Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User Rehab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject User Rehab
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject User Rehab, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the effort to assist editors who have serious behavioral issues, and who may even have been banned, so that they might be rehabilitated and gradually allowed to resume productive editing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Project supporters and mentorsProject Link 2 (not yet active)Project Link 3 (not yet active)

Getting started[edit]

Let's develop a system where problematic editors who have potential can be rehabilitated. Anyone who has concerns for such an effort, and also editors who have experience with creating projects, are very welcome! Let's brainstorm.

-- Brangifer (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Project publicized at these places...[edit]

Project added/recommended at these places:

-- Brangifer (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. --Abce2|AccessDenied 01:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please visit the links above and ensure that a discussion gets going and that this project gets the support it deserves. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Who's worth saving?[edit]

I just looked at Xeno's comments and the editor whom Xeno unblocked. Wow! I'm amazed that they became a productive editor. I wouldn't have unblocked them. That editor needed to learn something about proper behavior.

Maybe this project can be a stepping stone between an unblock and full freedom. Unblock them only on the condition they "go into rehab" with this project. When the project members consider the rehab to have been successful, then let them go.

This is part of what we need to decide with this project: What are the necessary steps to achieve full rehabilitation? We'll be getting editors who have really screwed up big time, have incurred the wrath of many editors, and no one trusts them. We'll need to ensure that we're not letting them back into the project to wreak havoc and game the system. That would really undermine this project. We'll need to be strict, but give them hope. Should we use an oversight committee to monitor their progress? What benchmarks of progress will they need to pass before moving on to the next step? I suspect that participants here who know something about rehab programs can provide some good input here. I welcome all suggestions. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am leaning toward agreement with BullRangifer. Would need to bring this up on the unblock talk pages so that admins could weigh in on whether a "work-release program" under the supervision of someone from this project would be something they would want to consider as a step toward unblocking. Also have we considered making this project just a subset of the existing adoption programs, where expesicially problematic editors would only be assigned to the more experienced mentors?    7   talk Δ |   04:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I definitely think this project can work closely with (and even as part of) other efforts. The "See also" links point to some other related areas. What this project can do is to formalize the process, make it very open, and make sure that the community has its input. The community should decide if they are reformed/rehabilitated enough to be allowed back. That requires openness at every step of the way, which is why I suggested that we create subpages for each "patient" who is being rehabilitated. Those subpages should be open to everyone. We'll also need a checklist of benchmarks of progress so all can see at what phase the process has arrived for each patient. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. I think the process should be a 1 on 1 experience. I think it should be a mostly private affair, so mistakes can't be used against them later on. Once the mentor decides the "patient" is ready to be released "into the wild" he/she can make public the pages used for rehab so the community can decide if the "patient" is really ready or not.Drew Smith What I've done 08:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this is, in general, an excellent idea ( very nice work BullRangifer) since Wikipedia is not supposed to be punitive, and presently much of banning and blocking carries a sense of punishment about it. With that in mind, I would suggest that all editors are worth saving, and efforts should be made to help those who want to reenter Wikipedia. I agree very much with Drew above. Let the editor be mentored by one other editor, and then when the mentor feels his pupil is ready bring in the community.(olive (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

Recruitment drive[edit]

Can I join, or is there something else I have to do? --Abce2|Howdy! 21:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! This is a new project and we need to have more editors who will support the idea, provide suggestions, and help develop the project. -- Brangifer(talk) 22:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've joined. What should I do now to help the project? --Abce2|Howdy! 22:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Good. Now can you figure out which category this project should be listed under? We need other ideas and resources. If there is a similar project, then we might merge with them or establish a formal collaboration. Find out anything you can about problem (often banned) editors who might be worth saving, any other methods used to help them, others who might be willing to help here, etc.. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

About the asking other editors who are willing to help part, do I just ask them? Could you also please reply on my talk page from now on? Thanks. --Abce2|AccessDenied 22:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. If you know another editor who might share such concerns, let them know about the project and invite them to join. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to get more people. --Abce2|AccessDenied 00:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes! I got someone to join! Finally! --Abce2|AccessDenied 02:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
More poeple! --Abce2|AccessDenied 02:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You are one good recruiter! Thanks so much. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

{{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} But you are the one who stated it all. So here, take this tea. You deserve it. --Abce2|AccessDenied 03:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks! How about continuing this on the project's talk page? If you feel comfortable doing so, feel free to copy this whole section there, and give it a heading like "Recruitment drive", for example. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Abce2|AccessDenied 03:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Nachos! Sorry, I just couldn't keep hold it in. --Abce2|AccessDenied 04:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It's alive!!! --Abce2|AccessDenied 04:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow, lots of the participent squares now. --Abce2|AccessDenied 04:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have told a couple of editors about this project and have a few others in mind that I will inform if they haven't been. I am interested in this project and think the goals here are wonderful. I will sign up when I get a response to a question I asked an editor because I'm not sure if the timing for me to sign up is appropriate me for me right now do to RL situation. Anyways, I am still going to let editors know about this project because I think it would become an asset to the project. Should the arbcom committe and/or the arb members somehow be in the loop with this since they do a lot of the sanctioning? Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You can already sign up now as a supporter. The ArbCom members will probably end up including this project as a part of their sanctions. Right now we have eligibility for parole after a certain time, but it isn't parole, but full freedom. Some very problematic users should go into rehab before being set loose on the project again. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I did sign up. I agree that this rehab could be a good way to help with a lot of the problems that occur at the project. I really hope this works too. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

How old is this project?[edit]

Am I too late at the party? :-) ZooFari 04:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Acually, it's just stating. --Abce2|AccessDenied 04:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

User box[edit]

Moved from project page:
Is there a template box for this project, for members to display on their user page?
Along the lines of this........
WikiProject Barack Obama This user is a participant in the
Barack Obama WikiProject.
I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It has now been transcluded to the project page. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to try to make a new userbox as the current one is a little blaisé.Drew Smith What I've done 08:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. It uses the national mentorship month logo, which was a free image. I used that pic because we will basically be mentoring the rehab patient.Drew Smith What I've done 08:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering if we should do anything to make it perfectly clear that we aren't just "members" but are in fact "mentors", or "sponsors" or another word that would not leave people confused that we ourselves were in or through rehab (not that there's anything wrong with that). Also new logo has conflicting colors with the background and the project link.    7   talk Δ |   09:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that something needs to be done. The color and size issues are noted on the userbox talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I will fix the userbox. How about "Participant"? ZooFari 14:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Members or supporters?[edit]

Just wondering if we should do anything to make it perfectly clear that we aren't just "members" but are in fact "mentors", or "sponsors" or another word that would not leave people confused that we ourselves were in or through rehab (not that there's anything wrong with that). Also new logo has conflicting colors with the background and the project link.    7   talk Δ |   09:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest "supporters", as there can be no confusion with that word. If this is accepted, then the project page should be gone through and it substituted for other words already in use. I've already done it with the userbox. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I made a suggestion above. How about "participants"? ZooFari 14:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
That might work (and was the first word used), but those in rehab can be considered "participants" by those who aren't familiar with the terminology used by supporters of the project. We need something totally unambiguous. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Moral support[edit]

  • Due to being nearly burned out by the effort of trying to more or less do this and getting overburdened, I am not joining at this time. Yet the basic idea of an organized effort to get problematic editors on track is a very good one. If successful it could save large amounts of time and effort that have been getting wasted on 'drama'. Remember, recurrent drama is often a symptom of bad process and/or lack of organization. Wishing the new project well. DurovaCharge! 18:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Sigh. I do think that this is a good idea, and also offer my moral support. I too do not know how much time I have for it; it certainly will require a lot of time. I don't know how it will be organized, but I will say that if we team up Rehab Supporters one-on-one with Parolees, that we place a huge burden on those Supporters. What if I am not available for a couple of days while my parolee is having a meltdown. It might be best if it worked along the lines of WP:AIV, where those who are available check in on need.
Oh hell, I don't know. I want to sign up, but I don't want to be another name that doesn't really participate in a project, as I think half the members of most Wikipedia Projects are. How about this: Can someone tell me what my/our role will be if we become Supporters? Unschool 00:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess supporters would just help with general maintenance of the project page. Perhaps run the newsletter, discuss policies, while the actual mentors would be the ones doing the 1 on 1 stuff. Again, this project is just getting started, so there really isn't much set in sone.Drew Smith What I've done 01:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A viable alternative[edit]

[Continued from above]

Echoing Durova: I want to register my approval of the concept in general; bringing users back in the fold to be productive is always a net positive. I was the admin who unblocked the editor described here who then went on to become a constructive contributor. This project has gotten off on the wrong foot, I would advise regrouping and perhaps beginning Wikipedia:WikiProject Mentorship (taking into account the concerns raised at MFD) or reinvigorate the Mentorship Committee. –xenotalk 04:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a viable alternative. Something needed to be done. There was a missing link at the bottom of the DR template. I tried and really wished for something good to happen. It got sabotaged by Computerjoe, or whatever he's called. There should be a rule against MfD's so soon. This one was based on suppositions, bad omens, bad personal experiences with other failed projects, etc., not on facts. That's an illegitimate basis for an MfD. Only facts are real evidence, IOW no evidence was presented, because the project hadn't had time enough to develop enough to produce any real and lasting facts. My mistake was apparently that I acted in good faith, and didn't have a completely well-thought out (in public) agenda with supporters before going public. My bad. So much for acting in good faith. It gets punished by the likes of Computerjoe, who has no facts, but lots of suppositions and has the audacity to act on them in such a rough manner, and then intimidates the opposition by placing warnings on their user pages! Right now the bad faith exercised against me by another "supporter" has left me pretty empty and discouraged. Good luck. I hope that all this effort isn't totally in vain. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Subpages for parolees[edit]

Moved from project page

Here we should have a list of parolee subpages (one for each parolee). -- Brangifer (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

We really need to move away from using such criminal justice-inspired language. –xeno talk 14:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, I think we should stay within the normal terms already used in the project, ie; banned editor, mentor, and so on. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

List of editors[edit]

I am reading a lot in the AFD about editors who do not have enough editing time to be volunteering to help other editors. This seems to be one area that should be addressed too. Some of the comments there should be gone over here separately and addressed. I am starting with this part. What are the thoughts about limiting the editors list to a certain amount of edits and/or a certain time span here on the project so that the editors have been here long enough to understand and know policies and guidelines themselves. Thoughts? --CrohnieGalTalk 14:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I addressed a similar concern on the mainpage. However, edit count or time spent here are not neccessarily an indicator of experience. I think we should devise a fast, but useful test that a potential mentor has to take. As for the final decision of the community, I think anyone should be able to participate. Also, maybe make the mentorship a 3 on 1, so each mentor can double check the others?Drew Smith What I've done 23:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
There has to be some way to control though. Like I mean making sure this isn't used by vandals to get a pass. The object of this, at least my understanding of it it to help good contributors that have problems keeping their emotions and so forth in check. Just watch the ANI board for a few days and you'll see how the drama picks up and some of the editors are there over and over with no actions taken because of friendships or whatever. This is at least part of what this project was trying to find solutions for. Am I wrong? --CrohnieGalTalk 12:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Well yes and no. While it would be ideal to grab those people and force them through rehab, we cant. Until there is some action taken against a user, or about to be taken, we wouldn't really be able to do anything. If the community doesn't think a user did something wrong, we can't very well say "Yes he did! I'm sentencing you to rehab!" because 1)that would totally discredit the roject, and 2)how would we enforce something like that? But I agree, we cant let vandals use this project as a pass. My guess is admins would impose restrictions on rehab users, and swing hard with a banhammer if they mess up again.Drew Smith What I've done 02:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The userbox[edit]

Someone needs to work on getting it to able to be put on the userbox page. --Abce2|AccessDenied 02:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just put it there. Anyone can do it. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant doing the transclude. --Abce2|AccessDenied 15:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion mentioning some banned users[edit]

[Moved from project page to avoid confusion. These are not official candidates, but just some information and discussion that occurred previously.]
NOTE: These are NOT official candidates.
  • Currently a one-edit exceptional permission is being attempted for a banned editor (ScienceApologist) who has excellent potential, but whose behavior has been quite antagonistic and counterproductive. If such an attempt works, this may form the basis for continued development. (The attempt is currently on hold, but the comments are interesting.) This project will hopefully be so strict that even SA wouldn't pass the muster without radical reform. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • There is also a mandatory mentorship, about to go underway with Popartpete once his block has been lifted. Again, this user has excellent potential, hidden behind a counterprductive method of communication. Drew Smith What I've done
  • Please provide relevant links for this. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • My apologies, the entire conversation is on his talk page. Basically, he edited ignorant of relevant policies, attacked people who pointed it out, got blocked, and I (one of the attacked) proposed mentorship as an alternative to a permanent block.Drew Smith What I've done 08:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Mentors - admins or not?[edit]

Now that the MfD has been closed without any consensus, we can move forward. One of the big disagreements seemed to center around who the admins should be. I have always figured that experienced admins with mentoring experience would be the best thing, but many disagree. What think ye? Let's get a discussion going. Nothing is set in stone.

I can see a change towards just requiring that they have mentoring experience possibly working, but they'd need to work closely with an admin or two who has access to tools and back channel communication and information sources. If each candidate were assigned a mentor and an admin (they would volunteer) as part of a team to help them, that might work. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I made my opinion clear at the MFD, but anyway, not all administrators can mentor effectively. There's the issue, also, if you make the criteria for who can be a mentor too narrow, there will not be enough mentors to go around. No, I think that if a user can demonstrate they have sufficient experience in dealing with problematic users, that should be adequate. As for admin involvement with regards to non-admin mentors, I see nothing wrong with using noticeboards if necessary. Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 13:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I basically agree. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, I've gotten great advice from folks a tier or two above the admin crowd. But this is really not about bits, it's about clue. I chat with folks like Durova a lot, too, and she's not currently an admin (here). Did you know that, in a prior life, I started the Wikipedia:Mentorship page? Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I offended you by refactoring the indentation of your comment. No offense was intended. I just wished to use the most commonly used method of indenting on talk pages, which would make your comment easily noticeable. Before my comment above, it flowed together with the previous comment and I might not have noticed it when normally reading the page, but whatever. It's your choice.
One of the things that got me rethinking this was Durova. If she would be excluded as a mentor just because she is no longer an admin, that would be a travesty. I hold her wisdom, fairness, and experience here in high regard. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for jumping in and out of this discussion, but I would tend to agree. The ability and experience necessary to mentor should probably not be limited to admins.. Although many admins would be excellent, being an admin is no guarantee that one has experience or abilities in this area. Perhaps, there should be a list of qualifications established which mentors would have to fulfill; maybe qualifications that lean towards those who have good people skills as shown in their edits and discussion histories. Perhaps someone like Durova who has already taken on a mentorship might have a very good idea of what was needed and or helpful as she worked through a mentoring situation. One hates to limit mentors since there may not be that many to go around. At the same time some criteria would be necessary if the mentors and program are to be successful. Dilemma but hopefully workable (olive (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC))
Individuals who are appropriate for mentoring roles are rare, as are BANPLE who will actually walk the whole road successfully. There is a pretty long history of this sort of thing running amok, so unless some solid new insight is on-offer, this is a non-starter. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I indented to indicate to whom I was posting to; we have pages about how to do this. ’twas all quite conventional.
Mentorship iz serius biznis. Durova is not currently taking folks on because if a number of issues; her call, her biznis. I remain unconvinced of the need for or appropriateness of this project. We certainly don't need Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab/Newsletter or talk-page-spam of same; nor Rehab/Clerks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, serious enough that there are many editors here who feel this program is needed and might work. The fact that we have one successful mentor who can't or is unable take on more may mean that more are needed, nor is there reason to believe that there are no other editors in an encyclopedia this size with the capabilities to mentor. It would seem that whatever is in place now doesn't work otherwise this suggestion /workshop situation would probably not exist. Durova seems to be the experience and good example of what could work.
I would think you are suggesting that I am not serious about this. I am in fact deadly serious. First I have a very intense interest in online communities and how they work. Wikipedia is one of the first of those ... So what works here also may work for other communities. Wikipedia also loses intelligent editors every year who could become strong contributors if given personal specific-to- them guidance.
PS It would be a mistake to confuse a sense of humour with a lack of seriousness when the issues require it.
I realize my comments above and possibly what is in place now about how this might work could very well create or creates a bureaucratic muddle. So I would add another suggestion in the spirit of brainstorming and that is: That there be two simple objective criteria for mentoring: one that the that perspective mentor not have been blocked in one year, and two that the mentor have at least two years of Wikipedia experience. Then, possibly experienced mentors and other editors could create a list of what the "job" requires and mentors who qualify with the above two criteria could self select.
I think one thing to realize here is that mentoring is a common every day occurrence among people. People advise each other all the time. We can make this all too "precious". Adding some simple formality to that natural process and allowing mentoring to go on under the eyes of the community can only be a win/win situation. If the person mentored doesn't reintegrate, well, the loss of that editor already existed. If the editor does re enter Wikipedia, the community gains an editor, and potentially a very strong one since that person had the desire and fortitude to go through a mentoring program/process. As I said above, some thoughts in the spirit of brainstorming.(olive (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

Am I correct that there is a consensus for not requiring mentors to be admins, but rather for experienced users with mentoring experience? If so, I'll delete such requirements from the project page. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think so too, make the change. I am trying to catch up on the recent developements now and will try to contribute suggestions or changes. I am making some off site notes about things I've been watching that might help us develope ideas that are different than already used. There has been attempts recently to allow banned editors to return under strict restrictions and so far I haven't seen any successful attempts yet. The closest I've seen is with Durova mentoring with SA. He is still banned for now but did have his rewrite moved here by proxy. Watching some of this at Optics has been interesting with the different feedbacks from other editors. --CrohnieGalTalk 10:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)



I am by no means this project's biggest fan.

My primary concern at the MfD was being overly bureaucratic.

Could this be simplified from a project into simply a list of administrators willing to provide mentorship? This would facilitate many of this project's aims but strip the bureaucracy? Computerjoe's talk 20:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Or other experienced editors, for that matter. Whatever is decided best. Computerjoe's talk 20:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm cool with that. In fact, I may have my first user on his way to useful contributing. User:Bambifan101 has done a slew of socks both here and at Simple English, but I think he can be successfully mentored. He's agreed to participate per our converstion on his last sock's talk page at Simple. At worst, he can always be blocked/banned again if he starts in, but if he's sincere, we'll have a good new editor. I admit to looking forward to this. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

More views about this proposal please? Computerjoe's talk 14:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. I think a list would cover it. Like I've said before, I don't know what the rest of the group is for? I added this 2 days ago : Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_Rehab#Non-Administrator.27s_role_in_the_project, and it is still undefined. Meanwhile, potential candidates are being discussed (and rejected) not here on the project page or project talk page, but here: [1] looks like jumping ahead (and off project).
However, perhaps this should also be brought up on the project proposal page? I don't know. --stmrlbs|talk 01:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
What we are doing in the conversation you mention Stmrlbs is watching how someone was given a chance through the committee and how it is going only a week after being unblocked. With the MFD a lot was said about this project and I for one am doing a bit of research as suggested. This project here needs to be defined but with all the off page conversations that occurred to get it deleted we now have to regroup and get our thoughts again I think. As for a list only, I don't see how just having a list without some kind of directions of what this new project hopes to achieve or how is useful. If a list is all you want then the MFD would have deleted this because IMO we don't need another list here. I think some conversation here is needed to first see if we can get a group of editors together again to try to work on this. The long delay seems to have gotten a lot of editors to forget about this project, I hope they will return with ideas. I think for mentors, I like the idea myself that editors can mentor if they know how. We have to first decide what qualifies for a mentor. Do we have one mentor per editor or do we have more than one? How long, how many edits and so on is another thing mentioned for becoming a mentor. I don't think administrators have to be mentors only because they have tools. We just have to have admin. to be available if the tools are needed and that is just a board or two away if needed. There is a lot to do, I just don't get why I feel or anyone else is under pressure to give all the answers right now and immediate. We don't have all the answers yet but we are trying to get ourselves organized again. Please be patient. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

To fend off assumptions of bad faith, and with the permission of CrohnieGal, I am copying the above mentioned section below and making it a subsection: -- Brangifer (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a case that might NOT be of interest to the WP:REHAB[edit]

This was an indefinitely blocked editor who arbcom decided to change and give a chance to 'rehab' back into the project. I think this gives an example big time of what the project will be dealing with. Check out the following; [2] and [3]. Read the talk page of this user through history as he deletes a lot of discussions that he is uncomfortable with. I know about this from the middle of the problems. I went to the CFS page and saw and participated a bit trying to calm the waters a bit but with no success on my part. I think this is a good example of what the Rehab project would experience and with this editor it's not just the for/against element. This editor has touched people across the boards. I think you should check this out because it's leaving me feeling that maybe we need to rethink the rehab project. It does show what some of the other editors were worried about I think but I would like your thoughts on this. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 09:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Without even looking at the links (yet), is this user interested in returning? Are they interested in reforming? Do they see and understand the errors of their ways? I don't see the project's job to be forcing reform on someone who neither sees the need for it nor can see the need for it. I suspect that good candidates will have been banned for some time and have had time to really rethink their approach to Wikipedia. How do these questions apply to this situation? -- Brangifer (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes the user is interested in returning and apparently used arbcom email to get himself unblocked. Of course I don't know all the details of the unblock though.I would think though to get unblocked after the community overwhelming was discouraged. Right now with what has been going on since I posted to you it's not going well. The battle lines are being drawn and so far he seems to be on his own as he is burning a lot of bridges he had to have built. I would suggest you read the ANI. I think you should also know that Cool Hand Luke was part of this and now has recused himself from the situation. So, no I am not suggesting this editor for the rehab program. What I am suggesting is for you to read how this is going because if this new project is going to work then we have to see what is not working verses what might work and this time it looks like a 'it's not working' adding this editor back into the project, I sure hope I am wrong though. Just thought this could be an experience for you to read so as some have said, we know and understand what others have tried and failed at. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Although I was hopeful, as Guido wont acknowledge anything to do with his block, the two arbcom reviews of it, and is now wikilawyering about his topic ban and insulting editors all over, I'd advise you not to touch this. It's a shame, and sorry for the run-on sentence. Verbal chat 17:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Verbal, I wasn't suggesting involvement, just reading what has happened since I don't think Brangifer knows this editors history. I was suggesting it to see how badly things might go for the rehab program. I think this can teach us for the betterment of the project being started. Good luck with Abd too! ;) --CrohnieGalTalk 17:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I took a look at the situation and it's a poisonous atmosphere. This is a good illustration of why I think the rehab project must be for truly repentant users, those who have realized the errors of their ways, are willing to be taught, and taught about exactly why their previous behavior got them into trouble. They should not be coddled or shown any sympathy, at least not for their behavior. They must realize how truly bad it was. We don't need this type of user in the project or at Wikipedia. I don't want to waste the project's time and to have editors who have been mentored and helped by the project go out and resume their bad behavior. No, that mustn't happen. That's why I suspect that very few banned users will be able (or wish) to avail themselves of this service. It should be a sort of reform school, and that's not all fun and games. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you know anymore about the unblocking? Why was he unblocked? Was there any demonstration of repentance? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, sure don't, it was apparently done through the use of email with the committee or some other means. The topic ban sounds like it was originally agreed to but then you see where it's been going. Sorry, don't know the answers that is why I thought this might be of interest because it was done out of view and seems to be not working. I don't know if the reasons can be got, maybe CHL can say? --CrohnieGalTalk 11:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


As this project will undoubtedly require a lot of participations by both administrators and the Arbitration Committee, I have a few questions:

  • Has any attempt been made to discuss this with a large group of administrators? Have any posts been made to the administrators noticeboards asking for opinions or likely participation?
  • Has any attempt been made to engage the ArbCom for their thoughts on this project?

Just curious. AniMatedraw 00:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned the project to the Arbitration Committee in relation to a matter they currently have under discussion, but that's the only contact I am personally aware of. John Carter (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't done that yet. We would cross that bridge when we came to it, but the project had barely started and I was waiting to see if anyone would even support it. I was very pleasantly surprised! Since by far most banned and indef blocked users aren't blocked by the ArbCom, it wouldn't always be necessary to contact ArbCom, but sometimes it might definitely be advisable to have their input and cooperation before taking on someone they had banned. Note that they only ban for one year, after which time the user can return without any form of rehab, even if they might need it... Community blocks and bans can be indefinite, and some of those users might need the services of this project, a project run by the community who blocked or banned them. That's the idea. This project is so new that there are some things we just haven't had time to do, and the MfD put a real monkey wrench in the works as far as proper development goes. I wish the criticisms and advice that were voiced there had just been voiced here as constructive criticism in attempts to help. There they were often voiced as attempts to destroy, and some of the comments were quite strident and hateful, for some unknown reason. It almost seemed as if they had personally been harmed by the very idea of the project and were retaliating. There really was no call for such violent rhetoric as used by some commenters. Thankfully we can now get on with constructive criticisms and advice. We need help and welcome it. I do appreciate your suggestions AniMate. You have obviously been thinking and I suspect you could help us avoid some serious blunders. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Another question:
  • Do you know the process for getting a community ban lifted?
For most of these really problematic editors, this project's goals likely won't be enough to convince most administrators to unblock. You'll have to go through ArbCom. The fact that you haven't discussed this with the administrators corps or ArbCom show the level of planning and thought that went into this ill-conceived project. AniMatedraw 23:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
What has disturbed me is that I have several times seen community banned (not by ArbCom) editors have their bans or indef blocks lifted by (usually the blocking) admins without enough significant community input. I would like to see that all of the initially involved parties were called in to take part in the decision, all done in the form of an RFC/U. Reverting a community decision is a serious matter. If ArbCom has been involved in the matter, they should be approached first before doing anything. I'm sure there are other aspects to the matter and since you are being constructive, I'm sure you will be able to help. If we can convince the community that the basic idea is good (and even the critics have AGF on that matter), the "how" of getting it done is what is to be worked out now. This is new territory and we need newthinking. When good guidelines have been formed using the necessary input received from various parties, then we'll have something that just might work and it'll get more backing and be used. If hindrances are continually placed in the way of this developmental process, then it will be harder to get (what most agree is a basically good idea) this to happen. I hope you will share your experience and wisdom with us. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Steps in rehab process[edit]

Please contribute to a development of this new section. Some steps may not have been included, and others may need changing. I wrote this rather quickly and may well have overseen something. Let's brainstorm. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for mentor[edit]

Hi, I recently received a request for mentorship from a banned user who is seeking to appeal his status. As the participants here are aware, I have stopped accepting new mentorships. Yet he seems quite cooperative and I promised to seek a different mentor for him. Due to his editing status communication needs to take place offsite; would a prospective mentor email me please? Thanks, DurovaCharge! 15:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I would love to help but at this time RL is in the way. I am prepping for spinal surgery so I can't/won't get involved in this type of area for the time being. I suspect it will be more months down the road for me to assist anyone by myself. But I can help watch and guide if another editor volunteers to take the lead on this. I would do what I can to help. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

User box and category[edit]

The user box needs to be made in such a way as to automatically place the user in the Project's category. The category will need to be made. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for development[edit]

Moved from main page.
  • The complement I have realized that users feel flattered when given complements. ZooFari 04:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I suspect you mean "compliment", and yes, encouragement is what some need, but often after they've been given a spanking ;-) Well,.... that's actually where they are after having been banned. Now they're in the naughty corner, but they want to play again. Let's give them the chance IF they really are willing to reform. That's a very big IF. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I wrote this late at night :) ZooFari 21:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • We'll need a central place (where is best?) where banned editors can apply for rehabilitation, and where they will be pointed to this project. We'll also need an application form. This should be done openly, not secretly. Avoiding the scrutiny of other editors is already forbidden here, and an open process, where mentors, admins, and a community consensus a la an RfC/U will be used as part of the process to get them back in circulation. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we could put links on all the pages having to do with blocks? Or, if there is a special page listing newly blocked users, we could patroll that page and post links to possible candidates.Drew Smith What I've done 05:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I love your thinking! This is very constructive. Keep coming with good ideas. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If there isn't a special page like this, maybe we could request one? Kinda like the new articles and new users page.Drew Smith What I've done 05:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Take a look at User talk:Popartpete to get an example of how something like this might work in practice. It should be moved to a centalised subpage, within the project, but it's a start.Drew Smith What I've done 05:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Blocked editors are often able to edit their own talk page and use the Wikipedia email function, but sometimes they're blocked from doing those things too. I suggest: a template like {{unblock}}, perhaps named Template:Mentor request or something, that blocked users can put on their talk page to get the attention of people on this project. The template could put their talk page into a category, and a link from this page could allow members of the project to conveniently check the category from time to time. Also, in the list of members below, we could have a column for "are you willing to receive emails from applicants"; and for banned users who are blocked from using the Wikipedia email system, perhaps someone would be willing to put their email address here; or possibly we could get an email list started up for that purpose. Coppertwig (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I found this on the deletion page, and we could use this because, well, open to all comers really is a problem if it's a 1 on 1 thing. check it out:
"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. "Drew Smith What I've done 09:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Where is this "open to all comers" wording found here? We may need to look at it and fix it. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Subcategories need to be created to prevent a growing mess[edit]

Anyone good at making categories and subcategories is welcome to clean this up before it gets too messy:

-- Brangifer (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance[edit]

I have received a request from User:Greg park avenue to assist him. He is currently banned for a year, and has been for some six months. Would the rest of you be interested in taking this individual on, and, if so, any assistance in how to format the request would be greatly appreciated. Personally, I have reason to believe he would likely be a good editor if allowed to return. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Editors are invited to discuss the matter here:
Investigation of the background is important at this phase. We need to understand the background, hear Greg himself, and get input from others. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for mentors[edit]

Earlier this week I made a private announcement of intention to phase out/hand over all my existing mentorships. Am seeking new mentors for at least 3, possibly 5 editors. All of them are experienced Wikipedians, some with barnstars and featured credits. Resignation was not due to difficulties with any of the people being mentored. Please contact me for details. DurovaCharge! 15:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nudge. One of the editors no longer needs assistance. Really could use a mentor for others, though. Please contact. DurovaCharge! 15:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Nudge. Am still waiting for prospective mentors to step forward. Will there be any assistance from this project, please? Durova273 16:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I wish I could help you, but so far my comments at the adoption project (there isn't any mentoring project, since the Mentorship Committee is inactive) and other places haven't gotten any results. Where is a central place for mentors? I don't find any. I have posted a link on this project's main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_Rehab#List_of_potential_mentors. I realize that adoption and mentorship aren't the same thing, but many adopters are also mentors. Do you have any ideas? Where did you usually find mentors before this project started? There is one supporter here who has expressed that they are willing to mentor: User:Abce2. Maybe they can help. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
A couple of people came over to my user talk today. Let's cross our fingers and hope this works out well. Before, it was very informal. People usually volunteered themselves (which was how I wound up mentoring five people). Durova273 04:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Good. Let's hope. It's sad that there is no central notice board for seeking mentors. Is there one for adopters? There is a template to call for adoption {{adoptme}}, but we need one for mentoring {{mentorme}}. What I don't understand is where the notice appears when one uses the "adoptme" template. How do adopters see the call for help? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
When you place the adoptme template you go here. I hope this helps. When doing this search I found an editor using Adoptme as their ID so don't make the mistake of going to the user. :) I wish I could help with all of this but if all goes well my surgery will be done in the first part of next month. With recovery time, that is if the surgery goes as planned, I hope to be more active by the mid to end of next month. I really am interested in helping so if there is anything I can do as backup until my RL gets moving along please don't hesitate to let me know. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
A similar system needs to be set up for mentors and mentees. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thread started[edit]

FYI, a thread has been started in an existing discussion:

-- Brangifer (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Other processes[edit]

I have been notified by Risker of two important procedures that might affect this project. Please review them:

It is important to note that this applies to "appeals from banned or long-term blocked users received by the Committee," not to banned users who appeal through other channels. Regardless, we don't want to interfere with the above. We need to understand it and work with it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Another process:
-- Brangifer (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to get more mentors[edit]

I have sent out feelers here and here with this message:

Two comments:

1. I am seeking mentors who are willing to help those who approach Wikiproject User Rehab in search of a mentor.
2. A system for mentoring similar to the Adoption/adoptee system needs to be set up, with a category, project, {{mentorme}} template, and all. Who has the courage to start such a worthy endeavor?
Please comment here if you are interested or just curious. Brangifer

I hope that we get some responses and the following two subsections can be used. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Potential mentors comment here[edit]

I think this concept has merit. Ultimately, most people here want to impart what they know about various topics, so I think deep down they honestly are working in good faith, however for whatever reason (fanboyism, ownership issues) they go astray. I know in my time here I started out with some of the former issues, but grew out of them and now actively seek out legitimate, reliable information to add to the articles. I was able to do that on my own, and maybe I can help someone else get that way ... with a little nudge here and there, as needed. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you be interested in mentoring people here or elsewhere? Durova has expressed a need for some mentors above. You could contact her. If you're willing to mentor here, please add your name to the supporters' list on the project page and note that you're willing to mentor. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
You're fast! Thanks for signing up. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Also left a message with Durova to see if she still needed help. I'll be glad to do what I can. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Great! Does the following section have any interest? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you interested in starting a mentoring project?[edit]

A system for mentoring similar to the Adoption/adoptee system needs to be set up, with a category, project, {{mentorme}} template, and all. Who has the courage to start such a worthy endeavor? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes ... I think there needs to be a standardized process for how to evaluate problem editors, provide guidelines for the program, etc. The mentors (and supporters) need to have a place to communicate--discuss what's working, what isn't, and so on. Where do I +1? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. While this isn't really the place to do it, we can at least gather some interest here and then move it to another spot. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
BTW, this section isn't solely devoted to this project. Wikipedia itself has a need for a central gathering place for mentors, such as already exists for adopters. We need a system like that. Because it is lacking, we have been having trouble finding interested mentors for this project. If such a system was working, we could establish a relationship with it and could recruit interested mentors for this project. That's why this section is still relevant to this project. We would benefit. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Mentor/screener sought[edit]

Posting per comments by Allstarecho and FayssalF at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Allstarecho. Allstarecho was recently restricted by the community from interacting with or commenting upon Bluemarine. There needs to be a reasonable option for resolving legitimate problems that might arise, while screening out complaints that lack merit. Please respond if interested. Durova294 21:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions[edit]

I see Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions as something strongly related to this project, in that discretionary sanctions may be quite useful for behavioural management and education where problem editors below the radar of arb com get indef blacked (aka de-facto banned). Discretionary sanctions may be invaluable when reintroducing a banned user, in defining the restraints on the user, and assuring the community and past aggrieved parties that a system is in place. Please have a look and add your comments. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up here. It's a new essay and may well be quite useful. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Sorry, I got sidetrack and forgot about this Wikiproject. Hehe...Abce2|This isnot a test 01:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Deradicalizing editors[edit]

My mini essay on the subject is here. For your reading pleasure, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this project still active?[edit]

I see no discussions here for months; also, the Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_Rehab#Candidates_for_rehabilitation seems rather obsolete. Finally: is there no list of mentors? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I consider it active but unused. Someone seeking a mentor would do better to past a note on this talk page, or to approach someone of their choice. Choice of mentor would be an individual decision, with various circumstances needing to be considered. Also, "mentor" may not always be the appropriate word. Sometimes what is needed is a "friend". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment: Long-term abusive users and this project[edit]

Would it be feasible to give long-term abuse users a second chance through this system? This project was specifically designed to help problematic (and even abusive) users, so long-term abuse seems like a natural extension. Please note that long-term abuse users have already been given chances, but I believe most of them have only received warnings for their actions. No one has ever really attempted to communicate with them and see if they could be reasoned to stop. By this, I mean talk to them and see what their complaints are (if any). Of course, some of them will never stop, but there may be some users that abuse Wikipedia due to some misunderstanding that got out of hand. Yes, this is far fetched, but we just might be able to accomplish something. Since we don't want long-term abusive users editing, I think we should allow them to edit their user talk page - and any mentoring would go on there. At the first signs of abuse, their talk page access would be revoked. Netalarmtalk 05:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, I was just about to suggest automatic removal of at least the nousertalk block flag by a bot after a specific period of time on indefinite blocks (e.g., 6 months). Obviously one could tag the user's talk page with an overriding template in cases where someone's actually known for talk-page-vandalizing socks and thus should never have the nousertalk flag removed, but for the average vandal/editwarrior/sockmaster/whatever, if they still show interest in following the proper channels for unblocking (despite the possibility of grandstanding/drama), it's at least worth giving them a shot.
Don't get me wrong, if they fly off the handle, they go bye bye again, but it seems that I can easily imagine situations where some kid gets bored and starts pathologically vandalizing/socking just for attention, but then grows up and comes back a year or two later going, "aww, I was a young and stupid." It happens all the time in real life—especially when someone doesn't understand the damage they're doing. Thus, I'd say it's in these sorts of instances where we should be especially bound by AGF.
--slakrtalk / 06:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
A waste of time. Instead of spending considerable efforts rehabilitating trolls, vandals, and the peanuts gallery and reasoning with them, it would be much more productive to spend these efforts to recruit and help newbies. Wikipedia isn't a kindergarten and it's not our place to teach morons and idiots how to behave and make friends. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Helping new users isn't going to solve the problem of long-term abusive users. If you take a look, there is a considerable list of banned users - some of which were banned for less serious offenses (such as using Wikipedia as a social network). The amount of time it takes to collect information, create and process a sockpuppet investigation, and block all new socks is considerably more than if we could rehabilitate these abusive users and convince them to stop (or even contribute). It doesn't help us if we continue to chase after these abusive users. Going after abusive users is a huge waste of time, so working with them to get them to stop will, in the end, be better for everyone. Regarding time, I'm sure there will be users that would be willing to take part in this. Also, there's a sample thread above that shows successes this approach has had. Yes, I know that there are bound to be failures, but let's give it a try and then decide if we want to continue or not. Netalarmtalk 22:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on WP:REHAB and dispute resolution in general.[edit]

This was posted at User talk:RDN1F in the expectation of an interesting discussion. Unfortunately, User:RDN1F has not since been active. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the message and your interest in WikiProject:REHAB.

My current thoughts on this include:

  • Wikipedia's dispute resolution is disfunctional due to the only response to behavioural problems being a public complaint, investigation and trial. This puts the misbehaving editor on defense, and leads to defender not admitting to serious problems before a great deal of personal damage has occurred, in public and on record. Consequently, Rehab candidates are severely damaged.
  • I have made a few personal case studies. Each time, the above has applied, and an editor is lost. Sometimes a good editor.
  • I believe that we should try real-world style workplace dispute resolution. This involves a senior person in the role of grievance officer, who takes complaints, investigates, and mediates, *all in confidence; no permanent records*. He may make a report, but he does not disclose details supplied in confidence.
  • A possible outcome of a closed door grievance case is to send the misbehaving editor to Project Rehab. This would have to be voluntarily agreed to by the editor. The threat would be that if Rehab fails, the case goes to Arb Com. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
User RDN1F has, at the time of writing, been blocked indefinitely for socking. They appear to be attempting to canvass support for the 're-activation' of the Rehab project. Perhaps they have finally recognised the problems with their own behaviour and wish to share the benefits of their insight with the WP community. Alternatively, perhaps they would like to open up a legitimised route by which they can be privided with another opportunity to access WP and carry on with their problematic activities. I don't know the answer, but I am reluctant to accept anything user RDN1F has to say on this subject at face value. Bowdenford (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh well. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
"... and an editor is lost. Sometimes a good editor..." < < < aren't "good" editors by the definition neither trollish nor disruptive? the thought of wasting precious time coddling abusive users, trying to "rehabilitate" them strikes me as farcical. They wouldn't need "rehabilitating" if they weren't antisocial in their behavior to begin with! I'm glad to see this project is "inactive", if only for the time it will save that would otherwise be wasted feeding trolls and encouraging them by giving the attention their disruptive behavior indicates they desire. Just my opinion tho... Azx2 20:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
You are most likely right. I'm still waiting to find a case of a rehabilitated long term problem user. Initial candles have reformed, in their first few dozen edits, and silly kids have grown up, but in this and other volunteer projects, I am yet to see an unsuitable volunteer become a valued volunteer in the same position. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't go trough user rehab, but in 2007 I was blocked for problem editing (to put it mildly) over several months. It took a high-level off-wiki appeal and a 6-week wait to be allowed back on. A couple of years later, I wrote a public apology. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi David. I have seen you around for years, and had no idea you had early troubles.

Perhaps to explain better, yes, people rehabilitate, as in they rehabilitate themselves, if they actively take responsibility to change. WP:Clean start, and WP:Standard offer are often used, ad I like to think often used without detection, indicating success. What I don't see happen is people successfully rehabilitate through guidance from a mentor (it works with troubled adolescents, not so much with adults). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Mentorship as a way to make rehabilitation easier and/or to show someone that rehabilitating themselves is both desirable and possible happens all the time in real life. Probably the most well-known example is Alcoholics Anonymous and by extension, other "self-help" groups in which having a sponsor/mentor/similar is a key component. The roles of a mentor/sponsor, both in "real life" and, if we had an active "editor rehab" program here, is to convince those who are "in rehab" that change is both possible and desirable, and to give them practical steps to help them make the change. As you say though, those in rehab will only succeed if they actually want to change themselves. No amount of outside force can "make" someone "want to change" (admittedly, prisons and other coercive environments can make "not changing" so attractive that only a stubborn or blind fool would choose to not change). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Time to mark as inactive?[edit]

If there is no activity within 3 months (or if all editors who edit this project in the next 3 months agree that it's okay), we should mark this project as inactive and refer people to other venues, such as WP:Mentorship, WP:Standard offer, and Template:2nd chance.

So... if you see this after December 26, 2013 and there have been no edits in the last 3 months on either Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User Rehab consider marking this as inactive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)