What Wikimedia project(s) and specific areas will you be evaluating?
Is this project measuring a specific space on a project (e.g. deletion discussions), or the project as a whole?
No metrics proposed at this time.
Describe your idea. How might it be implemented?
Contact banned or blocked editors and assign them an advocate who will offer to help them 'recover' and move on to becoming a contributor again.
Are there experienced Wikimedians who can help implement this project?
If applicable, please list groups or usernames of individuals who you can work with on this project, and what kind of work they will do.
I have the impression that there are those who may want to become involved but may hesitate to do so out of concerns that they would be blocked or banned for engaging in such a program.
If we compare the numbers of editors banned/blocked that resume editing after completing their 'rehab' to those who do not resume editing, we may get an inkling of what this program could do to retain contributors.
How would your measurement idea help your community make better decisions?
After you are finished measuring or evaluating your Wikimedia project, how do you expect that information to be used to benefit the project?
We will retain experienced contributors/editors. Just like article rescue, we will stop the the flow of exiting editors.
Do you think you can implement this idea? What support do you need?
Do you need people with specific skills to complete this idea? Are there any financial needs for this project? If you can’t implement this project, can you scale down your project so it is doable?
I would need a lot of help, but I think others would help.
About the idea creator
I am a heavy contributor to Wikimedia projects and don't like to see good people/editors leave the projects.
- Designer Barbara (WVS) (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Advisor made something similar SandSsandwich (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Volunteer I am familiar with some tools that can help. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Volunteer I would like to be rescued. :) Modanung (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Advisor Woe 18.104.22.168 05:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Volunteer This re-kindles an idea I had long ago about assisting editors in their time of need. Not necessarily about policy or rules or such, (in fact staying away from policy) but more just being a friend. Providing another voice to offer support and advice and assist in conversing with a more veteran editor or group of editors. So they don't feel alone and the only recourse is to leave. Buster7 (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Great idea and much needed at en.wiki where banned users a treated like LTAs. L293D (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Good luck - Bernd - die Brücke (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- The only idea in this list so far that I think could really make a positive change. We really should do more to help people become more constructive Wikipedians. Falcor84 (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Best idea I have seen so far. It is editors who makes Wiki what it is. An editor who has been banned or blocked must have demonstrated passion. We need that passion on Wikipedia and also, try to harness it in the right direction. People might have lashed out because they hate the politics of English Wikipedia, or dare I say it, the racism inherent in English Wikipedia. We all know this try to pretend otherwise or dare I say it, trying to silence others from mentioning it. From what I have noticed, people (especially those from the projects I work on) lash out when they see blatant racism, cliques and cover ups - especially from those who should be upholding Wikipedia's principles - i.e. admins.. When they express concern to those upstairs (admins) , they become ganged up on by this powerful clique. Realising that they have nowhere to voice their concerns, they lash out and then are blocked despite being brilliant editors for number of years. We should be absolutely honest with ourselves rather than foolishly turning a blind eye or pretending it will go away, or even worst, trying to silence people from mention the problems on English Wikipedia. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- support - good idea, but i fear it may require much diplomacy to counter the vindictiveness in evidence. Slowking4 (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support — Blocks and bans are not supposed to be punitive in the first place. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- While some admins are helpful, there are also some who usually make little effort or are eager to use the "banhammer" against others. Such things should be avoided and they should be adviced at every stage what they need to do right, even after being blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support — Commenting about Facebook inThe Times on 5 May 2017, the columnist Edward Lucas wrote "[Facebook] is also vulnerable to the digital mob rule that plagues Wikipedia". Such a plan might go some way to repairing this damage. Martinvl (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Love the idea. I've had people reach out to me via email before because they were scared to appeal blocks after an unsuccessful previous attempt. Giving people like that advocates (volunteers like the people at the Teahouse on en.wiki) could be a real morale-booster. I acknowledge that many blocked editors aren't really going to be all that helpful, but I have seen a few recovered "gems". Makes me wonder who else we lost. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- I definitely think that a support system like that would help. My experience with AE/DS left me feeling like I needed a lawyer (for Wikipedia's internal legal system). Just using common sense and courtesy doesn't work in a community this diverse. People have different ideas about what common sense is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support Yes, great idea! We need a squad to rescue editors and teach them. Harshrathod50 (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- This could greatly improve the quality of the articles and the spirit of Wiki. Great idea. Devnullnor (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Anything to encourage many voices, rather than silence them. MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Our disciplinary system definitely needs reform. I could get behind this proposal if it explicitly acknowledged that not all blocked and banned users actually did anything wrong or require rehabilitation. Our admins are volunteers and amateurs and they make mistakes. Sometimes the blocked user needs to be forgiven, and sometimes the blocked user must be asked to forgive. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've been blocked because several people refused to read their sources properly.
- Support — The other side of the argument was the first to call an admin, claiming I kept reverting his edits. Even though it was the other way around I got blocked. This easy blocking breeds conservatism/fascism. Adding this point to the aforementioned discussion got me blocked harder with a note saying it had to do something with Mr. Godwin. I've donated to Wikipedia and made many tiny contributions over the years. This editor rescue might also bring to light too rigorous admins. Modanung (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support Replace user block's by confining a user to such a "school", where they may contribute under surveillance of their edits. --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- I was recently banned for 24 hours and then for 48 after I TRIED TO DEFEND MYSELF ON MY OWN TALK PAGE... I bet there are plenty of stories of the like out there. No one speaks out like Dael4 (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Retaining editors is the life-blood of Wikipedia. All to often new editors, try too much, edit too much, argue too much before they know what wonders WP holds for them. They leave in a huff over some assumed insult without any support for their contribution. Getting them to push the "Pause" button could be the difference between staying and evolving and leaving and cursing Wikipedia forever. Buster7 (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support With concerns about reduction of editor activity, this would be a good idea.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support Absolutely necessary. Particularly for banned editors with considerable contributions to Wikipedia. They should be encouraged to continue editing at a level they are comfortable with. Werldwayd (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Everyone should be able to learn from their mistakes and be able to contribute TB5ivVaO1y55FkAogw1X (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support Absolutely necessary especially because in the wikipedia in Spanish there has been a loss of very good users for the use of puppet accounts and this measure would be something to support the partial blockages that also support. 15px Ignacio2403 >>>> ¿Hablamos? 00:01 10 jul 2018 (UTC) 22:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Expand your idea
Would a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation help make your idea happen? You can expand this idea into a grant proposal.
No funding needed?
Does your idea not require funding, but you're not sure about what to do next? Not sure how to start a proposal on your local project that needs consensus? Contact Chris Schilling on-wiki at I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) or via e-mail at cschillingwikimedia.org for help!