Wikipedia talk:Standard offer

Make WP: SO into a guideline?
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)

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. L EPRICAVARK ( 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.  SMB9 9thx   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)

"Standard Offer" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Standard Offer. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 28 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

"Note for blocked users"
I was confused by the section "Note for blocked users": it seems to contradict the current banning policy that it references, which states "Exception: A third-party block review that results in a normal administrator block being endorsed is not converted into a community ban." This is apparently the result of an RfC that occurred after (this essay's) paragraph was last touched.

Unless there is some subtlety in this doctrine that I have overlooked, it seems like this paragraph is outdated and should be removed.

Rabbitflyer (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated to remove the "conversion" part. - jc37 07:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2024
change "They discussion usually takes several days." to "The discussion usually takes several days." in the How does it work? section. Zxcv6666 (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- Euryalus (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Is contributing to other WMF projects required for blocked but not banned users.
In the variations section, it says banned users must make contributions to other WMF projects. It does not say blocked users so is contributing to other WMF projects required for blocked but not banned users. Zxcv6666 (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)