IdeaLab: Impacts on lives of the banned

[thekohser]

I have launched an IdeaLab project concept:

Impacts on lives of the banned

Your endorsement and even joining the project would be heartily appreciated. If the project is ultimately approved, we would be looking for an $800 grant from the Wikimedia Foundation, to cover incentive costs ($40 per each of twenty respondents).

[Kingsindian]

I have added my endorsement. I am not sure if this also fits in the Inspire campaign: it is not directly connected to harassment, but blocked/banned members might be victims or perpetrators of harassment (or both) in some cases.

[thekohser]

...but blocked/banned members might be victims or perpetrators of harassment (or both) in some cases.

That was my consideration for why it is "on topic".

[thekohser]

Unfortunately, when I escalated the proposal to a Rapid Grant request, that had the unpleasant side-effect of removing the "Join" button from the page. That wouldn't seem to be by design, unless one is not supposed to request grant money until you have a complete team assembled?

[Earthy Astringent]

How would you identify the banned so there isn't a self selection problem?

[thekohser]

How would you identify the banned so there isn't a self selection problem?

Any way you can put this question on the project Talk page? It's a good one. There may be no one, perfect answer, but I think if the research team is at least mindful and cautious, we can reduce the vulnerability to selection bias. It would seem that starting from assembled lists of the indefinitely blocked and banned would be the best approach for initial outreach.

[Vigilant]

How would you identify the banned so there isn't a self selection problem?

Any way you can put this question on the project Talk page? It's a good one. There may be no one, perfect answer, but I think if the research team is at least mindful and cautious, we can reduce the vulnerability to selection bias. It would seem that starting from assembled lists of the indefinitely blocked and banned would be the best approach for initial outreach.

Like exit interviews...

[Kumioko]

The problem is if you are banned then you can't edit the page to comment, so asking them how it affects banned people is sort of pointless since only unbanned people can respond.

[thekohser]

The problem is if you are banned then you can't edit the page to comment, so asking them how it affects banned people is sort of pointless since only unbanned people can respond.

As far as I know, most of the users banned from English Wikipedia (where most of the banning takes place) are able to edit on Meta, where this proposal resides.

[MysteriousStranger]

The problem is if you are banned then you can't edit the page to comment, so asking them how it affects banned people is sort of pointless since only unbanned people can respond.

As far as I know, most of the users banned from English Wikipedia (where most of the banning takes place) are able to edit on Meta, where this proposal resides.

Nice. I like this idea. I'm not formally banned, though I've been blocked hundreds of times and have been the subject of SPIs under numerous account names. I'm not sure how much impact it's had on me at all, however: when I'm in the mood to edit constructively I've generally been able to do so without detection, and in fact edited with a good-hand-only account, fully disclosing my past and managing to keep myself from any bad-handing or socking, for almost a year before returning to the "dark side" (and, incidentally, I do very little vandalism in articles anymore; I mostly just bother unpleasant admins and rollbackers). I'm probably not the best example of how being blocked/banned affects a person. Those who have been stalked by admins (such as Greg) or have had their places of employment contacted (Kumi) have much better stories than I.

[Kumioko]

The problem is if you are banned then you can't edit the page to comment, so asking them how it affects banned people is sort of pointless since only unbanned people can respond.

As far as I know, most of the users banned from English Wikipedia (where most of the banning takes place) are able to edit on Meta, where this proposal resides.

With the global account that will be less the case as time goes on. Now, oftentimes when accounts are blocked, they are globally blocked if the admin has access to do it. The admin just decides of their own accord to go ahead and globally block them at that time.

[Poetlister]

With the global account that will be less the case as time goes on. Now, oftentimes when accounts are blocked, they are globally blocked if the admin has access to do it. The admin just decides of their own accord to go ahead and globally block them at that time.

Ordinary admins can't make global blocks. Can anyone other than a steward?

[trout]

Regarding those "Oppose" voters:

TParis (T-C-L) is an administrator on English Wikipedia who's blocked several users, and stands to lose face from a survey like this. The banning or blocking of a user from the site in order to silence them would be a good outcome for TParis in terms of retaining his credibility as an administrator. Allowing people banned due to his actions a voice would not be a good outcome for him. (I notice there's also a TParis account registered at Wikipediocracy, although it may or may not be the same person.)

Yngvadottir (T-C-L) is the person who corrects errors pointed out on this web site, like on the Daily Featured Articles thread. For example, this featured article comment resulted in this edit yesterday. Why he or she is against this survey I do not know. This user is not an administrator, but he or she is frequently involved in the administrator's noticeboard monkey business.

[Earthy Astringent]

How would you identify the banned so there isn't a self selection problem?

Any way you can put this question on the project Talk page? It's a good one. There may be no one, perfect answer, but I think if the research team is at least mindful and cautious, we can reduce the vulnerability to selection bias. It would seem that starting from assembled lists of the indefinitely blocked and banned would be the best approach for initial outreach.

It's my personal policy not to edit any WMF site unless it is to cause havoc. Maybe someone with less nefarious motivations can do this.

[MysteriousStranger]

Anyone in power on WP will oppose this because their policies are perfect and their admins enpfrce them perfectly. No mistakes in blocking, EVAR. Heil Jimbo!

[tarantino]

With the global account that will be less the case as time goes on. Now, oftentimes when accounts are blocked, they are globally blocked if the admin has access to do it. The admin just decides of their own accord to go ahead and globally block them at that time.

Ordinary admins can't make global blocks. Can anyone other than a steward?

Some foundation staff can lock or block accounts and IP addresses. You of all people should know that.

[Kingsindian]

Regarding those "Oppose" voters:
[...]
Yngvadottir (T-C-L) ... is not an administrator, but he or she is frequently involved in the administrator's noticeboard monkey business.

Yngvadottir was desysopped a few months ago when she reversed a block by Kirill Lokshin on Eric Corbett.

[Kumioko]

With the global account that will be less the case as time goes on. Now, oftentimes when accounts are blocked, they are globally blocked if the admin has access to do it. The admin just decides of their own accord to go ahead and globally block them at that time.

Ordinary admins can't make global blocks. Can anyone other than a steward?

Some foundation staff can lock or block accounts and IP addresses. You of all people should know that.

You're right normal admins can't but a lot of the admins that deal heavily in blocking and banning users do have the global block permission and they treat it like a right.

[Botto]

Would you be able to take requests for users to get some insight from?

One of the most notorious banned users is Zhoban, who has been editing through different socks since 2005. I don't know the specifics, but by the time I encountered him in 2012, he had become very hostile and was no longer following the rules of civility or consensus at all. When I suggested he tone down his attacks, he just like that jumped on me and that account was blocked. Regardless, it's someone who gradually respected the rules less and less until nowadays he sporadically edits under IPs and interlaces a lot of attacks, specifically towards Kww, Bbb23, Sjones23, Hula Hup, Ponyo and myself. Hell, apparently me reporting his attacks got on his nerves enough that he researched me and contacted me off-Wiki to threaten me. He left a lot of threats towards Kww and his wife, as well.

Yeah, the guy's a rotten piece of work, but I'd be interested to know his perspective.

[Kumioko]

Would you be able to take requests for users to get some insight from?

One of the most notorious banned users is Zhoban, who has been editing through different socks since 2005. I don't know the specifics, but by the time I encountered him in 2012, he had become very hostile and was no longer following the rules of civility or consensus at all. When I suggested he tone down his attacks, he just like that jumped on me and that account was blocked. Regardless, it's someone who gradually respected the rules less and less until nowadays he sporadically edits under IPs and interlaces a lot of attacks, specifically towards Kww, Bbb23, Sjones23, Hula Hup, Ponyo and myself. Hell, apparently me reporting his attacks got on his nerves enough that he researched me and contacted me off-Wiki to threaten me. He left a lot of threats towards Kww and his wife, as well.

Yeah, the guy's a rotten piece of work, but I'd be interested to know his perspective.

That's happens a lot frankly. That is a direct result if the Ignore block revert rule. You every ignore someone one like a friend, girlfriend, boyfriend, sister, mother, etc.? Did that EVER make things better or worse?

That is one reason why I think almost all bans should auto expire after the ban period without the person having to beg and humiliate themselves to return and it's almost never necessary to block someone for more than 3 - 6 months anyway. So these year long blocks and bans that are then summarily denied and turn into indefs just make people ignore them and start socking and cause their behavior to escalate because at that point there is no alternative and no reason not too.

[MysteriousStranger]

Would you be able to take requests for users to get some insight from?

One of the most notorious banned users is Zhoban, who has been editing through different socks since 2005. I don't know the specifics, but by the time I encountered him in 2012, he had become very hostile and was no longer following the rules of civility or consensus at all. When I suggested he tone down his attacks, he just like that jumped on me and that account was blocked. Regardless, it's someone who gradually respected the rules less and less until nowadays he sporadically edits under IPs and interlaces a lot of attacks, specifically towards Kww, Bbb23, Sjones23, Hula Hup, Ponyo and myself. Hell, apparently me reporting his attacks got on his nerves enough that he researched me and contacted me off-Wiki to threaten me. He left a lot of threats towards Kww and his wife, as well.

Yeah, the guy's a rotten piece of work, but I'd be interested to know his perspective.

That's happens a lot frankly. That is a direct result if the Ignore block revert rule. You every ignore someone one like a friend, girlfriend, boyfriend, sister, mother, etc.? Did that EVER make things better or worse?

That is one reason why I think almost all bans should auto expire after the ban period without the person having to beg and humiliate themselves to return and it's almost never necessary to block someone for more than 3 - 6 months anyway. So these year long blocks and bans that are then summarily denied and turn into indefs just make people ignore them and start socking and cause their behavior to escalate because at that point there is no alternative and no reason not too.

Well, there's the alternative to not edit Wikipedia at all. Clearly, though, all these people did and do want to edit, or they wouldn't have made an account in the first place.

[Poetlister]

That is one reason why I think almost all bans should auto expire after the ban period without the person having to beg and humiliate themselves to return

I'm unclear what this means. All blocks that are not indefinite do automatically expire after the prescribed time. All bans are indefinite by definition.

[Kumioko]

That is one reason why I think almost all bans should auto expire after the ban period without the person having to beg and humiliate themselves to return

I'm unclear what this means. All blocks that are not indefinite do automatically expire after the prescribed time. All bans are indefinite by definition.

Yep and they all have the result of forcing the user to either belittle themselves and beg to return or just create a new account, at some point, and keep editing if they want to continue.

Of course some just stop editing, but most of the time the ones who believe in the project or want to improve some topic area continue or they turn into vandals or trolls and give the admins more work to do that largely wouldn't be needed.

A large percentage of the time the bans are just done by someone who owns the topic, it has nothing to do with improving Wikipedia.

[Botto]

Would you be able to take requests for users to get some insight from?

One of the most notorious banned users is Zhoban, who has been editing through different socks since 2005. I don't know the specifics, but by the time I encountered him in 2012, he had become very hostile and was no longer following the rules of civility or consensus at all. When I suggested he tone down his attacks, he just like that jumped on me and that account was blocked. Regardless, it's someone who gradually respected the rules less and less until nowadays he sporadically edits under IPs and interlaces a lot of attacks, specifically towards Kww, Bbb23, Sjones23, Hula Hup, Ponyo and myself. Hell, apparently me reporting his attacks got on his nerves enough that he researched me and contacted me off-Wiki to threaten me. He left a lot of threats towards Kww and his wife, as well.

Yeah, the guy's a rotten piece of work, but I'd be interested to know his perspective.

That's happens a lot frankly. That is a direct result if the Ignore block revert rule. You every ignore someone one like a friend, girlfriend, boyfriend, sister, mother, etc.? Did that EVER make things better or worse?

That is one reason why I think almost all bans should auto expire after the ban period without the person having to beg and humiliate themselves to return and it's almost never necessary to block someone for more than 3 - 6 months anyway. So these year long blocks and bans that are then summarily denied and turn into indefs just make people ignore them and start socking and cause their behavior to escalate because at that point there is no alternative and no reason not too.

I think Zhoban was trying to follow the rules, as evident from his talk page contributions before I came across him, but people not going along with his input enraged him and his structured decorum on Wikipedia broke down. According to him, I think Zhoban was trying to follow the rules, as evident from his talk page contributions before I came across him, but people not going along with his input enraged him and his structured decorum on Wikipedia broke down. According to him, he has Pervasive Development Disorder, which may definitely have contributed to his rage. I suppose that would be yet another reason to listen to his thoughts on the ongoing ordeal, as it may lend some insight on multiple fronts.

[thekohser]

That is one reason why I think almost all bans should auto expire after the ban period without the person having to beg and humiliate themselves to return

I'm unclear what this means. All blocks that are not indefinite do automatically expire after the prescribed time. All bans are indefinite by definition.

Yep and they all have the result of forcing the user to either belittle themselves and beg to return or just create a new account, at some point, and keep editing if they want to continue.

Of course some just stop editing, but most of the time the ones who believe in the project or want to improve some topic area continue or they turn into vandals or trolls and give the admins more work to do that largely wouldn't be needed.

A large percentage of the time the bans are just done by someone who owns the topic, it has nothing to do with improving Wikipedia.

Poetlister, you weren't actually expecting a response that clarified the original statement, were you?

Anyway, this is all (mostly)

Let's get back on the subject, which is a specific Grant Idea on Meta.

[Kingsindian]

The idea is not showing up on the "Leaderboard" here, if you want to make it part of the Inspire campaign.

[thekohser]

The idea is not showing up on the "Leaderboard" here, if you want to make it part of the Inspire campaign.

I think it's because I upgraded the "Idea" to a "Grant Request". Surprise, surprise, there were multiple programming flaws in how the Grant template interacts with the Idea template. I'll check with the WMF staff member who has been working on the Grant template.

[thekohser]

More support is pouring in. Get on board, people!

Also, this might fix the problem of this proposal not appearing on the "honor roll" at the front of IdeaLab. We'll see.

[Kumioko]

More support is pouring in. Get on board, people!

Also, this might fix the problem of this proposal not appearing on the "honor roll" at the front of IdeaLab. We'll see.

Good luck but your just wasting your time trying to convince children and self serving POV pushers to give banned editors a voice in anything on the project that weakens their control.

My experience, both before being banned and after, has been that regardless of the reason for the ban the editor was given the status of being banned makes the community treat them like their on the sex offender registry. No one is going to give any credence or attention to anything that is said by a banned editor, even in a group, by what they consider to be felons no matter how much they did or continue to do for the project. Banned editors opinions and viewpoints carry zero weight with the WMF or the community eventhough 99.999% should have either never been banned or their ban should have automatically expired at some point. There is precisely zero reason to have 5 and 10 year old bans on the books just because a couple children on the Arbcom didn't want that editor interfering with their pet projects and POV pushing.

Additionally, if the WMF or the communities want banned editors opinions then they need to give them the opportunity to make them and actually listen. Create one of those banner messages requesting they take the survey. Don't try to contact them by Email or leave talk page messages that everyone knows they cannot respond to anyway. As it is, the attitude of the WMF and most of the admins and even the community when they see the word banned is to skip reading it.

Also, even if the WMF provides funding for this I wouldn't trust them with my personal and financial information. As such, they can keep the money and I'll answer the survey for free no matter how long it takes.

[Kingsindian]

I am unsure about what exactly the idealab is supposed to do: is it just a place where people can brainstorm and then break out into independent groups? How exactly is the funding etc. decided? I was looking at the content curation campaign and it's very confusing.

[thekohser]

Good luck but your just wasting your time trying to convince children and self serving POV pushers to give banned editors a voice in anything on the project that weakens their control.

The proposal now ranks as the 7th most-endorsed, out of over sixty proposals. It includes an endorsement from a "top 1,000" Wikipedia editor. Don't give up hope yet on the children.

[thekohser]

I am unsure about what exactly the idealab is supposed to do: is it just a place where people can brainstorm and then break out into independent groups? How exactly is the funding etc. decided? I was looking at the content curation campaign and it's very confusing.

This says it fairly well:

Inspire Campaigns are month-long events to focus collaborative efforts on some of the most pressing challenges of the Wikimedia movement. Each campaign focuses on a unique theme and participation is open to everyone. Campaigns are hosted in IdeaLab, where participants can work together to solve problems, create partnerships and develop concrete solutions through project development. Grants are available to support events, research, community organizing, technical or other initiatives in need of funding. Let's turn ideas into collective action!

The current Inspire Campaign, of course, focuses on "addressing harassment toward Wikimedia contributors".

[Kingsindian]

I am unsure about what exactly the idealab is supposed to do: is it just a place where people can brainstorm and then break out into independent groups? How exactly is the funding etc. decided? I was looking at the content curation campaign and it's very confusing.

This says it fairly well:

Inspire Campaigns are month-long events to focus collaborative efforts on some of the most pressing challenges of the Wikimedia movement. Each campaign focuses on a unique theme and participation is open to everyone. Campaigns are hosted in IdeaLab, where participants can work together to solve problems, create partnerships and develop concrete solutions through project development. Grants are available to support events, research, community organizing, technical or other initiatives in need of funding. Let's turn ideas into collective action!

The current Inspire Campaign, of course, focuses on "addressing harassment toward Wikimedia contributors".

Yes, but it just looks like it's a place for people to meet and discuss stuff. It's more like a mailing list than anything else. And it doesn't say what are the criteria used to decide the funding for the projects.

[Kumioko]

Good luck but your just wasting your time trying to convince children and self serving POV pushers to give banned editors a voice in anything on the project that weakens their control.

The proposal now ranks as the 7th most-endorsed, out of over sixty proposals. It includes an endorsement from a "top 1,000" Wikipedia editor. Don't give up hope yet on the children.

Lol, I am a top 25 editor (and I haven't been able to edit in the last 3 years) and you have my endorsement but I still think it's a waste of time. The WMF nor the admins in charge don't want that changed and even if you do the perfect survey that is irrefutable they still won't take any action on it even if they do acknowledge how great it is.

When have you seen any survey done by the WMF or it's community actually lead to anything?

[Kingsindian]

I have no idea how the bot is counting stuff. I see only 4 endorsers not 12. Is it counting oppose votes as well? Even with oppose votes, it just makes 6.

[thekohser]

I have no idea how the bot is counting stuff. I see only 4 endorsers not 12. Is it counting oppose votes as well? Even with oppose votes, it just makes 6.

Maybe it's counting endorsers, opposers, and replies to both?!

It's the magic of a Wikimedia-designed calculator, right?!?!

[Kingsindian]

Among the criteria for "rapid" grants to be funded, I noticed the following, under "not eligible for funding":

Applicants with a history of violating Friendly space expectations

I don't know if this means anything, but keep it in mind anyway.

Also, according to a conversation I had with Chris Schilling here, ideas aren't directly selected from the campaign, one needs to apply separately for funding. This confirms my impression that Idealab is basically a place for brainstorming and meeting people interested in the idea.

[thekohser]

Among the criteria for "rapid" grants to be funded, I noticed the following, under "not eligible for funding":

Applicants with a history of violating Friendly space expectations

I don't know if this means anything, but keep it in mind anyway.

Also, according to a conversation I had with Chris Schilling here, ideas aren't directly selected from the campaign, one needs to apply separately for funding. This confirms my impression that Idealab is basically a place for brainstorming and meeting people interested in the idea.

Good thing I've never been shown to have any history of violating Friendly Space expectations. I've been event banned due to unspecified "Friendly Space concerns", but nobody has documented any such history of violations. So, my IdeaLab grant application should be immune from that matter.

[Randy from Boise]

Among the criteria for "rapid" grants to be funded, I noticed the following, under "not eligible for funding":

Applicants with a history of violating Friendly space expectations

I don't know if this means anything, but keep it in mind anyway.

Also, according to a conversation I had with Chris Schilling here, ideas aren't directly selected from the campaign, one needs to apply separately for funding. This confirms my impression that Idealab is basically a place for brainstorming and meeting people interested in the idea.

Translation: It's our multimillion dollar slush fund and we'll spend it like we want to, rewarding friends and flipping off enemies...

Whoever came up with the Iron Law of Oligarchy (T-H-L) was right on the money, particularly when there is lots of money to be right on.

RfB

[Kumioko]

Among the criteria for "rapid" grants to be funded, I noticed the following, under "not eligible for funding":

Applicants with a history of violating Friendly space expectations

I don't know if this means anything, but keep it in mind anyway.

Also, according to a conversation I had with Chris Schilling here, ideas aren't directly selected from the campaign, one needs to apply separately for funding. This confirms my impression that Idealab is basically a place for brainstorming and meeting people interested in the idea.

Translation: It's our multimillion dollar slush fund and we'll spend it like we want to, rewarding friends and flipping off enemies...

Whoever came up with the Iron Law of Oligarchy (T-H-L) was right on the money, particularly when there is lots of money to be right on.

RfB

That analogy matches the Wikipedia culture perfectly.

[JCM]

The proposal now ranks as the 7th most-endorsed, out of over sixty proposals. It includes an endorsement from a "top 1,000" Wikipedia editor. Don't give up hope yet on the children.

Make that sixth most-endorsed now.

[thekohser]

Smallbones received a small beat-down on the IdeaLab page, too.

[thekohser]

I believe my IdeaLab proposal received a specific mention from Jimbo at Wikimania 2016:

I encourage everyone to take a look at the Inspire campaign that's going on right now, (gestures to screen) here's the URL, which you can find on Meta, probably most of you have seen this or know where to find it… People are putting forward proposals for how to deal with these kinds of community issues and problems. If you go and you read the proposals, it's actually sort of amusing because some of them are written by trolls. (Catcall from audience). That's okay, they can propose their ideas…

He then advises that "we need to be thoughtful".

[Kumioko]

I believe my IdeaLab proposal received a specific mention from Jimbo at Wikimania 2016:

I encourage everyone to take a look at the Inspire campaign that's going on right now, (gestures to screen) here's the URL, which you can find on Meta, probably most of you have seen this or know where to find it… People are putting forward proposals for how to deal with these kinds of community issues and problems. If you go and you read the proposals, it's actually sort of amusing because some of them are written by trolls. (Catcall from audience). That's okay, they can propose their ideas…

He then advises that "we need to be thoughtful".

I think it is telling of Jimbo's leadership abilities that he says that, because at least those "trolls" are putting forward ideas. I notice that he hasn't put forth an idea in years if ever. I wished someone would have asked where his ideas were in relation to those "trolls"!

[Randy from Boise]

I believe my IdeaLab proposal received a specific mention from Jimbo at Wikimania 2016:

I encourage everyone to take a look at the Inspire campaign that's going on right now, (gestures to screen) here's the URL, which you can find on Meta, probably most of you have seen this or know where to find it… People are putting forward proposals for how to deal with these kinds of community issues and problems. If you go and you read the proposals, it's actually sort of amusing because some of them are written by trolls. (Catcall from audience). That's okay, they can propose their ideas…

He then advises that "we need to be thoughtful".

I really wish I could make out that catcall...

RfB

[thekohser]

I really wish I could make out that catcall...

RfB

Might want to cross-reference with some of the phrases here.

[Captain Occam]

So, is this project happening or not? Its proposed start date was July 25th, but I haven't heard anything about it recently.

[thekohser]

So, is this project happening or not? Its proposed start date was July 25th, but I haven't heard anything about it recently.

Nobody from the WMF has reached out to me to give it the green light, so...

[Kingsindian]

I was looking at the page a few days ago; there seemed to be no movement. Perhaps one can ping Chris Schilling (I, JethroBT) about the next step? Here is a list of other Rapid Grants proposals which are under consideration.

[Poetlister]

So, is this project happening or not? Its proposed start date was July 25th, but I haven't heard anything about it recently.

Nobody from the WMF has reached out to me to give it the green light, so...

Odd. You'd think they'd be falling over themselves to get you to help them. Must be some bureaucratic snarl-up.