Wikipedia talk:WikiService

No. Helping Vandals to vandalise more easily is counter productive. And requiring somebody else to check all edits of "vandal under probation" would mean double work for no benefit. Shinhan 17:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not helping them vandalize, they don't keep the tools. One person can check several vandals doing service. When a vandal is blocked, three things can happen:

1. They don't do service and can't edit again.

2. They do service and vandalize again, but the service means they cleaned up more than they vandalized.

3. They do service and stop vandalizing, and become positive contributors.

Do any of those seem bad to you? mrholybrain 17:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Vandals are usually in the hit-and-run category. They're not going to stick around to do anything worthwhile, they prefer destruction for the sake of destruction. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vandal is indefinitely banned until the service is done, so, if a vandal were blocked, they couldn't vandalize again until they did the service. mrholybrain 18:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But how can the perform the service if they're indefinitely banned? This seems to be the biggest problem with the proposal. Fagstein 20:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They could sign in at a new WikiService page, and would have the ban lifted while they were using the software. Obviously, the Wikipedia backend would need to be changed for this to work. mrholybrain 00:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how would they be prevented from doing yet more vandalism there? Fagstein 05:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They'd be monitored by volunteers. mrholybrain 21:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Won't work

So long as you make the required service more difficult than registering for another account, you make it pointless. Vandals will do the latter instead of the former.

Also, the language is a bit weird. The first sentence suggests that blocks won't take place, but the first step in the policy is a block.

Finally, unblocking a vandal expecting them to do good I think is just kinda silly. Fagstein 19:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals can make a new account anyway, and they could only clean up vandalism until it's done. Instead of waiting 24 hours, they have to help undo what they did. mrholybrain 21:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea has nice intentions, but suffers a complete misunderstanding of what vandals are about. --Improv 19:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea, but the rehabilitative model doesn't bear any advantages online, as there are no moral repurcussions to the "death penalty" of blocks which stop it from being just as effective. All this does is creates more work for the non-vandals. Denied. --tjstrf 22:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify? How does this make more work? One volunteer can handle multiple vandals. And a vandal should get this "death penalty" if they just want to contribute negatively to Wikipedia. mrholybrain 23:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It requires that someone watch these people to make sure that they aren't vandalizing, makes work for coders, etc. In this way, you are making it necessary for every vandalism revert that these "wikiservice" people do is reviewed. In that same amount of time, the warden editor could have simply made the reversions themselves. You are requiring a valid contributor to vandal patrol someone who has already proved their malicious or unhelpful intent, which is inane. If a person has proven that they have no intention of aiding us, then block them. If they change their minds, they can come back when it expires.

The warden can watch over multiple vandals. They'll came back after a block expires and vandalize again. With WikiService, their reverts outweigh their vandalisms. mrholybrain 00:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a vandal actually did reform enough to bother doing wikiservice, then requiring them to perform it would merely be obstructing a now-useful contributor. We don't require you prove yourself to edit in the first place, requiring you prove yourself to edit after deciding that you want to be a good-faith contributor is contrary to the wiki principle. To put it bluntly, this idea is totally useless. We have an encyclopedia to write, watching over known vandals is a complete waste of our already limited pool of dedicated editors. --tjstrf 00:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a vandal wants to do good, they can start with WikiService. mrholybrain 00:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, we could not obstruct them, and just let them start editing immediately! Far less trouble, more in line with the wikipedia principles, doesn't require oversight, and if they screw up we can just ban them again. Which is exactly what we would do with failed wikiservice attempts, only without the unnecessary complications and waste of human resources. --tjstrf 01:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most vandals will "screw up" again. But you have a point. Perhaps a hybrid of WikiService and blocks will be best. mrholybrain 21:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If most vandals are going to screw up again, then so will most Wikiservice participants, further making this proposal unhelpful. --tjstrf 22:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]