User:Donald Trung/Criticism of the Standard Offer (written in August 2017)

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 📚) 20:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)