User talk:R~enwiki/Vandalism Parole

Is this really a problem?
Many blocks for vandalism (probably a majority) happen only after multiple acts of vandalism and a warning. Honestly, at this point blocking is preventative. This proposal allows vandals to siphon off even more administrative time, which I think is a bad thing. Blocks allow potential contributers time to rethink their behaviour. Cool Hand Luke 03:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, there is only a few admins that participate in block reviews - who is going to police the paroles? LessHeard vanU 10:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't have to be an admin to police them. If they violate their parole, all you have to is report them to AIV. -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

An example
One instance where I think this would be good to try is in the case of User:KensingtonBlonde. We have a confirmed-by-confession sock of a banned user asking for another chance; it seems obvious to me that blocking the sock will encourage the user to make yet another sock to evade the ban, but by offering parole we give ourselves the chance to monitor (at least one of) the user's account(s). This example raises an interesting question: are banned users eligible for parole? Would they get indefinite parole, and how often could they get parole in the case of parole violations?  Big Nate 37 (T) 05:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Instruction creep
I applaud the initiative displayed in proposing this and I appreciate the thought and effort that has gone into it but it seems unnecessary and instruction creep to me. --ElKevbo 23:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm..instruction creep? I view it as assuming good faith and giving people a second chance at making useful contributions. Even if the instructions on how it's handled are strict, they need to be there so the system cannot be abused. -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that admins and other editors are perfectly capable of assuming good faith and giving blocked vandals second and even third chances without the need for a new policy, guideline, or system. I like the idea of giving folks second chances but I don't see a need for complicated (or even a simple) system to do so.  --ElKevbo 00:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, it's instruction creep. First, it does not credibly prove that there is an actual problem here. Second, given that people can create new accounts, it does not actually solve that alleged problem. And third, it has undesirable side effects, including adding extra work for people, and potentially unblocking persistent trolls. So it fails all three parts of the litmus test.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We do already have Template:2nd chance, which has a lower risk as few vandals will bother to do some constructive work in order to start vandalising again and they can cause minimal damage while they are regaining the trust of the community. Hut 8.5 18:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there even one example of an editor who was unblocked after accepting the conditions of 2nd chance? I think it is silly, since you *have* to write content for an article before being unblocked. Currently, if someone vandalises, gets blocked, and says "I'm sooo sorry, I promise I won't do it again!", it is usually declined. This proposal makes it possible for vandals to get another chance, since blocks are meant to be preventative, and if they vandalise even once after their unblock they're instantly reblocked. I think it's a good idea.  Melsaran  (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)