View source for User:Robertinventor/Draft ideas for future based on reflections on the RfC

{{proposal}}
Originally was part of [[Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Area_for_topic_banned_editors_to_talk_freely_about_their_ban,_e.g._to_ask_questions_of_experienced_wikipedians#Draft_ideas_for_future]]

==Need to treat those who come to the board with dignity as human beings ==

[Section I added to the proposal, but on discussion, removed it again, as it seemed best not to add it during an RfC]

{{red|This is not part of the proposal for the RfC. It's a discussion of a possible future idea for the proposal}}

Quoting From [[en:WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED]]:

{{quote|Wikipedia's hope for banned editors is that they will leave Wikipedia or the affected area with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban}}

We need to find a way to treat banned and blocked editors with respect and dignity, and to encourage the ones that are only topic banned or temporarily blocked or sanctioned to find a way back to productive editing and to take part in the wikipedia editing community along with other participants there, to learn what they can and can't do under the ban, and to find out how they can improve their editing / talk page behaviour on wikipedia. 

Also, amongst all those who are sanctioned each year, there must surely sometimes be some who are unfairly banned as well, so you can't really assume that everyone who was topic banned was justifiably banned even in that topic area, never mind more generally. Any judiciary process has its glitches. If someone wants to appeal their ban, they should have a place where they can be listened to, again with dignity and respect, and they need a place to get help with preparing their case too, if they want to give it a go.

That's it (trimmed a little and copy edited) - interested in any comments. [[User:Robertinventor|Robert Walker]] ([[User talk:Robertinventor|talk]]) 01:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

==Help for editors who want to appeal==

Again this is another potential new section, but better not add it to the proposal while the RfC is in progress. Also these are meant as a few preliminary thoughts on the matter for discussion, not a worked out guideline or anything like that.

{{red|This is not part of the proposal for the RfC. It's a discussion of a possible future idea that would need an additional RfC surely if we decide it is worth considering}}

So, the thing is that wikipedia does have an appeal system in place for the topic bans, but it's not easy to use. Mainly because [[en:WP:BANEX]] is understood so restrictively. 
In normal judicial systems you  have right to access for experts to
* '''Help you decide''' if you have grounds for appeal
* '''Help you prepare''' your appeal, if you decide you do have grounds to go ahead. 

Wikipedia doesn't have anything corresponding to this at present for topic banned editors. So I see that as a function also of the new board, and it would have these two functions similarly

* '''It's a board where they can discuss whether an appeal is possible at all''', or likely to succeed. Many may decide they don't want to take it any further at that point, after they consider their situation carefully and talk about it to others. In my case, with the ban expiring anyway in six months, my main motivation would have been to clear a black mark from my record, and to do something about what I perceive as wiki bullying in this particular topic area. 

If as the conversation proceeded, it became clear that they have no grounds for appeal, then obviously they wouldn't appeal. The topic banned editors still need to have someone to hear them out and talk to them. 

* '''If they do decide to appeal''', the board could also be a place where they get help preparing the appeal. 

The board would be a much easier way to address this than to attempt some wiki wide change in interpretation of [[en:WP:TBANEX]]. I assume that the admins have good reason for needing to interpret the guidelines in such a restrictive way, and any attempt to change them would involve addressing those reasons whatever they are, and may lead to more complex and hard to administer guidelines. While a board either on meta or with meta type guidelines like [[WM:NOT]] applied to it would be a place where you can permit discussions like this, without any need to impact on anything else. 

Indeed it would reduced the burden on the admins. Instead of fielding these questions, they could just point editors to the ESN board, or indeed with a link to the board on the sanction notice, then they may never get these questions in the first case. They would then only need to address questions where their expertise and judgement is needed on particulars of the case. 

Hope that's clear, as usual interested in any comments on this. [[User:Robertinventor|Robert Walker]] ([[User talk:Robertinventor|talk]]) 11:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

=== Example of wikibullying ===

I will use my own case as an example. I don't want to appeal now - I considered it only briefly, and my topic ban will end soon anyway. But it gave insight into issues that topic banned editors can face. 

In my case, I said to the closing admin that I felt that the other editors are acting to silence myself and others with similar views to me in this topic area. In other words I think there might be an element of wikibullying ([[en:WP:WIKIBULLY]]), though I didn't use that word. The closing admin for my case responded that I'd be blocked if I continued this line of discussion. It is not clear to me that my question there was in violation of [[en:WP:TBANEX]] just on reading the guidelines themselves. However from the admin's response, clearly the guidelines are by custom interpreted in such a way. The conversation is here[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_40#About_ANI_topic_bans_generally], where I also mention that I immediately implemented all suggestions on how to modify my behaviour that the other editors made during the course of the ban discussion, as well as coming up with new ideas of my own and implementing those also. 

I didn't go into it there, but my reasons for regarding it as potentially falling within scope of the guidelines on wikibullying are - collapsed section, easy to skip and this is just using myself as an example as I don't intend to appeal myself:
{{cot}}
* The RfC was on a minor talk page which had had no talk page discussion for months when I posted about the issues that lead to the RfC. During the discussion there the opposing editor pinged many other editors to join the discussion, so the opposing editor was already accompanied by several other editors pinged by them when the RfC began
* I was taken to ANI within hours of the first strong support vote for the view I was advocating in the RfC - my behaviour hadn't changed substantially at that point as far as I could see. This effectively ended any possibility of continuing with RfCs on the article to resolve our differing views about its content
* Some of the posts to the ANI itself pinged more editors to join the discussion
* The ANI unusually went on for several weeks, also restored from archive several times, suggesting it wasn't an obvious and easy case
* Previous experiences of this wikibullying (if that is what it is) and its effects, as I see it, including it's effects on the previous main contributor to the Four Noble Truths article who now no longer contributes to wikipedia.
{{cob}}
As a result of all that, I had no way to assess whether the editors that were judging me in the ANI were neutral as most were there as result of pings by the editor who supported the opposing view to me in the RfC or pinged by people he had pinged originally. 

I agree that there were grounds for my ban, but I wondered if there were any grounds for an appeal on the basis of these mitigating circumstances. 

Note that all the rules of [[W:NOT]] would apply. Unfounded allegations and aspersions would not be okay. But there are cases of wikibullying on wikipedia, and we may get editors coming to the board as a result with well founded evidence of wikibullying, as well as others how think they have been bullied when in fact they have not. Editors in a similar situation to me would be prohibited by their ban from mentioning any of this to anyone on wikipedia except during the course of an appeal itself. And they'd risk it backfiring and leading to worse sanctions against them.

If they have a question on the ESN board about whether another editor's conduct counts as wikibullying, the response would not be to say
{{quote| '''You can't say anything bad about other editors''' involved bringing forward your case. Please don't continue this discussion or you risk being blocked. }}
as it has to be on wikipedia with current interpretations of [[en:WP:BANEX]], at least to judge by my own case. Instead it would be 
{{quote|'''What is your evidence?''' Let's take a look, and see if you might have any grounds for appeal. Warning, under [[WM:NOT]] (or whatever), unfounded allegations are not okay here.}}

Then the editor can give their evidence for what they think might count as wikibullying. It might well be that what seems bullying to them is not really. If so the ESN board might quickly advise them of such, and then they know they have no grounds for appeal. In other cases maybe it is, or gray area / borderline and then the conversation can continue and in some cases might lead to an actual appeal on this basis, in which case they could get help with advise on how best to prepare their appeal too. So that is how I see this working. [[User:Robertinventor|Robert Walker]] ([[User talk:Robertinventor|talk]]) 07:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

== Blocked Editors ==

{{yo|Darkfrog24}} Just to continue the conversation on blocked editors from the RfC. I don't want to post any more about it there because I've made too many posts to the RfC already and need to ease back on it. I think as a rough guideline I need to wait for several other comments there by other editors before I comment, would probably be a good way to make sure I don't overwhelm the conversation. Unless it is a situation where it is reasonably clear that I should respond promptly for some reason.

Anyway, the editor who I've been talking to via email brought this up, commenting on our proposal which of course he supports. He says that it is absolutely essential that editors who are blocked are given a way to talk about their blocks because the experience of being blocked can make you seriously ill. He is talking from experience there. It could make you depressed, anxious, it could have many medical effects. And because you are blocked, you have almost nobody to talk about it to who knows anything about how wikipedia works and what you are going through. So, as I said that's a major reason for doing it on meta, as editors blocked on wikipedia would be able to talk to us, as indeed, you are doing. 

{{red|This is not part of the proposal for the RfC. It's a discussion of a possible future idea to support blocked users that would need an additional RfC surely if we decide it is worth considering}}

===Email support===

However, if it did go ahead on wikipedia, or for that matter, if we want to help an editor who is blocked on meta, we could still support blocked editors via email. So the idea is, 
* a voluntary approach where a group of editors agree it is okay to contact them via email
* a link to the list of editors who have volunteered for this on the board.
* Editors mark themselves as available / unavailable e.g. if you are already involved in a long discussion with someone you can say "not available yet" until it is over, or through personal circumstances etc. 
* Rather than a support ticket type system, they can continue an email correspondence with the same editor and indeed that's the usual case unless it is a simple easy to answer query
* editors can bring in other editors with appropriate expertise to join the conversation, which they would typically do via email cc and use of "reply all"

All this happens off wiki. The page on wikipoedia is just a page with a list of editors available for email who mark themselves as available / unavailable.

I think this would be covered by the guideline in [[en:WP:OPTIONS]] where it says:
:::{{quote|Prevent user from sending email will disable the user from accessing Special:Emailuser for the duration of the block. This option should not be aused by default when blocking an account, but rather it should be used only in cases of abuse of the "email this user" feature (however, in instances when administrators feel that email abuse is extremely likely, they may use their discretion). When enabled, efforts should be taken to ensure that the user's talk page remains unprotected and that the user is aware of other avenues (such as the Unblock Ticket Request System) through which s/he can discuss the block. This is often used in cases of a user who is likely to do damage and disruption through e-mail.}}

So, I'd have thought that as long as the blocked user doesn't have access to Special:Emailuser disabled, and if the conversations are private and there is no element at all of [[en:WP:PROXY]] involved, that it would be covered by existing guidelines. But we could do an RfC to be sure and I think we should do that anyway before starting such a page on wikipedia.

Obviously we can't support all the blocked topic banned editors with just a few of us. But if it can grow slowly, perhaps the support network could also, including previously helped blocked topic banned editors helping others.

===First priority - someone uninvolved who understands wikipedia at least a bit, for them to talk to ===

The thing is - for anyone who has been blocked or banned or worse - the first priority really is to help them to just think clearly and to realize there are people there who are not involved in it at all and are just there to help them. As you say in the RfC, just having someone unbiased and uninvolved to talk to can make a huge difference to some people who may never have had that opportunity at any point during the dispute or the ban discussion.

So ideally it does help them return to wikipedia, if they want to. But the first priority is just to help them, support for them. And might be they decide never to return to wikipedia, or to take a break from it for a few months or years. I suggest as a guideline that there should be no pressure at all on them to return during the discussions. As the guideline says in [[en:WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED]]
{{quote|Wikipedia's hope for banned editors is that they will leave Wikipedia or the affected area with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban}}
As I see it, it's a case of providing off wiki support for them to complement this on wiki guideline.

===Comment on RfC===

BTW the RfC is running 9:9:8 at the present. But many voted for two options, as for you and me. If you just count first choices, it's 8, 5, 8. Two contributions yesterday so it's definitely still on the go. Those in favour of it happening in some form, either on wikipedia or meta, - that's running at 13:8. Since they can continue for up to two years, then if it is still undecided by December I could do posting to wikipedia about it then in appropriate non biased ways such as the feedback request service, and if it is still on the go by then, I could take part in attempts to get it started on wikipedia if that was the final result. We may need to take a long view. [[User:Robertinventor|Robert Walker]] ([[User talk:Robertinventor|talk]]) 08:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

:I think that now that the RfC is in progress, no one should make any substantive changes to the proposal.  There are lots of people who'd support establishing a noticeboard for topic-banned editors but wouldn't support giving blocked editors access to it.  I think that giving blocked editors access to any part of Wikipedia, even by email, is such a big deal that it should get its own RfC, separate from whether the noticeboard should be established at all, at a later time.
:Look, this is me saying this: There are blocked editors who deserved their sanctions.  Just because it happened to me doesn't mean it happened to everyone.  Running the noticeboard, either here on Meta or on a Wikipedia, for a few months or a year would probably give us some ideas about problems that usually come up and how to avoid them.  Then we could address the idea of how to handle blocked editors with real information to offer the community and allay some of the concerns that editors have raised on the RfC.  For now, talking about blocked editors on Wikipedia, even in the context of a detailed planned about how to handle it in a constructive fashion, will raise phantoms of socking and troublemaking in people's minds, ''even if that's not exactly what you're talking about''. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 17:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
::As for ivote counts, though, I prefer to think of it this way: 13 in favor of establishing the board in some way to 8 opposed.  Still, I'd like to see consensus even more clearly in favor before feeling confident.  This is more a feeling than a number (by which I mean don't take any action based on it) but I'd like to see minimum 50 respondents before asking for a formal close.  [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 17:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
::: {{yo|Darkfrog24}}Oh first, on blocked editors it's been in the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:IdeaLab/Area_for_topic_banned_editors_to_talk_freely_about_their_ban,_e.g._to_ask_questions_of_experienced_wikipedians&direction=prev&oldid=15789695#Goals#Goals Goals] section since 22nd July (before then it was an empty section and I added it in preparation for the RfC going live) - so that's before the RfC started on 23rd July. Also, before that, the proposal mentions, with myself as an example, that I risked being blocked as a result of asking questions. I'd taken it for granted, but not said explicitly that it would continue to support topic banned editors after they get blocked. And I knew you were blocked and all along through our discussions I'd been assuming though not made it explicit, that when it says "topic banned editors" it means all topic banned editors whether they are blocked or not. 
::: So anyway whether or not, the RfC so far has been about a proposal that includes blocked editors in the goals section. I also mention blocked editors as a motivation for meta in my contribution to the RfC which is one of the first things an editor will see before contributing. So it's not like it's hidden, and I think it is safe to say that everyone who voted after the RfC started was aware that the idea was to support blocked editors and was voting for this. And - what do we do if we are supporting an editor and they get blocked? Not let them email us any more because they are blocked, at the worst possible moment to drop support of them? It's a different matter of course, whether all the goals can be achieved right away - if it is implemented on wikipedia, some goals may have to be long term wishes for the future. 
::: However, I have just checked the wikipedia [[en:WP:OPTIONS]] and it says:
:::{{quote|Prevent user from sending email will disable the user from accessing Special:Emailuser for the duration of the block. This option should not be aused by default when blocking an account, but rather it should be used only in cases of abuse of the "email this user" feature (however, in instances when administrators feel that email abuse is extremely likely, they may use their discretion). When enabled, efforts should be taken to ensure that the user's talk page remains unprotected and that the user is aware of other avenues (such as the Unblock Ticket Request System) through which s/he can discuss the block. This is often used in cases of a user who is likely to do damage and disruption through e-mail.}}
::: So I'd have thought from that, that it would be okay to offer email support to blocked editors so long as they haven't been so disruptive that they have had Special:Emailuser switched off. After all we'd be doing it in order to let them discuss their block - not in order to get an unblock but just to be able to talk about it to someone. It might well need an RfC I agree, if there is any chance that it would be opposed we shouldn't just go ahead and do it, but I don't see it as such a major thing as requiring an exception added to [[en:WP:BMB]] which we would also need to do if it happens on wikipedia. Or is there some other guideline that would make it impossible or very difficult at present? What do you think? [[User:Robertinventor|Robert Walker]] ([[User talk:Robertinventor|talk]]) 18:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
::::I think that allowing blocked editors access to on-Wiki resources is such a big deal that talking about going ahead and doing it is getting way ahead of ourselves.  As for blocked editors whose email has not been disabled, of course they should get to email whoever they want; that's why their email wasn't disabled.  I've been emailing people and I'm blocked.  But they'd be doing so as individuals.  It sounds like you're suggesting that blocked editors would get to email people from a list of volunteers and the volunteers would copypaste their messages to the noticeboard.  I think the noticeboard has to prove itself with editors who are under milder sanctions before we should ask the community to permit it.
::::Bottom line: If we ask for this now, we're less likely to get the noticeboard at all.  We've already made it clear that helping blocked editors is an ultimate goal.  It's not a secret agenda that we're going to spring on people.  But drawing further attention to the problem, ''even by inventing solutions'', is just drawing attention to the problem.  Kind of like telling someone, "Put on this goalie mask so it doesn't hurt if you're punched in the face!" "OH MY GOD; YOU THINK I'M GOING TO GET PUNCHED IN THE FACE." "No, not really, but that guy over there is worried about people getting punched in the face, so I brought everyone goalie masks just in case." "YOU WOULD NOT HAVE GONE TO THE TROUBLE UNLESS YOU THOUGHT I'D GET PUNCHED IN THE FACE!" "Well yes I would have.  I used to run a hockey team and I happened to ''have'' the masks already, and I thought it would be fun, so I&mdash;" "GUYS, IF YOU SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL YOU'LL GET PUNCHED IN THE FACE!" "WHAT?!" "REALLY?" "No, I'm just being extra careful!" Just put the hockey masks in the shed so that you have them in the unlikely event that someone starts punching people in the face. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 18:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

::::: Oh, then it's a detail of my proposal rather than the whole thing. I wasn't suggesting that the volunteers post anything to the board on behalf of blocked editors as that would be proxy editing and covered by the ban. Rather something like "I just got an email from a blocked editor blocked for ... and they are puzzled by this particular a matter of policy ..." E.g. your question about indef blocks on the mockup. Not "this is what the blocked editor said to me". But if that's also problematic, then best not to have that at all and just do it all by email. So - I'll just remove that from the idea as it is just a suggestion.

::::: Also this is not at all meant to be covered by the RfC and would of course need future RfCs, as with any other ideas. I'll mark it clearly as not covered by the RfC, indeed will do that for the other new sections here as well just to make it clear. [[User:Robertinventor|Robert Walker]] ([[User talk:Robertinventor|talk]]) 19:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::Sorry Robert but it's not the detail.  It is the whole thing.  I don't think this discussion should take place now.  It is premature. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 20:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

{{od}} Have marked it as not part of the RfC. It didn't have anything about editors posting anything about blocked editors to a board  as far as I can see. I think that might have been a separate future idea on my talk page. So there was nothing to be removed there. Do say if you notice anything else. And - I think it is potentially helpful as the proposal mentions helping blocked editors, and though it is not part of the proposal, it does show we are thinking about ways to do that even on wikipedia, within the guidelines, so with nothing to concern anyone. 

And another thought, for topic banned editors also - it's a measure we could use if their behavior is unacceptable. For instance maybe an editor clearly is there to help, not to be disruptive, but every second sentence is badmouthing an admin or other editor. Saying "xyz who banned me is corrupt", say. Well after a couple of warnings, if they "don't get it" we can say
{{quote| "Sorry your behavour is unacceptable under [[WM:NOT]] so you will have to stop here, but do you want to continue discussing it via email with a volunteer? You can come back here after you find a way to talk here consistent with the [[WM:NOT]] rules and rules of common courtesy on meta / wikipedia. "}}

Something like that - it would give a way for "foul mouthed" editors to seek for help, while keeping them out of trouble as well. What do you think? All for future ideas to discuss later but mooting them now to get started thinking about it. 

Oh and the same email idea might be useful in the future for topic banned editors, if we have to do it on wikipedia, and we can't get a change in [[en:WP:BMB]]. Personally think it is worth a try but very unlikely we can achieve that without a pilot. That might not be the end of the road if that happens, as we could still do a board which is covered by [[en:WP:BMB]] where editors can ask very general questions about their sanctions, the things you can ask without mentioning the topic or the discussion leading up to it or the other editors involved in the dispute, and then in a similar way, offer the option to continue by email if they want to discus particulars of their topic or the events that lead to the ban for whatever reason. It's all ifs and buts at present since it's early days and for all we know it might eventually turn out conclusively in favour of meta in which case I'd suggest we explore that option first possibly with an additional RfC if that is needed. [[User:Robertinventor|Robert Walker]] ([[User talk:Robertinventor|talk]]) 19:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
:I think that saying something and then saying "oh but it's not part of the RfC" doesn't work.  It's here.  You said it right here, on a page dedicated to the proposal covered by the RfC.  It's kind of like how you sometimes hat part of your long comment and say "well you don't have to read it." Yes they do have to read it.  I think you should take all of these ideas and put them in a file on your own computer and save them until the time is right to make them public.
:I think that drawing attention to anything that might go wrong with the noticeboard makes that board less likely to get approval. "Here's what we'll do if editors are foul-mouthed and badmouth their admins!" will just make people think "You're right. ''All'' the topic-banned editors will badmouth their admins and ''none'' of them will have any legitimate complaints, so let's just not have the noticeboard in the first place." No one will care that that's not what you said.  Your ideas aren't bad, but now is not the time.
:And consider this: What if the noticeboard goes up and no one makes any unsubstantiated rants against anyone else?  Brainstorming for problems that might not end up happening can be fun, but right now it could have some very negative consequences. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 20:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

:: Oh, okay. I have no problems moving all this new material to a sub page of my user space if you think that's a good idea. I am not very good at anticipating how people will read these things. I just mean it for rare occasions of course. I can say that to make it clear.
:: I'm just about certain it will happen however, because that's just the way people are, when they are upset and angry, they say angry things about other people, unless they have already learnt a fair bit of self restraint. Indeed some editors may be banned just because they haven't learnt self restraint and need a little help in finding out how to interact with others online in adverse situations. They may be young, inexperienced, have learning difficulties, or whatever, there may be many reasons why they haven't yet learnt this self restraint such as most adults have and have been blocked as a result.

:: And it has already been raised on the RfC several times, it's the main objection in the "don't do it" section of the RfC that people will come to the board who have been banned because they are disruptive. So I'm not suggesting ideas here that nobody else has, it's the first thought indeed that would come to anyone who is unsure about the proposal. So, well I've said this before, I don't think drawing attention to issues that might arise is an issue in itself, but it depends how it is done. If it dramatizes them and makes them more salient than they should be, yes. 

:: Anyway if you want me to move all this to my user space (as a preliminary draft document for future discussions) - yes fine. Especially since nobody else has contributed except you and me, so if we are in agreement, I see no problem with doing that. I'll do that right away, if you just confirm first it is still what you think we should do after what I just said in this comment. I don't feel strongly about it either way whether it is here or on my user space so if you feel strongly it should go there, we are good to go with that. [[User:Robertinventor|Robert Walker]] ([[User talk:Robertinventor|talk]]) 21:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

:: What I can do is to move everything from "Need to treat those who come to the board with dignity as human beings" onwards to my user space. And then add a new section here: "Draft ideas for the future arising from reflections on the ongoing RfC discussion" and link to that page. So then it is clearly separated as not part of the proposal itself, and we can continue discussion there. How does that sound? [[User:Robertinventor|Robert Walker]] ([[User talk:Robertinventor|talk]]) 21:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)