Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Standard offer

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  snow keep. BencherliteTalk 12:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Standard offer
Essay has almost no support in practice and only serves to encourage users to reapply for editing privileges only to be embarrassed in public rejection and to have their previous editing errors prominently re displayed on the highest profile noticeboard on the wikipedia.. Off2riorob (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * While I've seen the current AN/I, could you point to other unban/unblock requests based on the standard offer that were opposed; and more importantly, are there any instances were the standard offer has worked (once, twice, ...)? I'd be interested to know what "almost no support in practice" refers to, because I think the offer is a pretty interesting way of gaining back some trust, in theory. Thanks - [Charlie Echo Tango]  01:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, tomorrow I will add some links to some of the Standard Offer issues I remember. Off2riorob (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think MfD is the best way to go about this though. It's never going to be deleted per se; at worst, it'll be marked as historical for archive purposes where it has been invoked (successfully). Probably better to bring the issue up on the talk page and then start a RfC there on the issue. Remember, essays are not binding to begin with; it's just a matter of whether they have been mentioned in policy, and whether that's appropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Are you kidding me? It's an essay. Who cares if an essay has no support? And this one actually does- I see it used fairly often, sometimes successfully. access_denied (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Its a miscellaneous . If it misleads contributors into a venerable high profile exposed public position often without no result apart from rejection or additional embarrassment and exposure then it needs something, or as you say, marking historic. Off2riorob (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Essays are allowed to express any opinion. And you are misrepresenting my comments; I never said anything about marking historical. access_denied (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyways, as its a essay, a MFD, if there is consensus we can delete it. Personally as you can see, I presently prefer we delete it as it is often detrimental for users looking to return and contribute. Off2riorob (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody is forcing the blocked user to take the standard offer. Do you not notice the big "this is an essay" disclaimer template at the top? access_denied (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * An essay is an essay is an essay. access_denied (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep — disagreeing with the contents of an essay is not grounds for deleting it, nor is disliking the results when the advice in the essay is followed. Reyk  YO!  02:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, although it needs work. It is my view that the weak-point of this is a lack of a requirement (or at least a strong expectation) of useful work on non-en:wp WMF projects. I'm going to seek to rescue this by added a bit about this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Keep. Well known, if not official. Obviously useful. MfD is not for ruling on policy, regardless of the style of documentation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The standard offer needs clarifying not deleting. AniMate  04:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * yup; see my recent edit to the essay; I've also notified Durova (the author). Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the addition, but I'd like it more if the part about editing on other WMF projects was more prominent. AniMate  05:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a wiki; this can be fixed through normal editing. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep — I AGF about the nomination; but the SO process is used regularly and successfully for less high visibility users than the one whose ban appeal prompted this MFD. That it was not applicable in one situation does not mean it's rejected by the community as a valid process. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep — if D4D hadn't torpedoed the process with that email, he might have been able to return under this.—SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Seriously? This is only an essay and not a guideline or policy on dealing with blocked users. It's not like we are bound to go by the standard offer for every troll and vandal who has ever been blocked. As an essay, it is useful place to refer when a seemingly AGF block/ban appeal comes to light. If you disagree with the suggestions in the essay feel free to write a counter essay but as far as I can see the page itself isn't in violation of any policies or the greater spirit of collaborative editing.  Them From  Space  05:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep If you don't like it, ignore it. I have personally been involved in bringing at least half a dozen users back to full editing privileges who followed standard offer. Not only is it well used, it works when users follow it. That there are some users who misinterpret or misuse it, or that there are some users whose behavior is so eggregious as to make their stay at Wikipedia so unwelcome that WP:SO is unlikely to convince many people is not a reason to delete it. It works well when it is applied well. -- Jayron  32  05:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Well I got the answer I was waiting for from the preceding message by Jayron32. Since it has been used successfully, I say keep the opportunity. [Charlie Echo Tango]  06:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify at least one example; here is one from 2008 I participated in. This user is currently active and has been making positive contributions for 2 years. It was just one that popped into my head; I have forgotten the specific names of other such users whose discussions on the Standard Offer I participated in, but there have been several who have been unblocked because of it. To be sure, the standard offer is not automatic; it has never been meant to be so, but for users that genuinely abide by it, the tend to get reinstated in my experience. -- Jayron  32  07:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm an example, too; I don't recall if OFFER was much discussed in my return, but it fits the broad outlines. Going to other projects is about leveling-up. Frankly, I'm better for it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that many users have successfully gotten them back to the English Wikipedia using this essay means that it still is useful. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 10:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I understand Off2riob's point about embarrassment, but deletion wouldn't prevent that - people would still ask to be unbanned and such discussions would still be (and need to be) high profile. Rd232 talk 11:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.