Grants talk:IdeaLab/Inspire/Archives/2016/July

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Blocked user: Am I allowed to tell the others how to publicize an idea on-Wiki or do they have to figure it out on their own?

I was recently blocked from editing Wikipedia. I've read that constructive edits to other parts of the project are taken into account for unblocking. I've also read WP:PROXYING.

It's come time to promote the idea, and I've found that I know a lot more about publicizing RfCs and similar ideas than they do. Am I allowed to tell them where to post, what to say (regardless of whether they do it) or does that fall under proxying?

More generally, at what point am I required to bow out of the process?

It may be relevant that the proposed idea is for a noticeboard that would field questions like this one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: That's really a matter for the local community to decide on. If there's another editor in good standing who genuinely supports this idea, and isn't really involved with the circumstances around your block, maybe you could work together with them on the RfC and make it clear you are working together with this person from the outset, sorta like how an RfA has a nomination and a co-nominator. If it's clear the RfC is not being made at your direction, but in collaboration, it's possible it might be acceptable (but I've not seen this happen before, so I can't say for sure). I mean, the best thing to do would be to get yourself unblocked first, so do that first if you can. In terms of gathering support for your idea on IdeaLab, there really isn't a policy against canvassing for IdeaLab in terms of gathering feedback. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
On the one hand, he was the one who proposed the idea and I've never met him before. On the other hand, I'm the one who designed the mockup.
Heh, being blocked makes it hard for me to ask the local community.
I was thinking just "Post a short note [here], [here] and [here] and [this] is probably the best thing to say.
It would be simplest to get unblocked first, but it wouldn't work in this case. I've got a couple of months left until my next appeal date. This thing's only got another ten days. The upside: This proposal deals with one of the underlying issues that led to said block. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
It is not quite clear what overall bebefits are likely to accrue by making it easier for blocked or banned users to post material by proxy. While it is by no means universally true, many people are blocked or banned because they have been behaving in a way that disrupts the building of the encyclopaedia (or whatever project) by others; some are even a danger to other users of the projects. Providing a forum for such users to requests posts of material by proxy, when they are no longer allowed to post it themselves, raises the question of how people are expected to know whether such requests are likely to perpetuate the disruption or danger. Requests may appear innocuous at first sight at yet be disruptive in context. What mechanisms do you propose to allow potential prixies to assure themselves that the proposed posts are not of this kind? Please do not re-open any specific case, yours or anyone else's, in an answer -- what I am asking for here is a general, easily understood, easily applied process that answers such questions. One process we currently have is particularly simple -- it goes like this: Is the user banned? If so, do not act as a proxy for them. What would be needed would be a process which was equally easy to implement, and yet demonstrably of greater overall benefit to the project. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Rogol Domedonfors: We have a disconnect here. I was asking if I was allowed to tell other people working on this project where the best places to publicize it on-Wiki were. They'd be on the order of "There's a proposal on Meta-Wiki for a noticeboard where topic-banned editors could ask questions about how topic bans work" with a link in places like WP:VPPR and WT:RSN. I don't consider that disruptive.
But it looks like you're asking about the proposed noticeboard itself. This noticeboard is for asking questions about blocks and topic bans. It is specifically not for requesting that non-blocked/banned editors make changes to Wikipedia. Every draft of the mockup has noted this prominently: look here. Does this satisfy your concerns? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the principle is the same. Since you raise the issue of your own personal status -- I do not know what the reasons for your being blocked are and I do not therefore know whether they are fair or reasonable. That means that I have no way of evaluating whether posting material at your suggestion, while apparently positive, might in fact have a negative aspect that relates to the unknown-to-me reasons for your block. That applies, I presume to almost everyone else on Meta. So it seems like a bad idea in principle to suggest posting material the implications of which we are not in a position to adequately assess. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, you think the principle of my telling other supporters of this proposal where to publicize it is the same as the principle of a blocked users telling other people to make changes to article content for them? You're counting both as "material"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Well that seems a bit off to me, but thanks for clearing it up. What do you think of a noticeboard where topic-banned editors can ask questions about how topic-bans work? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that when a project community has restricted the participation of a contributer in the best interests of their project, setting up mechanisms to circumvent that restriction is unwise. Replaying the discussions that led to the restriction is rarely hepful. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the mockup already has a safeguard in place to prevent rehashing of old discussions. This board would be for questions about topic bans, not banned topics. When I got topic-banned, I didn't really know how topic bans worked. I thought it just meant I wasn't allowed to talk about the topic in question on Wikipedia or edit articles about it or make talk page posts about it, but there turned out to be a lot more to it than that. I was expected to follow a lot of unwritten rules and disregard a number of written ones. I had a lot of questions that my enforcing admin was not in the mood to answer and I was accused of all sorts of bad faith just for asking. "Am I allowed to do this? What about that? Hey, the rules say the admins aren't allowed to do this but they did it anyway. What's going on?"
It wouldn't just be for sanctioned editors either. Complainants could find out if their issues hold water before taking them to AE. For example, in the past few months, two or three different editors have been accused of violating a GMO topic ban because the complainants didn't know that the sanction doesn't cover companies that make GMOs. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Help with suggestion for area for topic banned editors to talk about their ban

This was one of the most endorsed project in the recent initiative with 12 endorsements, and is thirteenth in the robot generated leader-board of projects ranked by numbes of endorsement. The project is here: Grants:IdeaLab/Area for topic banned editors to talk freely about their ban, e.g. to ask questions of experienced wikipedians

We see two ways forward so far, one is to do a pilot scheme here on meta wiki, which has the advantage of no need to create new rules as the bans only apply on wikipedia itself. We could also do it right away even without admin support, so long as it is a permitted thing to do here. It seems to be a gray area.

The other option is to try to get it enacted in wikipedia right away, which seems likely to be a long process.

So my questions are:

  1. Can we just start it as a pilot scheme on meta wiki - will anyone have any problems with that?
  2. Will I get into trouble for asking questions about it on Wikipedia given that I have comments on its talk page mentioning my topic ban. I'd be okay with going through the proposal talk page and editing out all mentions of my topic ban subject before posting about it to wikipedia, if that helps.

More Details below - collapsed

Extended content

We've discussed it a lot on the talk page for the proposal, but now the initiative is over, we wonder where it goes next. The aim is to start up a board where banned editors can ask questions of each other and most importantly of experienced admins about such topics as what they can and can't do under their ban, and whether there is any prospect of appeal. As it is now, you can sometimes get your topic ban increased just for asking questions about what you can and can't do. Your questions can count as banning circumvention if you mention the banned topic or the discussions that lead to the ban or the other editors involved in the ban discussions. As a result banned editors, who may not have been even remotely intentional trouble makers, are left confused and not sure what to do next.

We have worked out some preliminary ideas for a pilot scheme, including drafting out a discussion board page. But we don't know how and where to start it. The main options we thought of so far are

  • Start it here in meta wiki. We've looked at the guidelines and it is neither in the prohibited nor suggested ways of using meta wiki in the inclusion policy so it's a gray area.

The idea would be to just create a page here for the board as a pilot scheme, and see how it goes, and then based on that try to get interest in wikipedia itself.

The advantage is that banned editors can already talk about the subject of their ban here on meta wiki no problem. See This page does not belong to meta makes it pretty clear that banned users in wikipedia can put up pages in meta wiki, even after they are banned, and that it is treated as a "soft ban".

Which leads me to suggest that any banned user on any wikipedia be under soft ban on meta. Soft ban means essentially that we seek to preserve what is good, while rejecting what is bad. For each edit made by a soft banned user

if the contribution is worth, keep the contribution
if the contribution is not worth or is an attack on a user, revert or delete the contribution
if the contributor is damaging the wikipedia or attacking a user, block the soft ban user"

This makes many things much simpler.

The disadvantage is that it is not part of wikipedia which may be an issue with attracting admins and banned editors to the board. But perhaps at some point if it goes well, we can get a link to the page added as a "pilot scheme" to the TBAN notice?

And the main question we have is, is this a permitted use of meta wiki?

In What Meta is not the one thing there that might be an issue is "Meta is not an appeals court. If a community decides something, don't come here to try to get the decision overruled." - would it be a problem that one of the roles of the new board would be as a place where editors could help other editors to put an appeal case together (if that is possible at all) or advise them if it is possible? It's indirectly trying to get a decision overruled if you do that. We could make it so you can't discuss appeals but that would be rather limiting. This would need to be cleared up. Or are there any other issues with just trying it out here in a new page created on meta wiki?

  • Mention it on the Village Pump forum in Wikipedia.

The problems here are - first as banned editors, can we mention it there anyway? Having been caught out by surprising things that admins told usu violated our bans, we are not keen to find out just by trying to see what happens. The main issue I see is that I discuss my own banned topic in the talk page of the proposal so is it a banning offence to post to the village pump on wikipedia with a link to an off wiki page with a discussion of my banned topic on its talk page? Also - it would require a lot of changes on wikipedia at quite a high level to permit us to start a new board there where banned editors can mention the topic they were banned for for the purposes of seeking assistance. This could be a long process and especially with no active board available yet to show how it works, would it ever come to anything?

So, what are your thoughts? Can we do either of these things? Or is there some other way to get it started as a pilot scheme? And more generally what happens next with our ideas after the initiative period closes? Thanks! See also our discussion here: Enacting Robert Walker (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Clarification. Robert and I are both topic banned. Neither of us is site-banned. I am blocked at the moment. Robert is not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification @Darkfrog24:. Good to make that clear. I've also just added a summary of my question above and collapsed the details. Robert Walker (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)