Jump to content

Training modules/Dealing with online harassment/slides/test-yourself-writing-a-good-reply

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Test yourself: Writing a good reply

[edit]

An editor has written to you saying that another editor has revealed personal information about them on-wiki in an attempt to intimidate them from working on an article about a contentious subject. They have supplied a link to a diff. Before investigating further, you want to acknowledge the report. Should you write:

Test yourself!
What should your reply to User A look like?
  1. "Hello, looks like the person you reported definitely screwed up, so this one should be no problem. I'll probably revdel and block when I have time if that's what's needed." (click to expand or collapse)
    This answer is too casual, gives only a vague timeline, and promises action before the investigation has happened.
  2. "Hello, I'm sorry to hear about this issue. I will take a look and will update you on our investigation by the end of the week. If there are edits that need to be removed from public view to protect your safety, we will work to have them hidden as soon as possible. If you feel your personal safety is in danger, please contact your local law enforcement. Please update me if there are new problems that come up." (click to expand or collapse)
    Well done! This is the best response out of this group. It is empathetic, gives a specific timeline, offers a potential solution without committing to it, and asks for further updates.
  3. "Hello, from a quick look, it's unlikely that we'll be able to do anything. But we'll look anyway." (click to expand or collapse)
    This answer offers no empathy, and makes a pre-judgement on the case before it has been investigated.
  4. "Hello, I'm sorry to hear about this issue. It's clear that it has upset you, but there is no need to worry; since I have verified the diff you sent as problematic, we will immediately deal with the edit." (click to expand or collapse)
    This response is vague, promises a fast response before investigation, and states a fact that may not be true.

(Discuss this question)