to women is bad.

(Recognising that devolve was Sitush's context, not yours).

[Sitush]

Note that the goals include working out/strategising on how to change policy, which seems to me like borderline meatpuppetry given the context of a closed-session, invitation-only meeting of like-minded people discussing a narrow and presently contentious issue.

The exact wording they're using is "how to best use Wikipedia policies to support women (or advocate for changes in policies)," which to me doesn't necessarily mean "strategizing." But let's assume your interpretation is valid and these sessions will devolve into strategy meetings for deciding what policies to change, how to change them, and how to maintain unity among the workshop participants in pushing for those changes. I guess my question would be, haven't there been lots of Wikimania conference workshops over the years that have done (or could do, at least potentially) pretty much the same thing? And if so, what makes those different, assuming those aren't also unacceptable?

I understand the position that all such discussions, etc., regarding proposed changes to Wikipedia policies should take place on the website itself, particularly since a fair number of people are in situations like yours where "offline" participation like this is difficult if not impossible. I just don't see how you can (practically speaking) prevent, control, or stigmatize participation in such things, though... It sounds like your solution is to ensure that a list of the participants is made public so that you can later analyze the similarities in their positions on related issues, and treat any similarities as a rationale to devalue their influence in the decision-making process (i.e., "weight" their votes and such as if they were a single unit instead of several individuals). If so, I suspect they won't like that idea very much at all.

I certainly am not advocating for a list of participants to be made available - it would just attract the idiots. If I am advocating anything it is that the need for a list should not arise because the thing didn't happen at all in its advertised format: the list assumes the event as advertised. And, yes, I would say the same of any other closed session, with the provisos that I mentioned on my WP talk page section linked above. I was unaware that such things went on at Wikimania - an event that holds no interest for me, only in part for the reason to which you allude - but did notice Risker saying on the Gender Gap mailing list that she couldn't participate because she was involved in an unspecified closed session elsewhere! I live and learn.

[Ihatemyusername]

You needed some information on what to do in these circumstances did you? Are you an idiot?

I am not a fan of these sorts of "courses" in this sort of environment. They don't teach anything to any of the participants and exist only as a junket for the like minded and to supply an over-payment of funds to mates.

I can see the point of them where people are forced to attend - in schools or in prisons (same thing?), just in case there are one or two people that were so poorly brought up by their parents that they didn't already know this AND are actually able to reform.

Any other situation creates an echo chamber of like minded simpletons who, not having any actual villains to convert to justify the money, go looking for new ones.

It was a mandatory schools one for me. As i've said before I'm skeptical of a selective workshop like the WMF are organising. Also I may have oversimplified and exaggerated the behavior in the scenarios (I enjoy hyperbole far too much). They were more uncertain than the questions I actually posed, and actually generated a lot of differing opinions.

[Sitush]

As for the trolling thing, the issue is that you seem incapable of saying much here without digging at Eric Corbett or me, and with a huge chip on your shoulder about the gender thing even though your WP efforts were completely unrelated.

Oh, Sitush, stop trying to guess who might be owner of this obvious sockpuppet account... There is a whole Gendergap mailing list, with probably 30 people on it of both genders who think in The Official Manner, who are sure that you two "Manchester Gangbanners" are a conspiracy to destroy modern feminism. You patriarchal hegemonist, you!!!

RfB

Fair point. I've never seen a sock set themselves up to be blocked etc before and then turn it to their advantage elsewhere, which is what this seems to be. more or less. I probably should take up chanting "diddums" for 30 minutes twice a day, for all the difference it makes.

Shameless namedropping: I chatted with Phan Thi Kim Phuc for an hour or so recently at a restaurant when she was in the UK and I just happened to be in the right place at the right time. I found her to be inspirational in many ways and it was sort of weird taking a photo of her and Nick Ut, who had photographed her all those years ago. Her impact on me, her notability etc had absolutely nothing to do with her gender, and I find that usually to be the case both with people I meet and those of whom I read. Being ambivalent about the need to genderise things is not the same as being a patriarchal hegemonist, misogynist or whatever - you mean it in jest but, alas, there is a whole group out there who do not. Too many see this as "if you're not with us, you're against us".

[Notvelty]

You needed some information on what to do in these circumstances did you? Are you an idiot?

I am not a fan of these sorts of "courses" in this sort of environment. They don't teach anything to any of the participants and exist only as a junket for the like minded and to supply an over-payment of funds to mates.

I can see the point of them where people are forced to attend - in schools or in prisons (same thing?), just in case there are one or two people that were so poorly brought up by their parents that they didn't already know this AND are actually able to reform.

Any other situation creates an echo chamber of like minded simpletons who, not having any actual villains to convert to justify the money, go looking for new ones.

It was a mandatory schools one for me. As i've said before I'm skeptical of a selective workshop like the WMF are organising. Also I may have oversimplified and exaggerated the behavior in the scenarios (I enjoy hyperbole far too much). They were more uncertain than the questions I actually posed, and actually generated a lot of differing opinions.

Name three.

[Midsize Jake]

I certainly am not advocating for a list of participants to be made available - it would just attract the idiots. If I am advocating anything it is that the need for a list should not arise because the thing didn't happen at all in its advertised format: the list assumes the event as advertised.

Well... that's just it, then. You don't know, because you're not there. You don't want to just take their word for it, and since you object to the nature of the event, you assume nefarious and/or calamitous intent on the part of the participants, right?

Meanwhile, you guys in Manchester have gotten together for meetups at some pub or other, on one or two occasions... How do they know what you're discussing? Why should anyone on Wikipedia trust you not to strategize and coordinate your activities in some way?

My only point here is that realistically you can't control or disincentivize people to the extent necessary to prevent them from organizing, whether it's offline, online, inline, or using the Outline features of Microsoft Word. If they didn't do it at Wikimania they'd do it somewhere else, and even if they didn't do it at all, people would still suspect them of doing it. If I had a Wikipedia account and cared about such things, I'd probably be sympathetic to the idea that the WMF shouldn't encourage offsite organizing by scheduling "closed" workshops at Wikimania whose descriptions include the words "advocate changes in policy," but I'm guessing that's pretty low on their priority list.

[MMAR]

MMAR, the issues relating to this specific workshop have been mentioned before - eg: stuff at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... eatpuppets, which has been referred to somewhere here, and much other stuff from various people earlier in this thread, which it seems possible you may not have read from the top. Note that the goals include working out/strategising on how to change policy, which seems to me like borderline meatpuppetry given the context of a closed-session, invitation-only meeting of like-minded people discussing a narrow and presently contentious issue.

I was well aware what you'd said about it, which is why I asked the question, as nothing in the descriptions I've seen remotely correlates with your ridiculously inflammatory commentary. But I think in my absence, Jake appears to have adequately explained the issues I had with it to you.

As for the trolling thing, the issue is that you seem incapable of saying much here without digging at Eric Corbett or me, and with a huge chip on your shoulder about the gender thing even though your WP efforts were completely unrelated. You read rather like Neotarf, including with mis-representations (mis-statements?) such as the issue picked upon by a new member in the private area here in a message timestamped Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:23 pm. Still, I'm not the greatest spotter of reincarnations, so I'll drop it now with apologies for any inadvertent inappropriateness in raising this.

The gender thing is just a particularly nasty variant of the bullying culture on Wikipedia. That's what brought me here, and that's what's currently maintaining my interest. Focusing on you, as the two members here trying hardest to downgrade/deny it and otherwise disrupt efforts to combat it, both here and on Wikipedia, is not trolling. What both of you try to do in response, is.

[Randy from Boise]

The gender thing is just a particularly nasty variant of the bullying culture on Wikipedia. That's what brought me here, and that's what's currently maintaining my interest. Focusing on you, as the two members here trying hardest to downgrade/deny it and otherwise disrupt efforts to combat it, both here and on Wikipedia, is not trolling.

Actually, it is.

RfB

[Midsize Jake]

Actually, it is.

"Trolling" is in the eye of the beholder, Mr. Randy. On Wikipedia, the term is thrown about with such reckless abandon that it has become practically meaningless. Unfortunately, it's too lengthy and complicated to explain what a person is actually doing that's objectionable every time he or she does it, so it becomes a kind of shorthand for anything anyone does that's annoying or irritating.

One thing we might try doing would be to use the terms "corbetting" and "carolmooring" (or perhaps just "anti-corbetting") to describe what we've been seeing here and on Wikipedia for the last several months. However, we'd need some sort of easily-linked glossary for the benefit of casual readers who won't know what those terms mean in context... Still, it would save time for us, and be less confrontational for all but two of our members.

[Ihatemyusername]

You needed some information on what to do in these circumstances did you? Are you an idiot?

I am not a fan of these sorts of "courses" in this sort of environment. They don't teach anything to any of the participants and exist only as a junket for the like minded and to supply an over-payment of funds to mates.

I can see the point of them where people are forced to attend - in schools or in prisons (same thing?), just in case there are one or two people that were so poorly brought up by their parents that they didn't already know this AND are actually able to reform.

Any other situation creates an echo chamber of like minded simpletons who, not having any actual villains to convert to justify the money, go looking for new ones.

It was a mandatory schools one for me. As i've said before I'm skeptical of a selective workshop like the WMF are organising. Also I may have oversimplified and exaggerated the behavior in the scenarios (I enjoy hyperbole far too much). They were more uncertain than the questions I actually posed, and actually generated a lot of differing opinions.

Name three.

Well there were very few scenarios (discussions were around 10 mins for each), and I only really remember one properly:

You're with your drunk friends walking towards a party and there's a girl walking down the road in the opposite direction. One of your friends asks her to come with you, and in response she crosses to the other side of the road. The friend shouts an insult at her and carries on walking towards the party.

What do you do?

[Vigilant]

You needed some information on what to do in these circumstances did you? Are you an idiot?

I am not a fan of these sorts of "courses" in this sort of environment. They don't teach anything to any of the participants and exist only as a junket for the like minded and to supply an over-payment of funds to mates.

I can see the point of them where people are forced to attend - in schools or in prisons (same thing?), just in case there are one or two people that were so poorly brought up by their parents that they didn't already know this AND are actually able to reform.

Any other situation creates an echo chamber of like minded simpletons who, not having any actual villains to convert to justify the money, go looking for new ones.

It was a mandatory schools one for me. As i've said before I'm skeptical of a selective workshop like the WMF are organising. Also I may have oversimplified and exaggerated the behavior in the scenarios (I enjoy hyperbole far too much). They were more uncertain than the questions I actually posed, and actually generated a lot of differing opinions.

Name three.

Well there were very few scenarios (discussions were around 10 mins for each), and I only really remember one properly:

You're with your drunk friends walking towards a party and there's a girl walking down the road in the opposite direction. One of your friends asks her to come with you, and in response she crosses to the other side of the road. The friend shouts an insult at her and carries on walking towards the party.

What do you do?

<loudly> Dude, knock that shit off. What the fuck is wrong with you?

[eagle]

P.S. This is clearly a political faction-organizing exercise. "Let's meet, greet, and strategize..."

Meeting, greeting, and strategizing for positive change is a good thing.

Isn't that the very definition of "meatpuppetry"? So, WMF is paying $9,000 to encourage men to jump in to respond favorably to a woman caught up in some edit war, just because one of the many engaged wiki-warriors is a woman.

[Midsize Jake]

Isn't that the very definition of "meatpuppetry"?

Not necessarily. Even given the fact that the very use of the term "meatpuppetry" is a classic example of Wikipedians twisting their own realities in pursuit of pet-peeve/minority agendas, what they call "meatpuppetry" can also include strategizing for negative change, such as causing there to be more Wikipedians for example.

So, WMF is paying $9,000 to encourage men to jump in to respond favorably to a woman caught up in some edit war, just because one of the many engaged wiki-warriors is a woman.

It might amount to that, but I suppose there's a slim chance that the effect will match the stated intent, which is to only defend the woman involved if she's being attacked in a plainly sexist, misogynistic, or otherwise gender-motivated way. Of course, it's almost certainly not going to have any real effect on the site whatsoever, so I wouldn't worry too much about it other than maybe the $9,000 going mostly to waste.

[Randy from Boise]

So, WMF is paying $9,000 to encourage men to jump in to respond favorably to a woman caught up in some edit war, just because one of the many engaged wiki-warriors is a woman.

It might amount to that, but I suppose there's a slim chance that the effect will match the stated intent, which is to only defend the woman involved if she's being attacked in a plainly sexist, misogynistic, or otherwise gender-motivated way. Of course, it's almost certainly not going to have any real effect on the site whatsoever, so I wouldn't worry too much about it other than maybe the $9,000 going mostly to waste.

A very reasonable take...

RfB

[Cla68]

I assume that many of the male conference attendees will want to attend this session just because the ratio of men-to-women in the room will be more like 2-1 instead of the usual 10-1 in the other sessions. Remember, most of these guys likely don't have girlfriends and haven't had a girlfriend in awhile, if ever.

[Vigilant]

I assume that many of the male conference attendees will want to attend this session just because the ratio of men-to-women in the room will be more like 2-1 instead of the usual 10-1 in the other sessions. Remember, most of these guys likely don't have girlfriends and haven't had a girlfriend in awhile, if ever.

Sort of like why I went to Young Life in high school.

[Notvelty]

You needed some information on what to do in these circumstances did you? Are you an idiot?

I am not a fan of these sorts of "courses" in this sort of environment. They don't teach anything to any of the participants and exist only as a junket for the like minded and to supply an over-payment of funds to mates.

I can see the point of them where people are forced to attend - in schools or in prisons (same thing?), just in case there are one or two people that were so poorly brought up by their parents that they didn't already know this AND are actually able to reform.

Any other situation creates an echo chamber of like minded simpletons who, not having any actual villains to convert to justify the money, go looking for new ones.

It was a mandatory schools one for me. As i've said before I'm skeptical of a selective workshop like the WMF are organising. Also I may have oversimplified and exaggerated the behavior in the scenarios (I enjoy hyperbole far too much). They were more uncertain than the questions I actually posed, and actually generated a lot of differing opinions.

Name three.

Well there were very few scenarios (discussions were around 10 mins for each), and I only really remember one properly:

You're with your drunk friends walking towards a party and there's a girl walking down the road in the opposite direction. One of your friends asks her to come with you, and in response she crosses to the other side of the road. The friend shouts an insult at her and carries on walking towards the party.

What do you do?

Again, nothing that is not immediately obvious to anyone brought up properly.

[Notvelty]

I assume that many of the male conference attendees will want to attend this session just because the ratio of men-to-women in the room will be more like 2-1 instead of the usual 10-1 in the other sessions. Remember, most of these guys likely don't have girlfriends and haven't had a girlfriend in awhile, if ever.

Sort of like why I went to Young Life in high school.

Oh, is that why you're always first in with the Pony pictures?