Template talk:2nd chance

Change request
I'd like to add a bit at the end that tells the user, once they have done this, to resubmit an unblock request. Otherwise, there's a good chance we'll never see their proposed change. What do you think? --Yamla 14:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears I cannot read. Ho hum.  --Yamla 02:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would recommend adding something like, "Please indicate you understand our policies, and promise to behave." --Elonka 02:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it only semi protectino would be more appropriate here, unblock is only semi protected and that it regularly used across Wikipedia.The Sunshine Man 17:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate these
I hate it when someone actually responds to this. It creates big problems: for one thing, it's hard to compare their draft to the original, there aren't always diffs we can use, et cetera. Also, it inappropriately adds user talk pages to all sorts of mainspace categories. Plus, I have no idea what to look for, because the person who made the judgement that the user can have a second chance if they follow these instructions never (thanks to the template) gives a clear idea of why or what they're looking for. Mango juice talk 05:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Stifle (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, these are some good points. Perhaps there's a way to preserve the intention, while making it less problematic. I know that blocked users can still edit their talk pages. Would they be able to edit a user talk subpage? They could be presented with a User talk:NotARealUser/2ndChance redlink (or if they can't create it, create the page with a deletion template that will have it deleted if they do not manually remove it through using the page to propose their edits). Then, the instructions could say to copy and save the article as-is, and then edit it. Then there would be diffs to view in the subpage's history.

Such a process would require admins to be aware and supportive of it, and have some guidelines for what sort of constructive contribution was unblock-worthy. Perhaps having a whole deal with a subpage would be too complicated, but if the community is behind a 2nd chance process of this sort, I think it could be fleshed out into a workable program. What do people here think? If it sounds like a good idea but one that needs to be developed further, I could go look up how to make a policy proposal so it can get more input from admins and other experienced vandalism fighters. If it sounds too ridiculously complicated for how little use it would actually get, then I'd rather hear that here than go through drafting a more thorough proposal only to have everyone say it's crazy :-) --Icarus (Hi!) 11:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a note that the page should be saved before they begin editing it, so that we can at least see the diffs of the talk page. – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 01:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit protected
It should start with "This request for unblocking" instead of "Your request for unblocking". After all, it might not be the only unblock request on the user's talk page.
 * ✅ Happy‑melon 09:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

List of users who have been given a second chance and then went on to be helpful
Is there such a list? Gravitoweak (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ummm..... it is not there.-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 16:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am also curious about this. Benjamin (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 January 2014
The code  could be simplified to. Cathfolant (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I've requested the protection level on this template lowered to TE so I can carry out this request... I would think that  would be even a little better to make it more likely for the request to be signed. Technical 13 (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The protection already is template editors. I don't understand. And sure, signature sounds good. Cathfolant (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And you're a template editor so you could just do this. Cathfolant (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done, this "was" a fully protected template until 01:00, January 12, 2014 (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Template:2nd chance‎ ‎[edit=templateeditor] (indefinite)‎[move=templateeditor] (indefinite) (Request at RFPP) per my request at RFPP that I mentioned above. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (Didn't notice the date the protection settings were changed, duh...) Cathfolant (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Encourage copyvio
The line "Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: = Article title =) and save the page before you improve it." encourages blocked editors to violate copyright. You can see it in action here which not only copies the article without attribution but includes a non-free image and all the categories. The line needs removal or fixing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging interested parties (commented at user talk or on IRC) --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 00:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am working on changes now. I will post them soon.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The issue with fair use imagery is difficult to deal with, but the attribution issue can be resolved by creation of a template which does the top level heading and underneath links to the page history, something like which would produce
 * ==Fish==
 * This text is copied from Fish. The history, for attribution purposes, can be found by clicking here
 * Nick (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have posted my changes. Have at it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I had some minor copyedits to make, but remembering that Salvio granted me template editor just for clerking, I'll post them in protected edit request form in a bit. Cheers, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 01:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. I've done some polishing since then. The problem, if any now, is that it is admittedly more complicated than it was. But of course the problems with the former text instructing users to massively violate copyright is really non-negotiable to either fix or upend – we have to instruct in some form like this, or get rid of the whole scheme of telling people to copy content to their talk page and then make changes to it. But I really don't see any alternative method for having the user show us the changes they propose.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's pretty complex for what is most likely to be a new editor but I don't see any other way around it. By the way, in #3 shouldn't it be == and not =. Also how about  for the header. It makes one less thing to copy and helps to ensure that the link is there. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For copyright attribution, the link must be in the edit summary but there's no reason it could not be used for both. Sorry, not sure what you mean about "and not" in #3 – where? in place of what?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry. In #3 it says "top-level heading (like this: " but a top level heading should be this:   CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, funny how I misread that. I just ignored the equal signs instead of parsing them as part of your sentence. Makes perfect sense now. I have no idea why it asks for single level equal signs (we have that functionality and I can't think of a single time when I've seen them used purposefully). Yeah, no idea why the template says that but thought it was on purpose because why specify "top level"? Anyway, changing that to something normal.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's just a minor thing but everything I looked at said two equal signs were a top level heading. I must admit I don't think I've ever seen a single equal sign used on purpose. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2018
Can you please change the hyperlink our basic rules from Simplified ruleset to Five pillars because they are the most popular summary of Wikipedia's basic rules? Can you also change the hyperlink this index of articles needing improvement from Cleanup process to Articles for improvement? This link actually shows the articles needing improvement. 2601:183:101:58D0:9949:2F34:20E9:8BF6 (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: First, you're a block evader, so normally this edit request would be removed on sight. But even if you weren't, I would decline because in my opinion, the links are better like this. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Question
This template gives the impression that in order to fulfill the process, one must propose significant content edits to an existing article. But what if that's not how they want to edit? There are other ways to edit constructively besides being a heavy content creator - how would a blocked editor who wishes to be unblocked to do constructive counter vandalism work (for instance) satisfy this process? 173.93.178.132 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. This template is utterly unhelpful. In my experience it never serves any useful purpose at all, and it frequently serves one or other of two totally damaging purposes: (1) it intimidates people with the potential to become useful editors into giving up, because they don't feel confident that they know enough about content creation to do what is asked of them, and (2) it encourages other editors to put substantial efforts into trying to do what is asked of them, only to see it rejected by over-critical administrators who seem to think that if an inexperienced editor can't do a perfect job then they shouldn't be allowed to edit at all. The one and only good thing I can say about this is that the template seems to be used less often now than it was years ago. JBW (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A new account gets blocked for replacing the content of multiple articles with the word "poo" repeated over and over. Two weeks later, the vandal requests unblocking, saying "please unblock, I've learned my lesson and want to contribute." Where do we go from here? We could reject the request offhand (bad optics, but this is the norm at the moment), we could grant the request (an even worse idea), we could tease the vandal for a while with stupid questions and then reject their request (which is the norm right now if the reviewing admin's sufficiently bored) or we could use 2nd chance and let the (ex-?)vandal prove they at least have the ability to edit constructively, providing them with a clear way to get unblocked that actually makes sense in the big picture of us being here to build an encyclopedia. To me, option 4 is a no-brainer but to each their own.
 * There are multiple projects other than enwiki; if you want to prove you can do good work, do it on another project (such as simplewiki) and then request an unblock here citing your track record on that other project as proof you're capable of competent contributions. Nobody's forcing you to take the 2nd chance when given the opportunity; it's just one of many alternatives that may or may not be available/attractive to you depending on your situation. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The original post says "This template gives the impression that in order to fulfill the process, one must propose significant content edits to an existing article" (my emphasis). To say that "it's just one of many alternatives" doesn't address that point: nobody without previous experience would read the message as saying that. It is no help to say that there are other possible routes to being unblocked if the blocked editor is given a message which clearly gives the impression that there aren't. There are other serious problems with what you say too, but they are not directly related to the content of this template, which is the issue here. JBW (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Impressions" are subjective; I, for one, don't get that impression at all. The bottom line is that the template simply doesn't say the thing that the person seems to think it says/implies. The template says "To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia." This is a true statement: we only use 2nd chance on vandals and the like. Then it goes on to say "You can do this by..." providing one clear way to achieve that goal. "Can" isn't the same as "must" or "can only." And indeed, you can (have the ability to) demonstrate your willingness to contribute positively by following the instructions. Still, perhaps there is room for improvement. I don't want to be that guy but if you believe the template's phrasing can be made better then why not edit it and add something like "Note that this is not obligatory but can help expedite the unblocking process. Here are some other ideas:..." I won't do it myself because I see no need for it, but I certainly wouldn't object to an edit of that nature if someone else were to make it. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Much of that is sophistry. Any normal person can read the text of the template message, and see how it is likely to be read.
 * Please don't close this request for administrator help again. I have posted my thoughts about it, but I would like to give other administrators a chance to do so too. I have therefore reposted the admin help template, to invite other administrators to comment. You have now twice removed the template, and I am restoring it again. Since you are presumably not an administrator please don't remove the admin help template that I am posting again. JBW (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not sophistry; it's a statement of fact. Impressions are subjective by their very nature, and anyone is free to improve (or suggest improvements to) the template. Just for the record (regarding your accusation): the request was closed not by yours truly but by another admin, see this edit. As far as I'm concerned, you can keep it open as long as you like. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)