User:Declaration of the one/sandbox

Admins, listen before deleting this page I want you to read this page in full and really think about this information carefully.

Hi this is someone Wikipedia is all too familiar with. I have been looking through unblock requests lately and seems like there's another reason why people evade blocks and sock to no end. Even if a user is completely honest about the fact they were vandalising, they created sockpuppet accounts (in some cases several sockpuppet accounts) they don't get unblocked even if they genuinely saw the error of their ways and wanted to return to editing and improve this wonderful encyclopedia. The current rules make it so hard to get unblocked especially if it is a checkuser block (which can't be undone by normal admins anyway) that you're just better off socking and starting over with a new identity. In 99% of cases if you just wait a few weeks, and sign up again you can carry on editing as if the original block meant nothing. It's truly a shame that genuine people that go through all the trouble to get their original accounts unblocked get their honest requests rejected due to some admin/checkuser who act like they know better than them. I have seen several users who really tried to get unblocked but couldn't because the admin didn't think they understood the error of their ways well enough. Because of nonsense like this just say in their final unblock requests that they are just going to make a new account anyway if it's so much trouble. Yes I'm well aware people do things wrong and if you get unblocked and continue the behaviour that led to your original block yes reblock them. I believe that if a user was blocked more than 3 years ago and they make a new account and don't break the rules again, then that account should not be blocked. It would give many editors a second chance and the chance to start anew after making mistakes on Wikipedia when they were a lot younger. Yes if a user reoffends after this time and continues problematic behaviour block that account. Wikipedia's policies say they are designed to prevent abuse, but that's not the how system really operates. It has consequences and outcomes which just end up punishing anyone who breaks the rules, even if they don't understand. You can make 3 test edits not knowing what you're doing and if you have an account, get slapped with an indefinite block. This is why people get turned away. You need to be compassionate towards newbies and assume good faith. I know that's what Wikipedia tells you to do (quite rightly) but in practice the new users talk page gets slapped with a few warnings that user doesn't understand and boom they're blocked. That's biting the newbies until they're scared off. But what if that newbie was spoken to calmly and with respect? What if you explained why what they did was wrong and how they can avoid breaking those rules in the future. There's no mercy for rulebreakers in this system. This is what I'm trying to tell you. I wouldn't abuse Wikipedia if you just paid attention to what I want to say and the above statement is it.

From a well known sockmaster