Training modules/Keeping events safe/Discussion hub

Repeat offenders

Situation

While you are reviewing the event registration list as part of your responsibilities on the event organization team, you notice a username you recognize. After some thought and research, you realize that not long ago this contributor was brought to the English Wikipedia's "administrators' noticeboard", where administrators discuss things like user conduct, for alleged off-wiki harassment with details of a particular incident they appear to have been involved in.

Comments and opinions

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 "Keeping events safe" module.'i will report the person to the event organizers and the emergency response team. no'

i would discuss this individual with team members for possible deletion from the list of participants, or less harshly isolate him, make him attend but keep a distance and to be on constant monitoring

I will keep a close monitoring on his/her activities during the event. Offenders may become good but in any case of further offense, the person would be isolated from the event.

I will follow command chain by starting contacting the person responsible for safe withing the Organizing team, also i will safely keep or isolate the individual with ban from the Wikipedia event.

Since I think the appropriateness of this person being on this list is a matter of debate, I would notify the necessary authorities that he/she should no longer be on this team and ensure that necessary action is taken for everyone's safety.

I will let the emergency team know to stay attentive and keep an eye on this attendant without prohibiting him/her from participating in the event.

WSC comments

I suspect the response you are looking for is an email to the individual declining their attendance per their block, cc'd to two other organisers. Obviously checking first that the three email addresses involved are all ones that can be disclosed to such a person.

But it is also worth checking what else we know of that person, someone who regularly trolls by signing up to events they are not going to attend is probably best ignored, especially if they are in the wrong continent.

The event and regulars are also worth considering. A small UK pub meetup where the regulars are amused at the prospect of possibly meeting said person would be a very different prospect than a larger meeting or one where the regulars included people who were nervous of such a encounter.

On a wider note, unless the trust and safety team starts monitoring for such events and tipping off event organisers about such banned attendees then at best this is a hit and miss filter. WereSpielChequers (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

If she/he is a repeat offender I will notify the event organizer immediately.I will also suggest that they ban her/him from the event, because attendees are expected to follow the given rules on public behaviour as well as observe the Friendly Space Policy of the specific event.

In such a scenario, I would inform the emergency response team and get as much background information on the person to inform the level of risk they pose. At the point of entry, I will ask that they are reminded of the standards that participants are expected to adhere to as per the agreement to behavior standards and policies. Then the team will keep an eye on him throughout the event.

As a member of the event organization team, I talk to the person responsible for the security of the team about keeping a close eye on this situation. I personally follow his/her movements and try to protect myself and my team regarding his current situation. At the beginning of the event, I request that information be given again about teamwork and behavioral patterns.

NM comments

Having identified this potential attendee, I would investigate the report at en:WP:AN or en:WP:ANI to understand the issues and the users involved, the severity of the matter, and any sanctions taken against that person, and other individuals involved. I would then attempt to identify if any of the other users (or types of users) involved in the incident are likely to attend our event. Then, I would inform fellow event organisers of my findings, and agree a course of action. This would probably involve communicating with the user to explain we had concerns about their attendance in view of recent sanctions related to the topic or people at our event, and either asking them not to attend, or stating that a decision had been made to exclude them.

If the risk was deemed to be severe I’d inform the WMF safety/emergency response team; and if low, I’d seek an undertaking from that user to ensure they had learnt from the recent ANI discussion and ask them how they proposed to ensure there was no repeat of their behaviour. This would include sending them our Friendly Spaces Policy and seeking their assurance that they would conform to it, stating that any breach by any attendee would result in immediate exclusion. However, if it was proven or allleged harassment against one individual who would also be attending, I would inform that person we were aware the user had expressed a desire to attend, and seek their feelings on the matter. If any concern or discomfort remained from the harassed party, we would have to inform the user that they would not be permitted to attend for the welfare of the whole group. Additional efforts would probably be necessary to ensure all legitimate attendees were identified on arrival, and non-approved persons were excluded, including liaison with venue staff and security to ensure compliance and careful monitoring on the day. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Dealing with the public

Situation

Your relatively small-scale event is taking place in a conference venue with multiple spaces, that can be made available to different conferences at any given time. While your event is ongoing, another Wikimedia event is hosted in one of the venue’s spaces, adjacent to yours. During breaks participants of both events are able to wander through communal spaces of the venue.

You are notified by one of your event participants (person A) that they met another person attending the other event (person B) when they spent time in the communal spaces with other participants of your conference. Since then, person A has been receiving unwanted invitations to hang out by person B, despite politely declining them and explicitly stating they are not interested. Those invitations never happen when other participants of your event are present; only when person A is at a relative distance from others.

Comments and opinions

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 "Keeping events safe" module.

Training modules/Keeping events safe/Discussion hub/Dealing with the public

User group members

Situation

On the first day of your event, you receive an in-person report from User A, detailing a heated debate between them and User B that took place while both users were on the same train, traveling to your event. The two users happen to be also booked in the same shared accommodation for the duration of the event. User A is very upset and insists that they were harassed. Both users are members of different User Groups within the same language project.

Comments and opinions

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 "Keeping events safe" module.

Training modules/Keeping events safe/Discussion hub/User group members Regardless of the validity or otherwise of the report, and prior to assessing its rights & wrongs, the organiser should try to help with reaccommodating both persons. And in this effort at reaccommodation, it should be the case that neither party is apparently advantaged/disadvantaged (in the organiser's eyes) in this change... MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I would talk to both users first. I assure user A that he or she will be safe and then ask the authorities and security guards to stay and observe during the event. Bahar9898 (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

As PatraKing I would, first of all, listen to both sides of User A and User B. I would then report their incident to the foundation and their respective affiliations. I would then follow up to find out if any action had been made. I would also seek self-care.

I will patiently listen to user A, and later on file a report on their complaint. Then I would inform a team member who will be present when we have a conversation with user B about the complaint. And I will also document user B's response. Then I'll consider separating them where they were both accommodated. Then I'll inform the team to monitor the two.

I don't want the event to be a bad experience for users A and B, but my goal would be to listen to both users A and B and be objective and fair. After listening to both parties, I ask how they would like to continue their stay and notify the relevant institutions and their teams.

I will listen to both sides (Users A and B) separately, address points where they disagree, and attempt to find a solution that suits them both. If there is no significant change in their behavior, I will report the problem to their teams and Institution to issue a final decision.

Board member behavior

Situation

Some time after the end of an event, User A reports having received repeated unwanted attention from User B, who breached the boundaries of their personal space and made them feel uncomfortable. User A is a community member, who has frequently brought in accusations of harassment against other contributors. User B is a board member of a User group and does not have a history of being sanctioned for misbehavior at events.

Comments and opinions

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 "Keeping events safe" module.

Training modules/Keeping events safe/Discussion hub/Board member behavior

I will patiently listen to user A and ask questions to better understand and interrogate their claim. I will find out the nature of the reports made in the past by user A, the actions taken and the outcomes. I will file the complaint and with another team member approach the board member to reply to the complaint. Then I will inform the Afflictions committee of the report.

In terms of the first comment here asking 'is it her dress code, is it in character or she is just a perpetual liar?' are all victim-blaming responses and frankly, misogynistic. I think that is a really problematic response.

• This is a tricky one. All reports have to be taken seriously, and a negative history of problems doesn't mean there isn't one. It is easy to dismiss a frequent complainer and to side with an unsullied individual. But all reports and accusations have to be addressed on their own merits, so the complainant should be encouraged and facilitated to explain their concerns (in the presence of two people). Both parties should be given an opportunity to express their viewpoints on any interaction, and to suggest their ideal means of resolving these issues. It would be appropriate to inform the Board of the complaint, and for that member to step back from decision-making duties whilst the merits of the complaint are investigated. Because of the position of the accused person on a WMF affiliate Board, it would seem necessary to involve the emergency response or safety team in resolving this issue. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)