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)

So, you're tired of vandal fighting? You could do cleanup. Or read a book. This is not a rationale for why this will help build an encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:11, 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)

CommentI think KillerChihuahua should be precluded from this discussion on a Conflict of Interest. He is merely attacking the project because I support it as seen here:"some of the members are in need of some assistance themselves". Based only on our prior exchange, and not at all looking at my past contributions.Drew Smith What I've done 19:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagreeing with something isn't a conflict of interest; nor is making a broad comment about the editors involved (not no names were mentioned, so it's barely a personal attack). However, what you said nearly is a personal attack. Computerjoe's talk 20:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I never said it was an attack, nor did I attack him.Drew Smith What I've done 20:46, 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)

Ok, now you've changed your reason, PMDrive's rationale is simply that he is bored and wants something new to do. May I suggest WP:CLEANUP. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The community already has mechanisms that deal with the problems this project is trying to deal with. Like KC, I feel this poses the same problems as the WP:Association of Members' Advocates. AniMate^draw 18:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Concerns should not be expressed by nominating this type of new initiative for deletion. Claims of 'bureaucracy' can be abused when the real concern is 'I don't understand this'. Durova^Charge! 18:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

are you saying I don't understand the project? that ComputerJoe doesn't? Who are you saying lacks comprehension, and why? thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't hesitate to say that neither of you understand the project. It's too new to "understand"! You aren't even supporting members and aren't making any constructive attempts to ensure that the imagined dangers and problems which your failures to AGF envision become a reality. What if you're way off base? Is that a good basis for starting such an aggressive process as an MfD? This nomination is based on a failure to AGF, which is itself a policy violation, thus rendering the nomination illegitimate. A judge would throw this out, and right minded users should too. It should be withdrawn and the fledgling project given a chance. How about building rather than tearing down? This project has been started in good faith, and it is being treated with bad faith. That's pretty ironic! -- Brangifer (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears that MfD has been filed in lieu of discussion; the regular solution (at worst) would be to mark the project historical. As noted at the project talk page, this project has the potential to do considerable good if it succeeds in generating workable and rational alternatives to some of our site's periodic dramas. The equation of user rehab with AMA raises red flags: speaking as someone who currently mentors five difficult users all of whom have been through arbitrations and/or community based sanctions, I periodically encounter difficulties from people who conflate mentorship with advocacy (either as practice or theory) and who have little to no hands-on experience with it themselves. Your reasons for objecting to the undertaking may have merit, but the use of MFD definitely does not. Durova^Charge! 19:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

MfD has historically been used to tag organisations as historical, when the organisation itself disagrees. FYI, I was an AMA and whilst there's clearly a difference between mentorship and advocacy, it's thin at best, especially during content disputes. The fact it's organised like it is, with members etc, draws parallels to AMA. As does its 'wikilegal' language. Computerjoe's talk 19:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Computerjoe, the 'it's thin at best' misconception is one of the reasons I have nearly resigned in protest from all mentorships. That attitude among segments of the community makes real mentorship all but impossible: mentors get ignored when they can do most good, written off when they express genuine input, and falsely accused of misconduct when they discontinue a failed mentorship and participate in dispute resolution regarding the former mentoree. A consistent stream of that nonsense is a serious hindrance to actual progress. Durova^Charge! 20:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I note you have not directly answered the question, however I will respond to your comments: As it happen to agree with the submitter that in this case, there is no point in discussion. I do not conflate AMA with this project, but see similarities which I believe indicate insurmountable issues. I not only do not conflate mentorship with advocacy, I actually state above, that I believe this is attempting to be mentorship, but we already have mentorship via more reliable and effective venues. I fail to see how you can state, unequivocally, that this MfD "definitely does not" have merit. I submit to you that if one believes there is zero chance a project canhelp, and a very high probability a project will harm Wikipedia, then the only respo9nsible thing to do is to MfD it as has been done. There is room for disagreement about whether this is the case or not; but you insult those of us who think differently when you dismiss our view as having "no merit" whatsoever. Finally, "historical" is for something which actually is part of the "history" of Wikipedia, which is why Esperanza was marked "historical" but others have not. You are in error about the "usual method" in this case. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The only 'reliable and effective venue' for mentorship is WP:ADOPT, which is specifically geared toward new users rather than experienced editors who have problems. The lack of any organized venue for the latter has been a serious hindrance. Durova^Charge! 20:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That project's remit should've been extended instead of a new layer being added to Wikipedia. And, if the people you're targeting need to learn about the things 'Conditions for getting help from this project', they are probably new users at any rate. Computerjoe's talk 20:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you asked them whether they want that responsibility? The feedback I've received (which is a bit out of date) is resentment of the extent to which they've been asked to move in this direction. Durova^Charge! 20:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

AAU is a decentralised project so who is 'they' and 'them'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computerjoe (talk • contribs)

From WP:CIVIL examples of incivility: "Attempts to publicly volunteer other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform." Part of your argument for deletion appears to be that another wikiproject's volunteers ought to expand their scope. Unless you are a member of that project and are volunteering yourself for this expanded scope, or unless you have prior agreement from one or more people who are, then this rationale looks both spurious and uncivil. Durova^Charge! 21:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding, most projects are simply deleted, not historicised. Example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Encouraging Expert Editors. There is no way for me to simply list deleted projects. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think the related pages need to tone down the language a lot ("parolee" "probation officer" etc.). Technically this program is really just a form of adoption, it could perhaps be better served as a task force of WP:AAU. –xeno ^talk 19:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Presumably WP User Rehab has agreed to monitor and constructively assist this user could become a valid reason for at least provisional unbanning/unblocking, though at present of course there is no proven track record of the success of such efforts. I share (somewhat more nebulously) some of KillerChihuahua's concerns, and would not want a well-meaning effort to deconvolute quality contributions from blockable behaviour to become a shield for disruptive users on their n^th chance. Perhaps we could allow a month for language and unique focus to be cleared up, and then put it before the Village Pump or wherever high-profile noticeboard? - 2/0 (cont.) 19:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete despite the good intentions of those involved, i can only see this contributing to problems of special treatment, bull-headed and organized advocacy in the case of users who might have exhausted community patience, and generally cabal-type behavior. None of this is a criticism of the intentions of those involved, but that will be the result. Mentorship is already available (which rarely seems to work but, whatever) and problem users don't need more advocates. What they need is other editors willing to educate them about what's expected, and we already have such editors in spades.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship is already available from who? To the best of my knowledge I am the only active mentor of multiple experienced editors who have problems, and I publicly announced the termination of new mentorshipo acceptances after the Fringe science arbitration. There aren't throngs of others waiting in the wings. Durova^Charge! 20:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

From whatever qualified editors are willing to provide it. I would step up if a saw a true problem user that needed it (i rarely do -- my attitude is, people who want to get it and have the minimum intellectual attributes and language skills to be able to get it figure it out on their own, with perhaps some helpful pointing to the policy pages. It ain't hard.) And in that spirit, as an addendum to my earlier comments, i have no opposition to redirecting this to WP:AAU which has minimum standards for "adopters" unlike this project, which already has a number of inexperienced members in its ranks that, in my opinion, would do more harm than good to collegial editing and other goals of the project by acting as "parole officers" or "mentors" or "advocates" or whatever for "problem" editors. Social networking for a cause, generally, does a lot of harm here.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete “Troubled” editors who want to reform can always ask the community for guidance._(irrelevant) The reason for the strong is the language of the project: "serious behavioral issues" ... "have great potential" ... "lost to Wikipedia" ... "helping them learn" ... "carefully controlling" ... "be rescued". That sounds like a Sunday sermon coming from a pastoral Oceania. The clincher is the link to probation officer, no-so-subtly equating the target group with criminals! The project's purpose is much better served by extending the scope of the WikiAdoption program, and producing an essay/FAQ aimed at previously sanctioned users.
  Question about procedure: I believe the applicable deletion policy in this case is "contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace" (my emphasis). I don't see WP:BURO establishing a separate policy for project namespace. WP:IAR is justified here, but I think this problem should be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 19:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, the community's response is often so scattershot disorganized that individuals who attempt to assist them get overburdened. Take a current example from one of my mentorees: ScienceApologist is currently under a three month siteban and working on an FA drive for the Optics article, by creating a draft in userspace at Wikisource. I mentor him. Within the mainstream/fringe science disputes this became a point of contention after one individual attempted to port the article in violation of GFDL license and without SA's consent (acting against my explicit recommendation). Afterward partisans from the opposite side of the dispute initiated two AE threads--one of which was in direct response to the attempted port (which of course I reverted promptly). A single mentor gets overwhelmed that way, and I have very nearly resigned due not to SA's conduct but the actions of surrounding persons. Quite frankly, the community's response to complex problems is often oversimplified. This is commonly known as 'drama'. Sensible organization is one way to minimize drama. Durova^Charge! 19:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I'm still learning the ropes: What's an "AE thread"?_{found them Your organization argument misses the target. In effect, you say the community does not behave the way you think it should. I don't see how the rehab project improves that situation. On the contrary, as implicit from their outlook, they further stigmatize their prospective clients, introducing a hierarchy incompatible with Wikipedia's openness. A user with editing privileges has the same right to edit as anyone else, irrespective of his or her history on the project. If other users carry a grudge, it's time they're reminded of WP:AGF. IMHO, you're probably better off directing some of your mentoring effort at doing exactly that. Paradoctor (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)}

I presume deletion in other namespaces probably places less emphasis on deletion policy, being more reliant on argument. Computerjoe's talk 19:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you. The quoted bit applies to article, template and user spaces as well. And I don't see your point about being "reliant on argument". Where policy is applicable, it has to be considered first. If "argument" becomes first choice, then you don't need policy in the first place. Paradoctor (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I support this because I have seen first hand what giving someone a second chance can do. User Popartpete was blocked roughly one week ago, for attacking me and User:Mendaliv via the email function. Once we could calm him down I proposed a mandatory mentorship as an aternative to an indeff block. He is now asking questions and learning the relevant policies. This is a perfect example of a user successfully rehabilitated as seen HereDrew Smith What I've done 19:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is a great example of why this is not needed - those who want help and can benefit from it can get it already. Mentorship already exists without the layers of beaurocracy, which historically has only led to trouble on Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

So I suppose this or this is not needed? After all, users can simply do this themselves. Do you even know the purpose of a Wikiproject?ZooFari 22:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) I just checked out "Popartpete". He has fewer than 50 edits extending back to November 2006 -- only 8 edits in mainspace. He was blocked for harrasment by email indefinitely (apprently because he was upset that his promotional spam kept being removed [1]), which was dowgraded to a week and time served by the original blocking admin on May 12. This project was created on May 16. Since May 12 his only edits have been to his talk page. If you think any of that sequence is a "perfect example" of, well, anything, you need to pay more attention.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

He is asking questions and learning the policies. He has agreed to go into mentorship, and to contribute constructively to wikipedia.Drew Smith What I've done 20:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

So, according to you, he has said he will do something. That does not mean he will do it and can by no stretch of the imagination be used as an example of this project's success. Computerjoe's talk 20:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If you had actually read the talk page you would see that the user is being cooperative. He could very easily have edited with his IP, and in fact was doing so until it was pointed out to him that this was just making things worse. This editor is activly trying to learn the policies of wikipediaDrew Smith What I've done 20:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Who cares about his talk page? This level of investment in rehabilitation "successes" is exactly the sort of thing that some or us are worried about.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I'd trust PMDrive any day. But I don't trust everybody who's likely to sign up as a mentor. The "Open to all comers" worries me, and reminds me too much of what happened at Esperanza, where numerous actual problem users signed up to be mentors—probably meaning well, indeed, but, uh, failing to manage well. I have other reasons to be against this, but that will do to be going on with. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC).
• Keep. Give the project a chance. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 20:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I admit I'm a skeptic. Based on previous experience, I am not sure it will be accomplish much--but it deserves a try. The previous projects and methods have not been successful; as the goal is admirable, a new way or organizing it ought to be worth the experiment. I'm not really worried that much about the effect of powerful sponsorship of people, as the whole thing will be public, and we will all see just who is supporting a problem editor. Arguments that it has a bad effect will be much more convincing after we've tried it. DGG (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Proposed project exemplies wikipedia ethics and customs. Plus I believe the argument that past efforts of the type have fizzled to be a non-rationale for deletion. ("The League of Nations fizzled, hence let's not try the United Nations"(?)) ↜Just M E here , now 21:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Aye well that turned out pretty useless too. See Iraq War :P On a serious note, we can observe past consensus and apply it to deletion debates. Computerjoe's talk 21:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep this idea certainly has potential. I also see MfDing an active WikiProject as disruptive, and an abuse of process. Discussion over concerns with the project should take place on it's talk page, as should attempts and proposals to close it. If such a decision is made, it should be marked historical, rather than deleted. — Jake Wartenberg 21:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Under certain circumstances MfD is the most appropiate forum. Computerjoe's talk 21:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Can you elaborate? I am not sure why you feel this the most appropriate forum, or what circumstances you are reffering to. I know WIkiProjects have been closed this way in the past, but I don't think it's the right thing to do. Sorta like nominating policy. — Jake Wartenberg 21:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - Given the extraordinary supervisory power this project projects, I am not comfortable with a group that has no mandate or authority to act in a supervisory capacity or zookeeper. Wikipedia generally has a pretty open policy towards editors, and at least a fair amount of vetting before giving power over to individuals; this project circumvents both of those practices. Who decides "problem editors", "parolees", "parole officers", etc? Wikipedia needs a better way to deal with problem editors (of which I know a few!), but this is not the best approach. I would be more supportive of an oversight group of admins tasked with keeping an eye on troubling editors than I am of a self-anointed group of "everyone who wants to join." I'm also very concerned with the behavior shown by some of the key people of the project -- statements like this epitomize my concerns and are a troubling predictor of future good faith from the "supervisors". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This project projects no power. We aim to work with blocking admins to educate blocked editors on the policies of wikipedia.Drew Smith What I've done 22:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the idea that ordinary users will become mentors or suchlike. I envision that only experienced admins will be mentors, and that they will work together with the blocking admins. (BTW, Wikipedia:Mentorship Committee is inactive.) This project doesn't circumvent any existing processes, but may well supplement them and make them more effective. An added dimension is the use of community input in the form of an RfC/U before blocked editors who are in rehab can be admitted back into society here. The term "parolee" has been used for want of a better term (but I'm not wedded to it), since in society prisoners who are freed from prison are often on parole. The parallel is pretty exact here. Users have been judged and banished to "prison". For them to get access to our society again, they should be allowed to do so through a temporary period as users in rehab (under parole). Right now we have no last step in the DR process that aims at rehabilitation. Take a look at the DR template. Wouldn't it be great if the last link was User rehab? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear here, you think that some Wikipedia editors are akin to criminals, and administrative sanctions to stop disruption is analogous to imprisonment? Sorry, but that attitude doesn't really make me feel any better about all of this.  :( //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That is only a figure of speech. At Wikipedia, the types of behavior that get a user banned are akin to "wikicrimes". If you have a better word, that's fine with me. Try to understand what I mean, rather than picking out one word and stretching it too far. It seems you're making more of this than is warranted. Banning is a sort of "outer imprisonment/exclusion", but a better form of word would probably do better. Banishment means that the offender is not allowed in again. We need a process for the very few banned users who might qualify for reinstatement here. It would be a tough road to hoe, so I doubt there would be very many takers, but they should be given a chance. I am very much for dealing consistently with those who seriously disrupt the project, and I therefore consider the "administrative sanctions to stop disruption" to be proper. I would think you would agree with that attitude, or are you for softer treatment of offenders, and against the administrative sanctions placed on them? I think not. I suspect we are really on the same side, but just using different words. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep seriously, the project is only 3 days old. You have not seen the outcomes, so you pretty much can't judge it. Thanks for such interruption, now we have to pause our process for this.ZooFari 21:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• What exactly is your process? It looks like you're going to decide amongst yourselves who is or isn't a candidate for rehab. Getting an unblock or unban is going to require discussion at WP:AN or WP:AN/I and any mentor is going to have to be approved there as well. So aside from adding red tape and unnecessary steps to the process of getting a user unblocked, what exactly is the point of this group? And frankly, so far the majority of your group is comprised of non-admins, several of whom have block logs. I'm not sure how many admins are going to trust that kind of a group in a supervisory role for unblock candidates. AniMate^draw 22:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• [Edit conflict with below post] I believe your points are expressed way ahead of time. Like I said, this project is new, and development is still in proccess. And about the bureaucracy comment (I also mentioned it above). I suppose this or this is not needed either? In reality, there is no need for a Wikiproject for stub sorting, when users can use the manual and do things themselves. I'm not saying that I believe there shouldn't be a project for this, but it is pretty much the same point. ZooFari 23:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The procedure is still under development, but my understanding is that blocked users would come to us for help, and we would determine which users may be good candidates for rehab. Once we have decided to rehabilitate a user, we would bring the block to the attention of the blocking admin, and request an unblock, with restrictions if neccessary. Once unblocked the mentors would watch over this user, and guide them towards all the relevant policies. Once the user has demonstrated understanding of the rules of wikipedia, the user will "graduate" the rehabilitation program. The user will still be watched by the mentor, and the mentor may make comments on questionable edits. If the rehabilitated account is misused, it will obviously be blocked again, this time with no hope for recieveing help.Drew Smith What I've done 23:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

[Edit conflict, again]That is a nice way of putting it, Drew. And I see there is some misunderstanding when seeing the above posts, but it is not necessarily for users who are blocked, but those who are at risk for being blocked. For example, I once met this user who had some behavioral issues. He criticized and admin in his user talk header, and after the problem was solved, he replaced the criticism with a beautiful quote. So you see, this project may not fail. ZooFari 23:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll ignore the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument from Zoo, persuasive as it is. I'm unsure how a blocked user is going to contact you, though I'm assuming it would be along the lines of an unblock template. However, to render this group pointless, all an administrator has to do is decline your unblock request. Frankly, looking over the project and participants, I'm not sure I'd trust you guys with one of my indef blocked users. AniMate^draw 23:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A great example is that admins tend to deny a request for unblock. This would be a great project for someone who would nag to be unblocked. And believe me, this is not uncommon. ZooFari 23:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete, this is completely unnecessary. We have a dispute resolution system already in place; if it's really needed, we even have arbcom. Administrators watch over the users that they unblock; this could be used as a good example of rule creep in my humble opinion. ^blurred_peace ☮ 00:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Of all the arguments given, I think this is the best - the project is unnecessary and potentially harmful on top of that. Vicenarian (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wait a while / Merge as a task force of Adopt-a-User. I agree with xeno (talk · contribs)'s above comment: "Technically this program is really just a form of adoption, it could perhaps be better served as a task force of WP:AAU." Maybe we could do that, changing this to a version of adoption for users that have had problems in the past. Think about it: this is probably a little too early to make a decision on such an infant project. Give it a while, and see how it turns out. If it ends up serving it's purpose, then I see no reason to delete it. If I had to make decision now, however, I think this would be better served as a division of Adopt-a-User. They have a good deal of experience involving new users, and putting this project underneath their wing might help them get a good start. The Earwig ^{(Talk | Contributions)} 00:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See above regarding the existing wikiproject. It arguably amounts to a WP:CIVIL violation to shackle that project with an expanded role that no member of that project has agreed to assume. Durova^Charge! 01:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misspoke (I think; maybe it was just a misunderstanding). I didn't mean that we should force this project's members to merge with Adopt-a-User; I was trying to say that we could have the two projects work together and help each other out. However, for the time being (and for the near future), the project should be kept, for the reasons I outlined above. Cheers, The Earwig ^{(Talk | Contributions)} 01:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Give the project a chance to spread its wings, and if it doesn't perform as planned, turn it into a task force of AAU.Drew Smith What I've done 01:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable idea. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Some commentary above about lack of trust in some of this project's current slate of participants gives me an idea. Hey-hey-hey-hey! an -- association -- of -- recovering-blockedWikipedians! Who better to mentor ____?____ [enter class of individuals with a specific behavioral problem here, e/g, drinkers) than a recovering- ___?____ ? (Obviously there is anonynimity in WPædia; let's examine some appropriate application of the rest of the 12 Traditions.) {nervously coughs and slaps own face} OK, sorry, but seriously, folks, the fact that I myself have never been blocked may make me less effective as a mentor here, not more so, ¿no? ↜Just M E here , now 02:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. This project is too young to deserve being treated with assumptions of bad faith based on imagined fears. It would have been more constructive if those who are critical were to join and make good suggestions to ensure this succeeds. Let it develop and see if it flies. Please be patient, AGF, and maybe this will work. This should be the last step that makes the DR process a circle. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Seems it has many supporters. And it's still too new. Should be given a chance at least. Btw, Wikipedia really needs to hire a gist'er to summarise all this drivel. :) -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 06:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Give it time. Most of the deletion reasons given above are dependent on hypotheticals. Let's see what the project actually does, and what it accomplishes, and see where it goes, and not delete it for what it or its members might do badly. If it proves disruptive, divisive, or overly bureaucratic it can be deleted then.--Dycedarg ж 07:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Durova, DGG, and Brangifer. Four days old is too new to trash via crystal ball assumptions. A neutral nod to Bishonen's concerns. From personal experience, "open to all comers" is also a problem with WP:Mediation Cabal volunteering. Some kind of quick start training is needed that isn't too difficult. I suggest trying the checklist procedure method, which the USA FAA has successfully used for decades, and is now being adapted for doctoring. Each item on the checklist would be linked to a case study. Less experienced helpers would be advised to hand off, or at least back off of, cases with checklist features that would be classified as too difficult for the inexperienced to handle. The claim that Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates was "shut down" doesn't seem factual. According to the AoMA historic main and talk pages, a number of AoMA reforms were proposed, but the community lost interest in working on it. Ok, so there's now a wave of renewed interest in this Wikiproject that some editors think is similar. If that's true, the participants in this Wikiproject should read those AoMA discussions carefully to consider changes and good responses to previous community objections. Milo 07:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment — “My name is Jack, and I’m a sockpuppet.” this user is a sock puppet I see that “12 steps” has already been mentioned above.
  I noticed this new page yesterday and gave it a read. While I expect that it is well-intentioned, it is unclear to me if any of those involved have any actual experience in this area or if their experiences are beneficial. This is an area that could use some improvment, but it is not something that is likely to benefit from a wannabe parole officers club. The page has a lot of inappropriate terminology, such as the recently deleted “Some editors have mental or other issues…”. If this is going to have any hope of doing something useful, it's going to need a lot of tightening-up. The assertion that those who wish to get “help” from this group “must be submissive” really is telling. That's not the proper road. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - I fail to see how this is fundamentally different from the well-established Adoptee and Mentorship programs. I'm sure the Rehab Project means well but do we really need another project that is basically doing the same thing? Sure, the project is only a few days old but that doesn't make any difference for its self-described goal: helping editors to "learn to follow policies and guidelines". I'm not saying it would certainly fail or cause drama, I just don't see the point of adding another layer to our already existing options. (As an aside, I also have problems with the wording of the project. If somebody suggested I should go into "rehab" and report to my "parole officer" I'd be wondering if WP had turned into the Betty Ford Clinic. I strongly object to this semi-official terminology.) Yintaɳ  09:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep.I have to admit that I was absolutely surprised to learn about this on my talk page. I just read the discussions above and some of the comments are totally assumming bad faith in what I thought this project was going to be about. I signed up yes, but even I don't know where this is going to go. I think that there is a need for something like this to help long term editors. I don't know if this project is going to work. But why delete it without even trying? I see some really good comments though above that would help direct the project in ways more acceptable so why not suggest these things on the projects talk page and allow the editors to work on the problems. The project is in its infancy, there are problems that need to be addressed, a lot of them I'm sure. But I don't understand why such negative tones are being displayed. I for one didn't sign up to control anyone, I'm not even sure I would even attempt a mentorship after watching what Durova has had to go through with a few of her editors. I would like to add that part of my reasons for signing up for this kind of project is because of watching Durova and the way she helps other editors become productive and less disruptive. She should be commended for what she does and has to go through. Please, can everyone just give it a chance and really assume good faith. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad ideas are bad ideas. It has nothing to do with "good faith." My asumption is that the people involved have the best of intentions. My opinion is they're wrong, and this idea is in fact destructive. And the longer these sorts of social networks/cabals are allowed to fester, the harder it is to kill them off. Medium term, groups like this are liable to drive off editors who don't like dealing with vandals, pov pushers, and the like while making a more welcome home for their "addicts" (I agree with some of the above comments that the language about "submission" etc... is creepy).Bali ultimate (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So you would rather potential contributers be bannished forever for a bout of bad behaviour which could have been prevented had the user had a proper introduction to wikipedia policies?Drew Smith What I've done 13:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I prefer the status quo, that bends over backwards to give idiots the chance to "reform" without the creation of a new layer of bureacracy with a fresh new "me-too" chorus of fan-boy members (in this case, fan-boys for the poor misunderstood unfortunates who despite scrawling "peepies" all over articles must have a brilliant encyclopedia editor inside him waiting to get out) that will lead to more time-wasting and aggravation for people like me who have had to deal with persistent, abusive vandals. Mind-numbing amounts of time are spent bending over backwards to give assholes a chance here. More time is not needed in this area. I think most of these "associations" built around wikipedia-wide issues do more harm than good by fostering cliques that inevitably lead to vote-stacking and an erosion of ill-will project wide. And i find it troubling that this group would accept someone like you as a member. Assuming all good faith, of course, but you have 257 article edits in your month here (fewer edits than you've made in user talk space) and I simply wouldn't trust a user such as yourself (at this point in time) to be a mentor or an advocate for anyone on Wikipedia, particularly for those who waste so much of our time.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Bali, you have obviously been looking at some other project proposal, or you are impugning the motives of those involved, based on some bad experiences elsewhere. This project will hopefully be so strict that even SA wouldn't pass the muster without radical reform. If I were an admin, which I'm not, I'm the type who would block after only two warnings. (See my proposal here, and try to tell me that I'm soft! I don't believe in softness towards those for whom a cluestick never works. This is designed only for banned editors who really wish to return, AND who have seen the error of their ways and are willing to radically change their ways. I too have seen idiots given second, third, fourth, and fifth chances, and I'm sick of it. This has nothing to do with such misunderstood kindness. Only admins will be mentors, so the existing mentorship process will continue, except that these will be banned editors, while the current mentorship system usually deals with anyone who voluntarily wishes advice, or on whom mentorship has been imposed as an alternative to being banned. You really need to stop AGF and impugning the motives of those who are trying something new here. Allow for some nytaenkning ("new thinking" in Danish). That means wait awhile before making your case out of imagined evils that might occur. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What rubbish. A backhanded allegation that i have poor reading comprehension ("you have obviously been looking at some other proposal") and then an admonishment to "assume good faith" followed by a false-claim that I need to stop "impugning the motives" of people involved with this project. How's this for reading comprehension, boyo: I wrote, right on this page (perhaps you were reading comments i made on some other page when you said i was attacking the motives of others?) that "my asumption is that the people involved have the best of intentions. My opinion is they're wrong." Admins already deal with vandals, so why would they need to be "members" of this nonsense? The last thing wikipedia needs is more embryonic social-network cabals, and that's what this will become if it gets off the ground, mark my words.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep Sheesh too soon, it's being worked on. So other things with different people failed? I'm truly shocked. The comments here can help inform the creation of this project so as to avoid previous mistakes made by other people. To shut down conversation in this area isn't helpful. I think some people should not be allowed near wikipedia, but to cut off this project and discussion so quickly is a poor decision. There are those that could be (or in fact are, apart from some glaring issue) great contributors, and a bit of help like this could be the ticket. Don't spend time on it if you don't want to, but don't begrudge others who would like to try. Verbal chat 13:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, also, as a point of interest, has this project even passed through the WikiProject Proposals system yet? I decided to look the proposal notes over, and I see it listed under May, but I can't seem to find the actual page. Has one even been done for this project? Before we continue discussing the usefulness of this project, we should be checking whether the project was formed on a consensus. (shown here, but not here) ^blurred_peace ☮ 15:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment, from here, "There is also a mandatory mentorship, about to go underway with Popartpete once his block has been lifted." If that doesn't sound like rule creep, then I don't know what is. I'm starting to agree with the other views expressed here (that this is just a form of mentorship). We already have adopt-a-user for this, and it once again becomes an unnecessary bureaucratic project. ^blurred_peace ☮ 15:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

???? That has NOTHING to do with the proposed project. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Nominator's comment this thread is getting pretty long so I'm going to summarise some key points and my responses to some arguments put forward.

a) The history of Wikipedia has shown organisations with a membership and hierarchy fail, as they are almost by definition overly bureaucratic. Some examples of this are Wikipedia:Esperanza, Wikipedia:Concordia and Wikipedia:Association of Member Advocates.

Whilst the vast majority of WikiProjects do have a membership, this membership is more to show an interest in the topic rather than actually belonging to the project.

I do note that unlike other projects, User Rehab doesn't have a leadership but it is still close to these organisations in many ways

b) This project, created with little, if any, consensus, implies it has some sort of official role

User:Blurpeace notes that it appears this project did not go through the WikiProject Council in the normal fashion and achieve a consensus supporting its creation. I also believe that it did not go through Wikipedia:Village pump or similar channels.

Despite the fact the project was created with little discussion or consensus from uninvolved editors, it strives to have an official role in the Dispute Resolution process. I would argue an organisation with no consensus to operate should play no role in such processes. Even if it doesn't, the project acts as though it is in someway official and I really question why an administrator would entrust a disruptive user amongst inexperienced editors.

On a tangent, is Dispute Resolution even applicable here? The project appears to be targeting vandals; something that isn't a dispute.

c) Inexperienced editors would be placed in a position of trust in the community, but without community consensus

How could an administrator entrust a user with WP:REHAB, a body which hasn't demonstrated it has the support of the community?

I observe the Project now says 'Note that mentors should be experienced admins'. So, I question, how can inexperienced editors be supporters of the project but play no role whatsoever?

Also, shouldn't an administrator willing to give a user a second-chance supervise that user themselves?

d) There is no need for this project

Administrators can unblock a user and give them a second-chance if they feel the user can in fact begin to contribute to the project. Abuse would be picked up quickly (like it is 99.99% of the time anyway, but more attention is paid to controversial users) and the user rapidly reblocked. This removes any monitoring need for WP:REHAB.

Reformed vandals who have been unblocked can seek mentoring through the usual channels (Wikipedia:AAU). Why must there be a specialised group to mentor disruptive editors?

So, the status quo ante WP:REHAB was fine; channels already existed for all of WP:REHAB's functions. In this case, Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it might expound some words of wisdom indeed. Why add more layers to an already complex system?

e) Procedural points several users raised concerns with several points of procedure in this debate.

f) Why MfD is the most appropriate forum for this. As I've already mentioned, it would appear this project was created without the consensus usually expected. Community consensus must be reached on this issue. Discussing the virtues of the project inside the project would not open the debate to the wider community and would not allow them to give the necessary consensus. This is not an issue within a WikiProject, it's about a WikiProject's appropriateness to exist.

g) WP:CIVIL accusations. Claiming that merging a project with another program is by no means a breach of WP:CIVIL. I really don't see how discussion of the similarities and possible merger of projects could be seen as uncivil, when the aim of the policy is more or less to prevent people from being dicks. But for the sake of continuing discussion, Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User doesn't have members or a leadership, so presumably it is acceptable for the community as a whole to discuss whether these project's goals are so similar they could be merged. And, ultimately, any program or project in Wikipedia is subject to the community's consensus.

h) WP:COI accusations. COI is when an editor allows outside interest influence their Wikipedia work. Disagreeing with something isn't a COI unless forces outside Wikipedia are at play.

i) WP:AGF accusations. No one here doubts that the project was created with anything but the best of intentions. The assumption that those in favour of the article's deletion are assuming bad faith could indeed be seen as a breach of WP:AGF itself. That leads to a vicious circle naturally, but I don't think any party in this deletion isn't assuming good faith.

Please could people reply under this referring to the letter as to not breaking it up. Computerjoe's talk 18:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting: if projects that have a hierarchy should be deleted, and projects that do not have a hierarchy cannot object to having new responsibilities foisted upon them, then no one can ever violate WP:CIVIL by volunteering a project's time and effort to tasks outside project scope that no one has agreed to perform. If someone tried to delete WikiProject Oregon and expand the responsibilities of WikiProject California using that rationale, the nomination would be speedily closed and kept. Durova^Charge! 21:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it's a WP:CIVIL issue. But the Oregon and California one is common sense. In this one, different individuals' common senses are telling them different things so we must discuss it. Computerjoe's talk 21:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The relevant WP:CIVIL clause has been quoted above. It's equally common sense that showing a new user how to read an edit history is vastly different from proposing an arbitration motion to allow a sitebanned editor to write a featured article. To be blunt about it, how much have you done of either? Durova^Charge! 22:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe that an experienced editor would make a debate regarding deletion ad hominem. My experience on Wikipedia is completely irrelevant to this discussion, where we are discussing this project's suitability. Whilst I can assure you I am far from inexperienced, I do not think there is any requirement for me to do so. Computerjoe's talk 16:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• This project is utter nonsense, a waste of time, and unlikely to be helpful. But, keep- deletion discussions are poor venue for trying to decide what's a good idea or not. The people who waste time trying to coddle trolls will have to learn on their own why it's a bad idea. Friday (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read my comments and you'll change your mind. If there is ever any hint of troll-coddling, I'll personally nominate the project for deletion if it can't be solved internally. This is going to be tougher than the way most vandal fighters deal with vandals. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Move to WP:AAU - This could make a very good task-force for Adopt-a-User. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 19:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The logic of that proposal is escaping me. If this is a good project, there is not need to move it anywhere. If it is a bad project then where is the justification for circumventing the decision to get rid of it by moving it to AAU? Besides, as you already know, there is rather less than warm unanimous support for the idea at AAU. At the end of the day, it is for AAU to accept the idea, not for this MfD to impose it on them and consequently the proposal should rightly be pursued there. SpinningSpark 20:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How is that "less than warm unanimous support"? One person is expressing concerns, thats not the big no you've painted it to be!Drew Smith What I've done 23:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, I think we're overlooking section (b) of Computerjoe's summary. This project has never even passed through WikiProject Proposals, or the Village Pump? How are to we even think of merging it into other projects without a formed initial consensus? That just sounds odd to me. ^blurred_peace ☮ 20:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete with fire, brimstone, glyphosate, napalm, vats of acid, and irradiate the ground on which it stood (just in case) The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'll never understand why we encourage disruptive editors by showering them with the attention they crave. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, I believe Short Brigade Harvester Boris's above comment was a waste of everyone's time, we're not "showering disruptive editors with attention they crave", and by the way, calm down, it's cyberspace, not real life I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Though it wasn't the most constructive edit, the first section made a great summarizing point and it added a little humor. When people get too serious, they snap. ^blurred_peace ☮ 00:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

HOW DARE YOU TELL ME TO CALM DOWN!!!!! AND I AM NOT ABOUT TO SNAP1!!!1!!1!!!!! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me put this more explicitly: (1) How will you keep this from turning into the UN Commission on Human Rights, where the very worst offenders join the organization so they can pervert its original intent and protect their own misconduct? (2) How will you distinguish editors who truly want to reform from those who want to learn how to be disruptive or push their POV while flying just under the radar? (Do you think they're going to tell you?) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, It's a good idea for those who want to come back I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: while I signed up, Rareriroru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s actions probably wouldn't have happened were it not for the this wikiproject. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence for this claim. I have now discovered why you mention this user/vandal,[2] and to blame the project for their actions doesn't seem proper, or am I completely misunderstanding you? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Scepter, this project isn't for assisting editors like the vandal you just mentioned. I suspect this vandal followed someone over to the project and thus the reason for disruption. It's not fair to say that because a vandal attacked the project that this project is being attempted to aid editors like this. My thoughts were to aid the community with editors that constantly appear on AN/I, AN or ARB. My understanding is that the editors would be editors that can contribute usefully but emotions get in the way too often. I can think of a few editors that might be helped with this kind of project that has problems getting resolved at the various boards do to friendships and being on opposing POV's. I just don't think naming any of the editors in this venue would be proper. The longer this deletion discussion goes on the more negative attentions the project is going to receive. Why don't some of you go to the project and make suggestions there? If you have time to post here at length then surely you have a moment to post there to see if this is workable. I think this is all the editors are asking for, time to see if it can become a workable project that helps the community thus the whole project. I am not that active right now for RL reasons but was told I could still help out until I go on my wiki break. Also, Bishonen, you said "The "Open to all comers" worries me", just pulled this one comment from more comments for clarifying. For the life of me, I don't see this anywhere on the project. Would you or anyone else dif it so that it can be corrected? Thanks! --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

comment. Crohnie's take on who this project is designed to help is exactly my own, too. And, IMO, it fits perfectly into WP's reason-for-being and culture for us to endeavor to help rehabilitate otherwise-constructive WPdians whose only fault is over-enthusiasm or too blazing of heat in whatever instance of editorial POV they support. (Eg whose demeanor was spoofed, above, by Short Brigade Harvester Boris. (At least I T-H-I-N-K that was a spoof! ;^) )) ↜Just M E here , now 16:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. While this discussion is probably headed for "no consensus to delete", I have to put my opinion anyway: this smells Of the Association of Members' Advocates and Esperanza, which is a seriously bad sign. For users that will benefit from rehabilitation, there are already options. Better to nip this in the bud now than to have a more explosive problem later. — Gavia immer (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This project is a great idea: frankly I have no idea why nobody has thought of it before. It provides a chance for editors who wish to reform to have another go, whilst being regulated to make sure that they do not resume their old habits. It would be foolish to delete this. Fahrenheit 14:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

We have thought of this before; it even exists. It's called Adopt-a-User. We're just adding on more complexities to this chain by placing this useless layer on top of functioning ones. ^blurred_peace ☮ 23:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Adopt-a-User can only deal with one-on-one situations. That isn't always the best possible answer. This allows for the possibility of a group of individuals to perhaps assist an editor with problems, an option which doesn't seem to exist in the regular Adopt-a-User program. John Carter (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Procedural note The WikiCouncil Proposal has now been made [3]. Whilst this should have been done before the project were created, I commend that the editors involved are now willing to seek the community's consensus. Computerjoe's talk 16:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick correction. It wasn't an unwillingness, Brangifer (SP?) didn't know. After this was brought to my attention, I made the proposal, as consensus is what its all about.Drew Smith What I've done 23:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not an unwillingness. I didn't realize what the usual procedure (which is often ignored with no complaints) was. It isn't even an absolute requirement, as far as I know. There are many projects which have been started without following this procedure, which is indeed an extra "bureaucratic layer" that attempts to take decisions out of the hands of the community. Community members are allowed to form groups of common interest. If those groups need more official rights or powers, they will naturally use the available processes and use them or seek them. Until then, any hindrance is just prior censorship. Here are a few examples of projects which haven't followed this procedure:

• Paranormal
• Rational skepticism
• Alternative medicine

I don't find anything in the archives that indicates that they started by using this process.

As to seeking consensus, THIS discussion will form the consensus, not the little group of editors who happen to comment on that little discussion at the Proposal page. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't throw words like censorship and ignorance[4] around, please. If you're already getting this worked-up about a civil discussion I fear what could happen when you have to deal with vandals. Furthermore, do I really need to explain that since your group wants to work with people it is much more important to scrutinize its goals and development than that of a group dealing with ghosts? (No offence, Paranormal Project). Yintaɳ  08:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Good grief, you have to be kidding. Keep, this project has potential. That said, I think only experienced users and administrators who have shown they are capable should join. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 09:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)