Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/User Rehab

The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.

The resulting WikiProject was created at Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab

A group of dedicated admins and community editors working towards rehabilitationg willing problem users who show promise. Drew Smith What I've done 09:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify whether or not you would join the project.

1. Drew Smith What I've done 09:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Already started it without realizing that this template had to be used. This whole process isn't always used, without any complaints.[reply]
3. --Abce2|AccessDenied 16:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Fahrenheit 10:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)-have joined, seems like a great idea and could help to bring greater fairness to the project.[reply]
5. --John Carter (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC) - Would join. This group can fill a role with the existing Adopt-a-User program, which so far as I can tell is for exclusively one-on-one contact, cannot.[reply]
6. ZooFari 03:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC) --Already member-- I think the whole discussion is a bureaucracy, but oh well.[reply]
7. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)I think the iVotes from the other page should be moved over to here since this is now a second page that this is being discussed. My reasons for this project is explained in full over at this discussion[reply]
8. Support. The only argument against which I feel has some merit is that the project may inadvertently give the impression of authority. This can be averted by adding appropriate wording to the project page. Having a list of people who have volunteered to help others can only be useful. It's a method of communicating between users, to allow potential mentors to get matched up with potential protegés. Removing that channel of communication can only do more harm than good, IMO. Having people on the list who have previously been blocked doesn't strike me as problematic. People who have themselves had problems in the past and have experienced learning to overcome them can in some ways be even better at helping others than people who have never had such problems. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 17:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC) (see note below)[reply]
2. Great potential for damage. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Computerjoe's talk 17:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Bali ultimate. My reasons are detailed here [1].
5. ^blurred_peace ☮ 20:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Yintaɳ  (see MfD discussion and note below)
7. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Vicenarian (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC). Per my comments at the MfD.[reply]
9. AniMate^draw 01:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Nakon 04:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC), unnecessary bureaucracy.[reply]
11. Jack Merridew 06:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC) — This bad idea needs to go down in flames; soon. While the concept of a route back is an area that could use some work, this isn't it. There are more appropriate means in place and improvements being made by more seasoned users. This 'rebab' club got off on the wrong foot and the whole tone of the Mfd, the projectpace, and now Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab do not bode well.[reply]
12. Dougweller (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC) it's likely to produce more heat than light - KillerChihuahua's comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab say it all. Dougweller (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. --stmrlbs|talk 21:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC) I don't understand why a project is needed to assign Admin mentors to banned users. ArbCom does that now. What would the non-admin members of this project do, if they can't be mentors? maintain a list of Admin Mentors? What else? No one seems to know, imo.[reply]
14. Kleinzach 11:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC) IMO misuse of a WikiProject. These should be directed at building the encyclopedia, not dealing with odd problems. Per Jack Merridew 'a bad idea that needs to go down in flames'.[reply]

Comment: This project already has enough members so this proposal is unnecessary. MfD will decide its fate now. ~EdGl ★ 15:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal isn't unnecessary, even if it does survive MfD. The aim of the proposal system, as well as gauging support for the project, is to see 'if it should be a WikiProject or task force, and if the scope of the project should be changed in any way'. These points are still up for discussion. Consensus should be reached before the project becomes active (either in favour or against deletion; I suspect MfD will see no consensus being reaced). Computerjoe's talk 16:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, for the record, I oppose this per the reasons express on the MfD. Computerjoe's talk 16:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As do I; there is great potential for damage here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And me too. There's nothing in this project that Adopt-A-User (and similar) can't handle. Not a new layer of bureaucracy, please. Yintaɳ  22:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - I'm not going to re-hash the megabytes of discussion ongoing at MFD, but to summarize, I oppose on the following grounds (see MFD for detail explanations):

1. Needless and confusing additional bureaucracy (overlap/redundant).
2. Blatant misrepresentations of fact by project members (see MFD discussion about the "success story").
3. Previous blocks of some of the self-identified members of the project.
4. Significant level of trust and authority without a mandate or community request to do so.
5. Lack of process for oversight and vetting.
6. Obvious crusader impulses coupled with the "prisoner/parole officer" mindset is asking for disaster.

No offense intended, but this group is going to cause nothing but discord. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Give it a chance. Since many of the arguments here and in the MfD are based on misunderstandings, fears of supposed dangers, and ignorance of the intentions of a very new project, I suggest you clear up some of your misunderstandings by actually reading my comments at the MfD, which seems to be part of the problem. Many of the comments from those who oppose are reacting to the comments and fears of others, instead of actually reading my comments. Use Google Toolbar and highlight "Brangifer". Then read all my comments. Until you have done so, you really are tilting at windmills of your own creation. It's really frustrating to repeatedly read comments that are totally false. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if accusing those who disagree with you of ignorance is the best way to get your point across. Yintaɳ  08:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Accusations of "ignorance" and "censorship"[2] toward those who dare object to this proposal do not inspire confidence that its proponents have the temperament and sense of perspective necessary for a project like this to succeed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Oppose No direct reply has been made to any of the strongly opposing points. All we keep getting is answers of misunderstandings, fear of supposed dangers, and ignorance of intentions. This has happened before, with evidence here, here, and here. Bureaucracy and rule creep have been outlined as things to avoid; not to divulge ourselves into. This project does the same exact thing as adopt-a-user with a few tweaks. Don't add complexity if it's unnecessary. If you can answer all the points directly instead of claiming the opposing side is ignorant, I might actually listen. Also, hasn't this gone on long enough? If no good points have been brought up, and we're still going on about it, I think it's time to call in the snowball clause. ^blurred_peace ☮ 13:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose There is an existing process for dealing with users who are having issues. This project lacks oversight that could potentially cause more damage than good. There is the potential for creating great hostility through the casual identification process so far in place for "users in need of rehab." Vicenarian (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Where is the existing process? I'd like to add my name to it as a volunteer. Unlike with adopt-a-user, I'd like to sign up specifically to volunteer to help people who have had problems, not just new users. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• MORE PRESS & DRAMA??? if you think this proposal is going to determine deletion, then I'd say to rethink it again. We don't need two discussions here and there, so now you have proven yourselves that this discussion is the bureaucracy here, not necessarily the project. So you might as well call this a poll rather than a democracy. That is why we have MfD. ZooFari 03:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... Zoo? I put the proposal here. Because we need to go through the proper channels. I'm starting to agree with the opposers about the people in the project. Maybe stricter membership rules sould be imposed.Drew Smith What I've done 04:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this moment, I'm not even caring about the project, but why did you create another discussion? I think it was impolite especially where a user had to come to the project page and make a notice prior. I must admit that my support is leaning to neutral, but that is a different story. ZooFari 04:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made the proposal because this is the proper channel to make our project official. Had we not made the proposal the opposers would have had even more fuel for their fires. Not to mention it was the right thing to do.Drew Smith What I've done 04:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what discussion is going to have the official consensus? ZooFari 05:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<---My guess is the project will fail both now, so it really doesn't matter. But to answer your questions, they both take precedent. If one or the other comes to the consensus of shutting it down, the project must go.Drew Smith What I've done 05:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So a little group of opposers can beat the community? That's rich! So much for justice. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What little group are you speaking of? This isn't just a small group of editors. If you can see above, we have the majority at the moment. We have points that have yet to be answered. ^blurred_peace ☮ 21:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brangifer, on several occasions you've demeaningly referred to opposers as a "little group of users" (despite the fact that opposers are now in the majority); you've accused opposers of "ignorance" and "censorship"; and with no possible basis you've accused them not even reading the proposal and discussion. Having acted in this way it's mind-boggling that you're proposing a project to mentor others. To say the least, such behavior by one of the project's charter members does not inspire faith that the project will achieve its purpose. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris, you said "great potential for damage". Please describe how you think it may be damaging. We can then discuss ways to avert such possible damage. Note that not having such a project also has great potential for damage: users who could be mentored and encouraged to improve their behaviour may go without mentors, (formal or informal), driving away other editors with their behaviour, or being lost to the project themselves. Please explain how you think such potential damage can be averted if the project doesn't go ahead. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there two voting things? And did the discussion above me come from the deletion page. If it did, then it looks like someone for got to add alot of keeps and a few deletes. --Abce2|AccessDenied 15:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this project is too vague. the description says:

A group of dedicated admins and community editors working towards rehabilitationg willing problem users who show promise. Drew Smith What I've done 09:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

But, according to Project Rehab Conditions, 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.. So, if only admins can be mentors, and I'm sure it is the admins who will decide who mentors who, then.. what is this project for? What is the purpose of the non-admin members? To keep a webpage with a list of volunteer Admin Mentors? Put userboxes on their User Page saying they support the project? --stmrlbs|talk 19:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two answers. One, perhaps they are the only ones who can be mentors. Personally, I think this is a bad idea. Non-admins can successfully function as adopters, and certainly qualified non-admins should probably be able to function as mentors as well. Also, there is the question of whether formal "mentoring" is the only question to be addressed. There are certainly other matters, such as, for instance, how to conduct oneself in an XfD, RfC, etc., where valuable input from non-admins could also easily be gotten. Personally, I'd change the existing phrasing to read something like "admins and non-admins who have already been successful in the Adopt-a-User program as adopters", or something similar. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think your points are very valid.. but they are just as applicable for WP:Mentorship In fact, I think this is something that should be added to the description. But the way Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_Rehab is set up, only Admins are mentors. Although, I've got to say, that is not at all clear. I didn't realize this until I read this [3], where BullRangifer says "This is going to be tough love, only for banned editors, and only experienced admins as mentors.". This remark made me reread the article, where I realized the information about admins had been added after the initial draft of the project. Under Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_Rehab#Conditions_for_getting_help_from_this_project, #5 was changed on the 19th, from

• Must be willing to submit themselves to mentorship, probation, investigation, and control from other editors and admins. They are in a learning school, are subject to conditions, and must be submissive.

to

• Must be willing to submit themselves to mentorship from experienced admins. They are in a learning school designed to help them see the error of their ways.

To me, this is a significant change in the project. So, I wonder how many people are missing that point? I think who is doing the mentoring should be made clear, and what role the rest of the community is supposed to play should be made clear. That is why I'm bring it up as I think it will make a difference to some people. --stmrlbs|talk 22:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont like this admin only idea. It seriously undermines the entire project. I not an admin, and am already mentoring a problem user outside of the projects scope. I believe anyone who has shown competence in the area should be able to mentor. And, as Brangifer has "handed over the reigns" I'm going to go change this.Drew Smith What I've done 00:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

when/where did BullRangifer "hand over the reigns"? and if you change this, you should put notice, because it changes the whole project.--stmrlbs|talk 00:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

|Here. He was basically asserting that he was done with the project, and that someone [me, since it was my talkpage] should take over in his stead.Drew Smith What I've done 02:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. My discouraged comment was definitely NOT a "handing of the reigns" to Drew. When I wrote "you're on your own", that was a collective/generic "you". He expressed distrust of me and I withdrew from as active a role. No one person is authorized to be a leader of a project, including me. The starter of a project is a natural leader in the beginning, but then the group of supporters who have signed up because they believe in the original ideas of the starter begin to refine the concepts and direction, and consensus takes over in the further guidance of the project. The MfD has totally disrupted that natural process. We should have been busy making this work, rather than using energy on defending the right of a "newborn" to have a chance to become a mature "individual". -- Brangifer (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All this discussion just goes to prove that the MfD was indeed premature. A project needs a chance to start, then gather a membership of interested supporters who will then make their input, formulate, change, and maybe even totally alter the original ideas it started with. Only after a reasonable startup period will there be anything that can be used as real evidence for or against a project. That chance has been stifled by this MfD. If users all have the same goals here at Wikipedia, as claimed by Computerjoe, then Computerjoe and others (critics and supporters alike) should have done the wikipedian thing - seek to build rather than to destroy. They should have come to the project as interested people with constructive criticism and suggestions and used the talk page to make the suggestions we're seeing above, and some good suggestions at that! The project has barely started, but has had its oxygen supply severely limited by this hostile move, and it needs to have some air so it can actually develop into something useful. How about showing a bit of good faith and being patient? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked what my original thoughts were with this project, and as far as who should be mentors, here are some thoughts. I had originally hoped to make a project that would only be for banned editors, and thus were tougher cases than the usual ones who get adopted and mentored. (Anyone can be adopted or mentored, including experienced editors who have never had a single problem.) I think the type of mentoring for these problem users demands that it's an experienced admin, preferably with mentoring experience, who does it. They have the tools to immediately reblock their mentee, and that can be necessary. They also have other tools and contacts that can be necessary. This isn't a place for mentors who will advocate for (defend) their mentees. They should be instructing their mentees and making them realize the errors of their ways. This in no way replaces or side steps the current mentoring system (which has no real organization that I know of). This would just make it easier to find experienced mentors who are willing to deal with these types of banned users.

As far as the other members, they are supporters, just as with many other projects. They don't have to ever return to the project or look at it ever again, or they can occasionally check in to see what's happening, or they can get actively involved at any level, depending on their experience and what tools they have available for the job. That's the way projects work. I suspect that many supporters will just be involved in providing their opinions, ideas, and constructive criticism to guide and improve the project. They can edit pages, create subpages, and basically do all the things that a support group usually does. Certain jobs will be given to volunteers who are "qualified for the job". For example, if the support group (IOW anyone in the Wikipedia community who signs up) chooses to follow my suggestion about only admins being mentors, then they would be the only ones considered "qualified for the job". That is an issue that isn't settled, and is one of the things to be settled in this interrupted startup of the project. We need peace to get this done, not interference. Those who are criticizing should be trying to help at the project. Instead they have looked at the newborn and rejected its right to develop into something good because they didn't like the color of its skin, its parentage, or its supporters. That isn't fair. Constructive guidance at the project would have been the proper thing to do. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is running the project? you or Drew? Because you each have very different ideas of what the project should be. --stmrlbs|talk 17:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a project should be "run" by the consensus of its supporters, who can be anyone who wishes to participate. The starter of a project is usually its natural leader in the beginning, but that should change with time. At a vitally sensitive time as when dealing with this MfD, Drew Smith decided to openly express his lack of confidence in me, without having the courtesy to discuss things with me first. I was rather shocked! That was very discouraging and by showing a rift in the group itself, he thus enabled the project's critics to "divide and conquer", which is an incredibly unwise thing to do. Internal dissent of a personal nature should be dealt with personally and privately. We apparently do have different ideas, and such discussions should be happening at the project, where the project's members will be able to respond, not here, where most of them aren't participating. As a courtesy to me, who had the original dream, I would have expected Drew and others to give me some time and elbowroom to develop the project according to my original dream, and then let a natural evolution of progress to take over. The original signing supporters were drawn to the project because they apparently liked my ideas, and not based on later changes. Some are now contacting me off-wiki and expressing their disappointment with changes, and worried by the controversy. They are even considering withdrawing from the project because the changes aren't what they signed up for. I am still interested in the project, but it has been taken over by Drew, and it will now flounder and possibly fail because of this unfortunate situation. If it ends up being saved and becoming something worth saving, great. Then I'll support it. Right now my participation is very low key and I may end up withdrawing my supporting completely, or I may get more active again. I'm hoping the best, but I'm not interested in being too active where I'm not welcome. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. I done fighting for and developing this thing. Contact me when the project gets out of this rut, and maybe I'll rejoin.Drew Smith What I've done 19:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the reasons I object to the creation of this project. This petty infighting and giving up on the project are the kinds of traits we don't want in potential mentors. If you can't deal with each other, how in the world can you deal with the hardcore edit warriors you want to mentor? AniMate^draw 20:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Drew or myself are "potential mentors". Where do you keep getting this idea? Probably because Drew disputes it, but his idea is not an original idea in the project, nor one which most supporters signed on to. Notice the next section below (Only Experienced Admins will be Mentors in this project). It has been a very early idea that only experienced admins would be used as mentors, preferably ones who were used to mentoring, and who were willing to volunteer to mentor these very few banned users who will likely use the project, users who usually never are adopted or mentored. They are lost to the project. Because of the types of problems they have had, serious enough to get banned, they'll need a firm hand, and no advocating for their "most worthy POV that really is the great truth which Wikipedia just has to include" (read Wikipedia:Rouge admin). They have screwed up royally, will not be coddled, and must be voluntarily seeking help to reform as a condition of readmittance to full editing rights. How many banned users would seek such help? Probably not very many. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts for this project is along the same lines as BullRangifer. I haven't been active there too much do to RL issues coming up that I let the project know from the beginning. I still would love to see if this project can come to fruitation though so I will try this week to add more to it if possible. I will only have a few days that I can definitely help out, then things become up in the air for me. I would like to ask though if there are others who think the ideas that have just been presented is something you think would be a good project to attempt that you please go to the project with your ideas and help. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to establish this because I don't think a lot of people realize this. I bolded that sentence in the project description so that people don't miss it: [4] [5] --stmrlbs|talk 19:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constructively intended remarks. These are general points that apply to most any project.

• Have a clear proposal that is developed in reasonable detail.
• Be consistent. It arouses people's concern when the thing they are evaluating keeps shifting around.
• Criticism can be one of the most valuable gifts you ever receive. You learn more from those who disagree with you than you do from "yes men." (Some people never come to realize this.)
• It follows that you shouldn't belittle those who object to your plans.
• Define clear measures of both success and failure. In the present context, what would it say about your project if your mentees were repeatedly blocked or hauled before arbcom? What would you do in such a case?

Some random thoughts that this proposal has brought to mind. Make of them what you will. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful! This is what we need. These are very good and constructive comments. Such criticisms will do good at the project talk page, but when criticisms have been uttered while the project has been standing in front of a firing squad, so to speak (this MfD is an attempt to "execute" the project, not fix it), they end up not having the same effect as when offered in the right setting. My objections haven't been directed at constructive criticism, but to premature MfDs and remarks based on a barely started project, based on unconfirmed fears and suppositions. I have objected to an attempt to prevent the project from properly developing. I welcome constructive criticism. How else can we improve? You are absolutely correct with your Bush truism. (You know, the last time someone talked to a Bush, they got sent out into the wilderness to wander for forty years! ;-) Please come to the project and help us. You don't have to sign up or even participate. Just leave a comment or two. This is Wikipedia and everyone is welcome to help improve the project. What isn't helpful is having someone actively trying to drown the project by holding its head under water, which makes it hard to use any time and energy on building the project. There should be a reasonable amount of time provided before it's allowed to file an MfD. The idea is similar to the one year grace period traditionally given a new president before the press and public start their most vigorous attacks. We're just asking for patience, fairness, and to be given a chance. Constructive criticism is what we need right now, and it needs to be offered at the project's talk page. It can only have the desired effect if this MfD is withdrawn. We can't effectively make progress with a gun pointed at our heads. That's unreasonable. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Are there any 'experienced admins' with the intent of participating who are on record supporting this project? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Durova hasn't signed up, but she has expressed support. The project is just beginning and we hope that as it develops and as word spreads, it will garner support from the mentoring community. There are likely some experienced admins who are mentors who would be willing to mentor some candidates. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Durova isn't an administrator anymore. AniMate^draw 06:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any Admins saying they will mentor. But look here for current status WP:WikiProject_User_Rehab#Project_supporters --stmrlbs|talk 19:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-admin editors seek to create a project that will be run by admins, yet no admins have expressed a need for said project, nor have any said they'd participate. Does this make any sense to anyone? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The mentors would be admins. What roles admins would play other than that hasn't been discussed at all. We just need experienced editors to give advice and support. Various roles will likely develop according to need. Let's see what happens, but progress is being hindered by this MfD. I certainly hope that there isn't some implicit assumption hidden in your comment. It sounds like you think that the initial idea for a project must come from admins, and its founder(s) must be admins, and/or the need for a project must be expressed by admins before the project should be allowed to start. What if experienced members of the community see a need, express it, attempt to garner support for the project, and admins then see that this might be good idea and join? Is there anything forbidden about that picture? I think not.

• Another thing I'm wondering about. Would you rather see non-admins as mentors of such problematic users? I prefer to err on the safe side and let experienced admins with mentoring experience mentor these candidates. Isn't that better? I am erring on the side of placing more confidence in experienced admins, than in ordinary users, for THIS job. These mentors wil be dealing very closely with users who have screwed up so badly that they got banned. They may have been very resistant to seeing the error of their ways. They may seek to sneak back into the community, only to resume their prior behavior. I'd rather an experienced admin was right there to deal with the situation very fast, possibly with a quick tap of the ban hammer. These banned users should not be coddled, or entrusted to inexperienced users who lack the tools necessary for using the back channel advice and help available to admins. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. This is bureacracy and mission creep in search of a mission.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. The vision/mission has been the starting point. We're just trying to figure out the best way to do this. Will you help, or do you just think it's a bad idea to try to help repentant users revise their bad behavior? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I attempted to change it.Drew Smith What I've done 00:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your interventions have made it worse though (i'm sure you mean well of course).Bali ultimate (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Path to hell... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty strong words! Are you bitter because of prior experience with some other project that failed or screwed up? I can't know, but if so, I suggest that your disgust is misplaced. This project is not associated with any previous project, and has not grown out of it. If you know of such a project and fear this one might make similar mistakes, then do the constructive (AGF) thing and join. Make your concerns known on the project's talk page, but make sure you're not judging this project by the failures and imperfections of another one. That's not fair. Give it a chance to develop. If it then turns out to be going in the wrong direction, do the right thing, which is definitely NOT to raise an Mfd, but to discuss the problem with the project's members and seek to guide it. If that doesn't work, THEN raise an MfD. Anything else is just a failure to AGF (AGF meaning, in this case, to hope for the best). -- Brangifer (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I will say about this project, it is different from the others cited on this page. The founders of the AMA and Esperanza actually participated in their projects. You've designed this one so others will have to do all the heavy lifting, though you'll likely be involved in all the bureaucratic aspects. You (and most of the more vocal members) also don't seem to have any experience in mentoring, which makes me scratch my head. The reason this is at MfD is because it is flawed from the outset. The language and the actions of you and the other enthusiastic members show you don't really know what you're doing here. Perhaps working with some experienced mentors or the Arbitration committee to get some guidance first, and then coming to the community with your proposal would engender more support. Considering that many of the contributors you'd like to help rehabilitate have been banned by the arbitration committee, I'm assuming you're in discussion with them. I'm also assuming that as you're going to need administrator support, you've posted notices and asked for feedback at the administrator noticeboards. What kind of responses did you get there? AniMate^draw 06:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling users 'bitter' is barely assuming good faith. Computerjoe's talk 09:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quod erat demonstrandum - that kind of bullshit response by the project's most ardent supporter is exactly why this project should die in a fire. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullrangifer -- this sort of statement, "If you know of such a project and fear this one might make similar mistakes, then do the constructive (AGF) thing and join," convinces me that your judgement is insufficient to be involved with or otherwise organize a project like this. "Assume good faith" does not mean "ignore all available evidence and your own reason and blindly follow." It means we should assume that you are trying to help wikipedia. I assure you that it's my assumption that you are, and i'm sure that's the assumption of most of the rest of the critics here. But it's also my very considered analysis that, despite your good intentions, that this is a train-wreck of a disruptive idea. I may have written a number of things you don't agree with just now, but "good faith" has nothing to do with it.Bali ultimate (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AniMate said: You (and most of the more vocal members) also don't seem to have any experience in mentoring, which makes me scratch my head. Is this true? BullRangifer has no experience mentoring? --stmrlbs|talk 05:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look here. Now that the MfD has closed with no consensus, please discuss there. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should still try to get consensus about the project should here. Computerjoe's talk 20:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No change here, project should die in a fire. FWIW, I think that the amount of opposition expressed at the MFD and elsewhere is sufficient to put this one down. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed on the project's talk page that it should perhaps become just a list. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User Rehab#Proposal. Computerjoe's talk 20:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I put this into the project description yesterday [6]. I see that BullRangifer has since made changes, but nothing has been added to say what the role of non-admins is going to be. To me, this seems like a major "hole" in the the whole project since the majority of people supporting the project are non-admins. I would think, as you pointed out, that maybe just a list of Administrators that are willing to be mentors to banned users is needed. It seems this should be a project that Arbcom/Administrators should be organizing since they are the ones that will be providing the mentors. I still don't get what the rest of the project is going to do. And, since the majority of the project is non-admins, I think this is a pretty big vacuum in the project definition.

--stmrlbs|talk 01:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone ready to call time of death here? I think any way you look at it, the consensus by the majority of responding editors (as well as their numerous serious concerns) indicate consensus is squarely against this "proposed" project. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. There is no consensus here among this small group of editors, and where the larger community had its input, the MfD also closed with no consensus. How about just stopping this campaign and letting it die a quiet death? Give the project time to develop and see if it works. If it ends up causing problems, THEN raise another MfD. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By what criteria do you think this should be measured? Sheer number of respondents? -- clearly against. The weight of the concerns expressed? -- also clearly against. Any way you look at it, this project simply does not have the community support needed to create a project with the stated intent of "Rehabilitating Users". I've seen numerous (like, DOZENS) of concerns raised, to which the proponents of this project have give no plausible response. Beyond that, we've been given blatantly false "examples" of success, and we've seen plenty of examples of success without this project. I just don't see how you can make any sort of credible claim that there is a level of community support necessary to create or sustain this project. True, the MFD closed without consensus, but if the proper procedure of posting the proposal FIRST before creating the project had been followed, it's pretty clear the project never would have been created in the first place. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I share that feeling. I suggest in a month or so re-mfding it. Computerjoe's talk 16:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e-c)I would stress to Blaxthos that his own comments are not necessarily accurate. There is no "proper procedure" for the creation of a project; to state that there is is itself a false statement. Of course there have been examples of success without the project; the project was just created. Any extant examples of success would be by definition without the project. Duh. However, there is reason to believe that a project of this type is useful. Whether it is required is another matter. The same can be said about virtually every other WikiProject, however. I think that, if anything, the time of the death of the objections to the project has passed. The project was created, whether Blaxthos likes that or not. There are matters under discussion elsewhere which may potentially involve this project. We won't know until and unless those discussions are ended. If they ultimately do not involve this project, then, clearly, they would not be a reason for keeping it. But to continue to request that it be deleted or folded, when there is apparently sufficient interest to keep it going, or at least to start it in earnest, is not acceptable regarding any project. And, in all honesty, project creation is not necessarily similar to any other wikiprojess. Objections, basically, carry no real weight, although the reasons behind them might. It might however be a good time to see if there are any potential individuals with which the project could work ready and willing to accept its help. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia operates on consensus. For a project like this to be created without consensus is quite amazing. The community's opinions should have been gathered. Computerjoe's talk 16:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the project has the consensus of those who have chosen to take part in it, which is, basically, all any project requires. It has always been the case, despite the current formatting of the page, that WikiProjects can be and often are created, and sustained, without the explicit prior approval of the greater majority of the editors. ALl that is required for any project to function is that it adhere to policies and guidelines and that it show some degree of activity. I would suggest you view the history of the talk page, and you will see that what I say is substantiated there, I believe in more than one circumstance. As the fellow who was primarily involved in maintaining the Proposals page here for some time, believe me, I have seen several successful projects be created without even being listed here, and that was after this page was created. Unless it can be shown that the project either does not follow policies or guidelines, is inactive and thus redundant, there is no good reason for it to be deleted. At this point, I acknowledge, activity is a reasonable question for this group. Like I said, if there is no activity, then there is no reason for it to exist. But to try to "close" it before it has even fully begun itself probably runs contrary to wikipedia policy and guidelines, certainly at least WP:BOLD. John Carter (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let the project run its course. There isn't any significant activity, and those who are participating don't seem to have any idea of the direction they want to take the project in. Unless serious improvements are made (and the fact that there aren't any real thoughts on processes, qualifications for being a mentor, or criteria for being in need of rehab doesn't bode well), I imagine this will die a silent death in a few weeks. Also, looking at the lack of experience by many of the participants, the drama of prominent users leaving to hand over the reins in frustration then returning, and the lack of consultation with experienced users familiar with mentoring, I can't imagine many in the community are going to be willing to trust this project to help guide our most problematic users. Let them figure this out, and the eventual inactivity will result in the project being marked inactive. That's much easier than fighting good intentions. AniMate^draw 23:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or at the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.