![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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. ~ Eliz 81 (C) 08:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Yes, I have completed the standard offer and get unblocked -
Yasir72.multan
Talk
Contribs
12:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
What does that mean? — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 10:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
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 📱.
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).
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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. ~ Eliz 81 (C) 08:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Yes, I have completed the standard offer and get unblocked -
Yasir72.multan
Talk
Contribs
12:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
What does that mean? — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 10:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
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 📱.
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).
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)