Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab

Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab

I forsee another overly bureaucratic project here.

What exactly gives this project the right to observe 'parolees' - presumably disruptive editors.

If there's a disruptive editor who can be unblocked and stop being a threat to Wikipedia, surely the unblocking administrator (and all other sysops) should supervise that individual. There is no need for a project which will just make a bureaucracy out of this process. Computerjoe's talk 15:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep "Unnecessary bureaucracy" is not a criterion for deletion. If you have concerns about the project, I would suggest discussing them on the project's talk page with its participants. This project has several participants who I believe would object to the wholesale deletion of their efforts. Cheers, Vicenarian (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  Similar criteria have been used before, with Esperanza and to a lesser extent my project - Concordia. WP:NOT in fact reads 'Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy'. Computerjoe's talk 16:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  Comment I do realise that argument is somewhat ironic, but a view against bureaucracy is a commonly agreed consensus. Computerjoe's talk 16:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  I understand your sentiment (and the irony), but WP:BURO seems to be in regards to overly strict application of the rules, with the suggestion that Wikipedia is governed by evolving community consensus, not decrees set in stone. I don't see how this project will lead to strict rule application, or even create new rules at all - it seems to me that this project is simply an attempt to retain good Wikipedians who have gone off the rails. Not a bad sentiment and definitely something that should be allowed its time in the sun. Vicenarian (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  AN or ArbCom could surely let a disruptive editor continue editing under a series of conditions aimed at preventing them being disruptive. I fail to see the need for this project. See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Admins, I expect, will be quite liberal with unblocking when the user seems like they will generally change their editing habits. User Rehab discusses 'probation officers'; what could these 'officers' do? This seems like a bureaucratic role to me, and mentorship could simply be achieved through extending the remit of existing projects. Computerjoe's talk 17:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. A potentially valuable system for rehabilitation of editors. We need to see this through and see if it can work.(olive (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC))
• Strong Keep. I signed on within three minutes of receiving an invitation to do so. I do have some ideas for new articles, but they're becoming fewer and farther between. One can only whack so many vandals before growing weary of it. This adds an entirely new dimension to the concept of online community. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I wholeheartedly agree with Computerjoe's not wishing to create further bureaucracy. I have been beating my head against a wall for months trying to get the Foundation to issue formal complaints to the IPs of truly chronic vandals. Wanna talk bureaucracy? Sheesh. Seriously though, I've seen what can happen when a user realizes that he or she can actually contribute to the project after trying to mess it up. It's a nice feeling for me, I can tell you. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Looks "official" but isn't. Appears to be a venue for assisting those who really require mentorship, and open to all comers without prejudice or distinction, which on other projects I wholeheartedly support but some of the members are in need of some assistance themselves. Not sure what this will accomplish except a)blind leading blind, b) non-community approved or supported mentorship, c) assistance for block and ban evaders. Not helpful to the encyclopedia; I foresee far more problems caused than solved by this. Will promote partisanship, preferential treatment, drama as the participants argue, a la Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates, which caused a great deal of strife and drama before it was finally shut down. Lets not repeat our errors, ok? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  KillerChihuahua shares many concerns I too share but haven't written. I know first-hand what organisations like this develop into (heading one with the aim of promoting civility for a while) and the answer is a mess. Computerjoe's talk 17:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia:Wikilawyering could be relevant here too. Computerjoe's talk 17:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete After reading the commentary here and looking through Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates, I think I'm going to have to change my vote on this one. If methods do exist for "user rehab" through the processes already existent (and already proven effective) and especially if previous attempts at the creation of a project like this have lead to strife, I say stick to what works and keep the door to the past closed. You've convinced me. Vicenarian (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I agree with PMDrive1061. --Abce2|AccessDenied 17:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  Why, so it can become Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates Redux? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)