Wikipedia talk:Standard offer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

Durova, I really like this essay and wanted to voice my support. It covers a wide range of bad behavior that can eventually be forgiven. We have no control over the thoughts and thought processes of the editors of Wikipedia. Whether an editor is a bigot or not (for example!) is beside the point. What matters is whether they are able to contribute to the encyclopedia and maintain a civil atmosphere, both of which are readily determined with a trial unban. And one's ability to be a part of the community can and does change over time. Lifting a ban for a strictly regulated and monitored probationary period has little to no potential cost for the encyclopedia, and a great potential gain. It's the encyclopedia everyone can edit - that includes all kinds of people with less than desirable characteristics - and unless your problems are unhelpfully leaking out into your edits, it hardly matters. That being said, I think bans are very important to enforce as strictly as possible, with no wiggle room for keeping a banned editor's edits intact. I certainly don't have a problem with that! But there has to be a clear and obvious path of redemption if there's any incentive to stop the disruptive behavior. A ban doesn't change an editor's behavior, and blocks can only do so much. Only the combination of banned editors knowing that a ban will be enforced close to the letter of the law and that there is a set of rules that can lead to unban will result in improvement of terminally badly behaving editors who attempt to sock around their bans. ~Eliz81^(C) 08:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Humour template

I've reverted two recent attempts to remove the humour template without discussion. Since the text of the article is so clearly fallacious (see here for example), it seems that the article is kept either because some people find it humorous, or for historical reasons. It would be wrong not to warn readers that the content is not meant to be taken literally. --RexxS (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And I just reverted your recent attempt to replace the humour template without discussion. The tag has been previously added by none other than <gasp> Jack Merridew. The fact that it may not apply in one particular case does not mean that it doesn't apply in general, and even if it is wrong in general that does not mean that it is intended to be humorous. You also mention possibly labeling this historical, but the snow keep MfD from not too long ago seems to indicate that it is still cited fairly often, so I think it needs at least some discussion before tagging it as such. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence adduced that it applies in general (or at all), and we agree that at least one case exists where it does not apply. Although you make a good case for not marking this a historical, I see nothing in your reasoning that indicates that it should not be marked as humerous. Is your removal of the tag based on anything more than your personal opinion? in which case why should it override the opinions of multiple other editors who disagree with you? Clearly the essay in its current form is unsatisfactory. --RexxS (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

To take your questions in reverse order, I see two editors who think this should be tagged humorous and three who think it shouldn't, so I don't see how it comes down to my personal opinion. Anyways, as you may have noticed I said that it may not apply in one particular case, not that it doesn't. Now I'm not terribly familiar with the whole situation, but as far as I can tell Jack is in fact editing now after being banned, so it seems to me that at least the "wait/promise to be good/return to editing" part of the essay appears to be valid, and the essay was in fact endorsed by him at the MfD. You also don't seem to think it's funny, just wrong. Maybe it's the "return to good standing" language you take issue with since there are still editing restrictions in place? VernoWhitney (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Waaaaaaaaaah! This policy never works! Barongzilla (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Part of the standard offer is "Wait six months without sockpuppetry", but the recent Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242#TreasuryTag unban request was unsuccessful. Are community-banned editors more likely to be unbanned if they evade by creating new accounts? Peter James (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Explicitly including block evasion

A user who while blocked created dozens of accounts in order to send abusive messages recently argued that, since those messages made clear who their author was, they did not constitute sockpuppetry in the strict sense, and he was therefore within the terms of the standard offer. I do not think that anyone found this argument very convincing, but for the avoidance of any doubt I propose to add block evasion to point 1, so that it would read:

1. Wait six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion.

That omits the words "(if applicable)" in the present version, which do not seem to me to add anything.

Any objections? JohnCD (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really necessary, I would question this editor's competence to be allowed back to editing but there's nothing to stop this being mentioned. 87.113.252.160 (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Community indef ban..

I don't really think this should apply to that at all. Usually a community indef ban involves a lot of people. A reinstatement might not involve half of that. I wouldn't remotely be comfortable saying that a few people who noticed a community reinstatement discussion should override a community indef ban, especially given some of the drama and circumstances some of these bans happen under. This just seems like another chance for some editors get infinite+1 more.. opportunity. Most editors who end up community band have already had several dozen chances.--Crossmr (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you suppose that fewer people would notice an unban proposal if it's posted to the same noticeboard? Durova³²⁰ 00:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Because not everyone watches those noticeboards constantly. They may have gotten involved in the ban discussion because they had an interaction with the user and saw a note on their talk page about the on-going ban discussion. When the user was indef banned they may have figured that the user was done and gone and put it out of their mind and carried on with their regular editing. They may not be expected the editor to suddenly resurface 6 months later. When the community votes for an indef ban, they're not voting for a 6 month ban. This idea is something which seriously undermines the power of the community to police itself. Why do you support infinite chances for users? This requires time and effort on the part of editors who could otherwise be doing other things.--Crossmr (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The AA book of the car in an otherwise sober publication states in the introduction that every driver thinks that they are the best driver on the road.So too with editors -most of us think we know best and that pesky others will not or cannot see it. Banned/blocked editors are already encouraged to contribute in other areas where they are not blocked. Most "disruptive" editors have made at least some useful contributions in the past and have the potential to do so in the future. Many have been cleverly steered by slyer agenda queens into the tripping up that led to the ban. Is it prudent to permanently banish potential future assets ? Have you no faith in the power of redemption or the possibility of humans to change ? Even a prison sentence for murder nowadays is rarely given with the rider of "no possibility of parole" Should WP be harsher ? Indefinite does not mean permanent or infinite but is closer in meaning to undefined. To quote a sometimes useful old book - let him who is without sin cast the first stone --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 10:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sending to other wikis

I'm not sure how I feel about using good behavior on other Wikis. I edit over at the Simple English Wikipedia, and some users have been sent over there as a "behavior trial" for earlier unblocking, some of which has even been done at the behest of administrators here. I would like for this not to be a common practice, since the Simple English Wikipedia is a real wiki, not a "practice" wiki. CopaceticThought (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree very strongly with CopaceticThought that even encouraging users to try another WMF project is a bad idea, and holding out the perceived reward of "time off for good behaviour" is likely to encourage seriously problematic but determined editors to head off to another project simply to gain the "credit" for editing there. In reality, very few editors cease their problematic behaviour when they move on to other projects. Should someone do so on their own volition, fine. But they should be aware that behaving in a similar way on another project as they did on this project is extremely unlikely to result in anything positive, and quite likely to be perceived as confirmation that the ban/block from this project was the correct choice. Risker (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Could we not add a link to the {{2nd chance}} as an alternative to editing other wikis?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Since there's no reply, time to be WP:BOLD  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• I came here with the notion of starting a discussion on that wording, and see that a concern has previously been raised and supported. Under the circumstances I will be bold and remove the wording under WP:Bold, revert, discuss. If there is any objection, then we can discuss the matter further. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Rather than "...make significant and useful contributions to other WMF-projects...", how about "... make significant and useful contributions to similar public projects...". So an editor could show a history of good behavior and valuable encyclopedic content on h2g2, for example. Martin (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork's BRD removal of the paragraph on other wikis was indeed reverted here by Beyond My Ken. I'm not a supporter of the paragraph for the reasons outlined by Risker. But am interested in further views either way. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, BMK's revert was inappropriate, as they did not discuss it in any way. As time has gone on, we have seen that this is fundamentally a burden on other projects, who often wind up having to deal with problem enwiki users. The entire theory was based on a single apparently favourable result of an enwiki-banned user who was carefully shepherded through Commons by a highly attentive admin with admin permissions on both projects, and that user ultimately repeated the behaviour that had led to the initial ban and is now banned again from enwiki. There is little evidence of success with this practice, and many of these same users have proven to cause problems on other projects. Risker (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A revert of a Bold edit is never "inappropriate", and the onus is on the bold editor to discuss the edit, not on the editor who returned the article to the status quo. BMK (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

After several months without challenge, it's stopped being a bold edit, it's now status quo. Beyond My Ken, what is your objection to removing that section? You have not voiced a reason for your edit. If it is strictly procedural, then it seems pretty conclusive that the consensus of the discussion is "remove that section". If you have a genuine objection to the edit, please tell us what it is. Risker (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You're asking me to go back and re-hash my reasons for an edit I made 2 1/2 years ago? Please, I don't care enough about the issue, and I've got much better things to do. Knock yourselves out - but don't forget to edit the encyclopedia occasionally. BMK (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I completed

Yes, I have completed the standard offer and get unblocked - Yasir72.multan ^Talk _Contribs
12:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for this to finally become a guideline

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As this is essentially a de facto guideline at this point, I think it's high time that this essay be promoted to an actual guideline. Don't think it changes the use of this much, but it does seem that it's appropriate to label standard consensus backed practices as such. Hopefully, you all agree. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Support

• Support - as the proposer of this idea, I think it is a common sense move to make this into an actual guideline. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support, as it's already a widely followed community practice. APerson (talk!) 15:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support, widely used practice so should be made into a proper guideline. Tom29739 ^[talk] 16:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC).
• Support – I'm of the opinion that we have too many of these essays that are essentially accepted as guidelines, but never promoted "officially". If it is widely practiced, it should become a guideline. That certainly applies here. RGloucester — ☎ 17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Please see response in discussion section.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Policy follows practice, and practice already treats this like a guideline. The page should reflect that. --Jayron32 13:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Per the above, this basically already is a guideline, and the way it is worded makes it clear that it is just something we do sometimes, not an entitlement. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
• Given this is already treated as a guideline by many administrators already (I would be surprised if all of them were aware this was actually an essay, in fact), I don't see the harm in "upgrading" it to become a guideline. To address a concern below that things like WP:BRD aren't yet guidelines—perhaps, indeed, they ought to be. — foxj 13:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support – since this already has wide recognition, upgrading this to a guideline would only smoothen the process. Please be careful with the current wording, though. sst✈ 07:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose This is a traditional courtesy we offer to some people. I think we should keep it informal. We already have banned users demanding the standard offer, I don't think we should encourage any sort of entitlement. Really the standard offer has no authority, and it needs no authority. It is the community that decides when people get back, and it is done under existing policy.

To counter RGloucester's argument I would say that far too many of our essays have become formal rules. The standard offer works well as an essay, there is no need to make it official. We should only make something a guideline or policy if it needs to be so to work. HighInBC 17:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I've updated the proposal to reflect the concept that it's not necessarily applicable to every case, and eligibility is ultimately determined by the administrative community (which as far as I know is how we currently use this process)... I hope that alleviates some of your concern on the matter. Furthermore, I disagree that we shouldn't make a common practice into a guideline, as WP:GUIDELINE states: "guidelines are intended to reflect the consensus of the community ... Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus." - Guidelines aren't made to influence consensus, merely to reflect it, and IMHO this is a best practice that is indeed supported by consensus. But that's just my take on the matter. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say. However I also have concerns about policy creep, we already have way too many policies and guidelines. Most crucially the standard offer is working just fine as an essay, if it is not broken why fix it? HighInBC 18:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Because it is broken, it's not just an essay anymore it's a de facto guideline and has been used as such for years. Calling it an essay when it's used by everyone as a guideline just doesn't make sense. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yet we use it just fine. I don't think it is broken. I think it is being used as an essay in that its advice is considered when people make decisions about ban appeals. HighInBC 06:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - guidelines do influence consensus; once you say something is an official "rule", it becomes the norm to follow it. While it may seem to be only descriptive now, it could very easily become prescriptive in the future with changing community dynamics. As HighInBC mentions, it is an essay that applies in some cases - I'd prefer for it to stay that way, unless there is some demonstrable way in which the current status quo is not working. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - making it a guideline means to sockpuppeteers that they can vandalize all they want, and are guaranteed a way back in once they happen to be away for half year (possibly for reasons which have nothing to do with wanting to cvhange their ways). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Not everything well-accepted by the community is guideline material (cf. WP:BRD, WP:AADD, etc.). Guidelines establish best practices for what editors should do to comply with policy in achieving WP's mission, without whether to follow it should have to analyzed on a case-by-case basis (with only rare exceptions; all guidelines occasionally have exceptions). What this page outlines is something the segment of the community who choose to deal with bad-acting editors has informally evolved as a general approach to getting back in good graces, which is available to some transgressors, and which is always taken on a case-by-case basis. It is not a set of rules to follow Another difference is that guidelines exist to reduce dispute (their frequency of recurrence, their length, and their intensity), but a blocked or community-banned user trying to return is by its core nature a dispute from top to bottom. I've very recently seen aspects of SO ignored by community consensus, and without much of a thought to it, in both directions (first to approve the return of a user despite a "transgression" of one of SO's un-rules, and later to deny the return despite to-the-letter compliance (on the surface) because everyone could tell it was an editor "playing nice" and "saying what they think we want to hear" but intending to go right back to what they were pushing before the block. And these were the correct decisions in both cases. This is flexibility we do not want to lose. Exceptions to the strict interpretation of SO are frequent, not rare.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  PS: The nom has conceded "it's not necessarily applicable to every case" and modified the proposal to say so. This effectively ends the proposal. This, exactly, was the main rationale (WP:GAMING was another) by which WP:VPPOL rejected the proposal to elevate WP:BRD to a guideline, just last year.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutral/Comments

• Guidelines are not "rules". They never have been. This obsession with seeing guidelines as a rules is a determent to the encylopaedia's governance. It is much more transparent to label essays such as this one for what they are, as opposed to hiding them behind the "essay" label. This essay documents a common practice, and serves as de facto guideline already. If administrators are going to cite it in their unblocking rationales, as they do on a daily basis, then it should become a guideline. Anything else is dishonest to the users who are subjected to the "standard offer" practice. RGloucester — ☎ 19:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

  I agree that they shouldn't be, but that's what they have become. Once something becomes a guideline here, it is linked to as law, and becomes very difficult to change. Essays can reflect common practice, without the quasi-entrenched status that guidelines have. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

  Policies are rules, guidelines are just... guidelines: "By definition, following a guideline is never mandatory." - I don't know why this change would be such a big deal, it's simply representing a de facto guideline for what it is. Calling this an essay anymore is just being dishonest with ourselves... and indeed cementing/creating the very problem you seem to be worried about. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

  I know what guidelines should be, but I would prefer to have less entrenched practices rather than more. As I said, right now, the essay can easily be qualified as descriptive - it describes a process that happens in many cases, but there is no obligation to follow it. If it were to become a guideline, which required consensus to change, that would restrict the organic evolution of best practices in the area. Just my 2c, and I don't expect it to be the majority opinion. Best of luck with your proposal. Ajraddatz (Talk) 06:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

  The question here isn't what a guideline is, but how its perceived by certain people - in this case, the major sockpuppeteers. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

"Major"sokpupeteers would not be covered by the standard offer anyway. Also, frankly, who cares what trolls think? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Response to RGloucester's support: Please see my oppose comment. I agree that we do have an actual issue, that some things classified as essays are widely accepted standards (analogy: the metric system) while others are bullshit (analogy: some crackpot's conspiracy theory screed), and others are insider material no one outside that group follows or cares about, such as WP:PROJPAGEs (analogy: the employee manual of Apple Inc.). We also have something like a constitution and its amendments (policy), statutes and regulations (guidelines), caselaw (ARBCOM decisions, unquestionable RfC results, unquestionable ANI results, etc.), even treaties (requirements imposed on us from outside for legal reasons by WP:OFFICE). [Yes, I realize these analogies are not perfect; it's just a conceptualization exercise, so please don't pick at why a policy isn't like a constitution, yadda yadda.]

The solution to the problem that things treated like standards here, not like manifestoes or house organs, are not distinguished with their own nomenclature is to give them one, not to lump them in with the "regulations and statutes" category (guidelines). "Fixing" one indiscriminate lumping by replacing it with another isn't a fix, it's just a new confusion. Many of us have thought for years that we need something between "guideline" and "essay", but no one's really come up with a good name for it, or written up a definition and some clear inclusion criteria. As with the distinctions between policies, guidelines, and essays it would require a sharper division than "has more support" (we have plenty of guidelines with more support and compliance than some policies; even some essays have that); it has to be a difference of kind, of purpose, application, applicability, value, use, nature, and content, from all other essay types. Some obvious examples are WP:AADD and WP:BRD, as I mentioned in my !vote. Any "essay" that is used as standard operating procedure much of the time, and not just cited frequently but treated as a valid rationale when it is, is a likely candidate. But they all fail the guideline test I outline in my !vote. (Otherwise most of them already would be guidelines; the elevation is extremely rare, since the 2000s.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

In as much as we presently do not have such a category, do you not find it unfair to editors to include the "standard offer", amongst others, in the essay category, despite being applied as if they were guidelines? How are editors, especially new ones, supposed to work their way through a system that hides the policies it uses to deal with disruption behind the benign essay label? I find that type of situation to be absurd. I wouldn't disagree with the creation of a new a category, but I'm not sure what that would accomplish. I'm thinking of transparency, here, and if the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines policy describes guidelines as it does now, this fits the bill. Are you suggesting a change to the definition of "guideline"? RGloucester — ☎ 14:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not applied as if it is a guideline. It is taken as informal advice that some editors subscribe to and others do not. The standard offer is very intentionally not a promise, it is a description of what has worked in the past to get back into the community's good graces.

The fact that you describe it as "a system that hides the policies it uses to deal with disruption behind the benign essay label" tells me that you think it is a policy that we use to deal with disruption. It is not, it is an essay describing a good strategy to convince the community to decide to let you back. It is good advice because it is what it takes to get the community to trust you again, not because it has some official label.

Can't it just be an essay with good advice? What does making it a guideline actually solve, or imply? HighInBC 23:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I never said that the "standard offer" was a promise. A "promise" is not what a guideline is, and the essay itself is very clear that the standard offer is not some sort of guarantee that one will be unblocked after six months. This essay does indeed posit a strategy, but I wouldn't say that it is a strategy on the part of the person blocked. What usually happens is that some user is told, after being indefinitely blocked, that he should follow the terms of the standard offer. This often happens after the user has made one or more unblock requests on his talk page, forming a certain kind of disruption that is curtailed by shutting off the talk page and saying something like "your best bet is to observe the standard offer". Administrators use the standard offer as a way to enforce indefinite blocks. It is essentially an addendum to the blocking policy, in that it provides in a compliment to the uncertainty inherent in an indefinite block. Without the standard offer, the nature of an indefinite block would not provide any clear way out for the blocked party.

Anyway, my point is that if administrators are going to use the "standard offer" as a method to clarify the nature of an indefinite block, as they do on a daily basis, then the "essay" here should not be labelled as if it were some crackpot opinion piece with no relevance to the community. RGloucester — ☎ 21:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Administrators don't use the standard offer, blocked people do. It is up to the community to decide if a person comes back, and they do it based on their own judgement not the text of this essay. The essay is to give solid advice to improve the persons chances of being accepted by the community by describing what has worked well in the past.

Nobody called it "crackpot", nobody suggested it was not relevant, no reason to dispute arguments that have not been made. It is certainly not a tool used by admins to clarify the nature of an indefinite block. In fact I think making it a guideline will confuse people into thinking it might describe the nature of an indefinite block, when it does not.

It is certainly not an enforcement tool, pointing someone to the SO is showing them a way back and not a means to justify a block. Blocks need to be justified separately from this essay, and frankly I can't imagine anyone thinking otherwise. HighInBC 16:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return."

What does that mean? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect it was clear to the author ... but certainly isn't clear to at least two of us! I propose its amendment or deletion; specifically, that anybody who feels it is a useful part of the "standard offer" should clarify the wording, perhaps simply by adding an example or two so the rest of can understand its scope better. Alternatively, such an editor might offer a rationale for keeping it. Further, if no improvements to the wording are made AND no rationale is given in a reasonable period of time - say, one month from this edit - then it would be reasonable to assume that this part of the offer is NOT important enough to warrant keeping, so that one might safely delete it. yoyo (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I can tell you why it's probably there. It was intended to act as a "safety valve" in case an exceptionally bad user or a user that clearly hasn't repented tried to take the offer. I'm not attached to the language, though, since this isn't a policy/guideline. If it ever became one, the language should be there. ~ Rob^Talk 00:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a punitive measure that doesn't prevent further disruption

The Standard Offer really makes no sense, first of all what does it prove if someone doesn't contribute in 6 months? Note that the standard offer also includes not making any positive contributions or fighting vandalism, how does this benefit the encyclopedia in any way? If a user truly wished to continue being disruptive, why would they make a block appeal in the first place? Blocks are REALLY EASILY evaded, changing IPs is as easy as walking for 5 minutes as free Wi-Fi 📶 is everywhere (and I live in a poor country with limited to almost no development), getting rid of cookie-block happens with two clicks in 5 or 10 seconds, and for things like spamlinks there are already appropriate levels of filters available that make human interaction is a rare necessity (if needed at all), at its core the standard offer goes against everything Wikipedia stands for, this project was founded on the idea that anyone willing to make positive contributions to the project should be able to make them, meanwhile other policies such as WP:EVASION says that if a blocked person contributes positively that they will still get blocked again regardless of their intentions, while WP:BLOCK claims that blocks are a preventive measure created to stop further disruptions and not to be a punitive action towards anyone. In fact at Wikipedia:Appealing a block it is stated “Wikipedia and its administrators and arbitration committee have a real wish for everyone who is capable of acting responsibly to be able to enjoy editing.”, if a user really needed a period of time to reflect they would leave Wikipedia voluntarily after their block, not appeal it.

On another note the Standard Offer is an WP:ESSAY and the hatnote states “It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.”, meanwhile administrators take this offer as if it were a rule and is usually the go-to answer towards any block appeal. Why would a user that truly wishes to help build an encyclopedia be excluded from doing this then? Remember that even positive contributions from a blocked user will extend the duration of their block.

Now I will leave you all with this little quote from WP:NOT:

“While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.”

This literally goes against any of the aforementioned guidelines and policies yet has been universally accepted as the guiding principle of Wikipedia since its inception.

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱.

Wikipedia is about the encyclopaedia, not the community.

Now instead of looking at every individual situation individually this offer is made universally, this only applies to (us) sockpuppeteers, if you get blocked for threatening to kill someone you’re back in a week, if you actually harm the readers by vandalising an article you’re only blocked for 31 (thirty one) hours, if you do so repeatedly 1 week, and only if your account is a “vandalism-only account” will you get blocked indefinitely, but then its creator can just hop on another account and as long as they don't vandalise the same pages no SPI will ever be opened, so we have basically established that using multiple accounts without disclosing them no matter what they’re used for is considered worse by the community than why this community exists in the first place (which is building a good, neutral, and verifiable encyclopedia).

Now look at this article, it looks pretty huge, right? Well, that’s only 2 (two) weeks of work combined with my busy life of work, taking care of my children, and doing other stuff. Now imagine if someone truly wishes to help build the encyclopedia and really does repent for their misdeeds and won’t do it, give them a second chance? “of course not, even if they wish to contribute positively they should get out”. So someone with a history of vandalism under one account is automatically seen as “less worse” by this community than someone who never harmed an article or ever did a disservice to the readers but used sockpuppets for any other ends. You can easily see that the people who do the writing and don't care about fighting vandalism or the community don't really have any influence here, let alone the readers (as they only “elect” content by reading it).

If anyone actually takes this offer serious...

Then I dare you (the blocking administrator) to place a block of 6 months, no more no less, why do infinite blocks exist if this offer is “the standard”, show that you mean it and put a timer on it. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (Sockpuppets 🎭) (Articles 📚) 20:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Vague comment that requires clarification

"The six-month threshold can be adjustable under special circumstances. If an editor shows an unusually good insight into the circumstances that led to the block, and sets out a credible proposal for how they will deal with those issues in future, then a return might be considered sooner."

What special circumstances? How exactly does a blocked user go about showing an unusually good insight into the circumstances that led to the block and set out a credible proposal for how they will deal with those issues?

I personally feel that this page should be replaced with a new, better thought out offer, or updated to be more intuitive. J.A.R.N.Y.🗣 00:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

SO and IBANs

Does SO apply to IBANs? Is there policy on this, either way? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Make WP: SO into a guideline?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This didn't work in the past and I'm proposing this again. With how often it gets thrown around, I think it's finally time to make it a guideline. Additionally it is basically treated as one so why not formalize it?--HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

• oppose this is an idiotic and poorly formed "proposal" with no basis in any sort of community norms or consensus. Praxidicae (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose our biggest problem as a community is that we insist on giving people who aren’t compatible with a collaborative project every chance to prove it. Formalizing this as a guideline would make that worse. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per TonyBallioni. The standard offer is not binding in any way that a guideline might. There is too much variation among blocked or banned users for a one-size-fits-all approach.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the standard offer is something that doesn't need to be formally codified. We understand how it works, and for the most we understand when to use it and when not to use it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The first paragraph says that "...most administrators and the community accept it as a common route to having a block reviewed", but a guideline is not something that may only be accepted by "most administrators", and so making the SO a guideline would mean that it would have to be rewritten. A guideline could not be flexible in the way the SO is; the flexibility lost, a new layer of "common practice for cases that don't fit into the SO-guideline" would emerge, and eventually be written down... What would be the point? Also, there are blocked users who look at the SO as a guarantee that they will be unblocked if they appeal after 6 months. This would happen a lot more with a SO-guideline. So I see no advantages, but plenty of reasons not to do it. --bonadea contributions talk 21:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see the rational of turning it into a guideline. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per all above. SO shouldn't be a rule. SMB99thx my edits! 01:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Codifying SO assumes that all sockpuppeteering cases are the exact same, when they are not. Attempting to turn any part of SO into policy would only lead to more confusion: especially in making it jive with the existing blocking policy. In such a case, does SO supplement it? Does it bypass WP:APPEAL? Does it require a certain time range for unblocking, and is this time range inflexible? Turning SO into a policy just seems like a trainwreck to me, especially if we consider the fact that not all users are the same, not all cases are the same, not all socks or sockmasters are the same, and not all reasons are the same. Doing so would just be another attempt at locking appeals down even more. Whatever defense or reasoning as to why it should be a policy should have been explained in the proposal. This isn't even the right place to file policy proposals. I can't see why I, or any other editor, should agree to this, given how this proposal has no backing aside from original research claims about how often it gets thrown around and how it is basically treated as [policy]. Chlod (say hi!) 02:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  In addition to this, I'm really irked by the fact that you choose to take the easy route in your reply to Liz in the comments subsection below. Sure, this is the easy route, but when establishing community consensus, your aim is to gain consensus by informing the relevant noticeboards (in this case, VPP), not circumvent it by putting the proposal on a talk page with only those who care enough to watchlist the SO talk page. There wasn't even any attempt to inform VPP of this discussion. Would this really be consensus of the community at large? Chlod (say hi!) 02:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

neutral/Comments

• A vote on an essay talk page is not the best process through which guidelines are created. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

it’s not, just that, it’s easier to establish consensus when everything is merged together. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.