Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-01/New blocking policy

• Voting to replace the content of Wiktionary:Blocking policy with that of Wiktionary:Blocking policy/new (as of this version); and to accept the content in the box at the top of the new page as a "policy"; in order to make the generally accepted uses of the blocking tool clear to everyone.

• Vote starts: 00:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 24:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Vote created: Conrad.Irwin 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2010/January#Pulling our act together

1. Support Conrad.Irwin 10:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC) as nominator.
2. Support I like this new blocking policy, and I agree that it is definitely a good idea to help us promote user productivity :) Razorflame 11:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Support Yair rand 00:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Support. I'm not happy with our not having settled on a way to indicate which section is immutable policy and which section is not — it seems like the text-that-clarifies-which-part-is-immutable-policy should itself be immutable policy — but I guess it's still better than the status quo. —Ruakh_TALK 00:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   The text indicating which part is immutable policy needn't be immutable policy any more than a statute stating "the Executive Branch has the power to enact regulations to effect this law" need also state "but Ruakh doesn't".​—msh210℠ 16:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   O.K., but what if someone changes the text from "policy, the statement of binding policy", to "policy, a description of most administrators' personal policy for when to block"? We're not voting only on the specific immutable policy in question, but also on the general concept of having the immutable normative policy share a page with mutable informative elucidation of it. I think it would have been better if, rather than voting on that general concept, we were voting on a specific implementation of that concept. —Ruakh_TALK 17:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   We just change it back :). This vote will serve as a record of what the policy was in case of disputes. (Sure, it does not define exactly what policy is, but I think Wiktionary:Policy policy would be a little tricky to write.) Conrad.Irwin 18:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

5. Support —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Support.​—msh210℠ 16:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose EncycloPetey 18:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC) The particular version under consideration contains typographical errors and grammatical anomalies. I support the ideas presented there, and if the vote is restarted with a corrected version, I would support it. --EncycloPetey 18:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

   Maybe we could put this back in premature state while we fix it up? Razorflame 18:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

   No-one has yet made any edits that we can't make to the page after the vote has finished. As per the discussion surrounding the creation of the redraft, only the policy in the box at the top of the page is sacrosanct. If you think there are errors in the actual policy, then yes, we should postpone the vote. Conrad.Irwin 18:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

   The vote specifically says "as of this version" (with link), which is the biggest problem. We are voting on that version, which I cannot support, as I've stated. --EncycloPetey 19:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

   I think that is short-sighted of you, support for that version is exactly equivalent to support of all later versions (unless someone were to edit the actual policy). Conrad.Irwin 19:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

   Quite the contrary, I am taking the long-term view that (like most such pages) it will sit unchanged for an era and so want a vote to be done on a corrected page, not a draft. I think it is irresponsible to put something forward for a vote that hasn't even had basic proofreading done. --EncycloPetey 19:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

   Every time I look at that page, my first instinct is to read the blue part as a declaration that the page is policy, plus a brief summary of the policy (an "in a nutshell" version, I think WP calls it). I understand that the intent is that the blue part be the policy, and the page takes pains to clarify that (e.g., with the hatnote in the "Explanation" section), but I still find it pretty confusing. Unfortunately, I don't have a better suggestion. :-/   —Ruakh_TALK 19:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

   It can pretty easily be tweaked - it will probably want the blue box other policy pages have then the policy can come underneath it. Conrad.Irwin 19:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) That's certainly the way I read it too. We have never used in "in a nutshell" approach here before, but instead use banners to identify types of pages. We'd need to enact such a change to banner declarations site-wide, rather than on a single page. It might be better to have the policy summary ouside of a banner that mimics policy declarations, and an explicit note that it is the policy summary. --EncycloPetey 19:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

   Done. Yay for not having to vote on every small change. Conrad.Irwin 19:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

   But then, we're still voting on replacing Wiktionary:Blocking policy with a version from before that tweak. :-P   —Ruakh_TALK 19:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

   I have made further edits to the page of the proposed new policy, hoping to make the intention even clearer. The vote is on a past revision, anyway. --Dan Polansky 08:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks. If the vote succeeds I will incorporate all the changes that have been made as the page gets moved (except for those that modify the policy, which is none of them so far). Conrad.Irwin 14:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose -- Prince Kassad 20:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Abstain Dan Polansky 12:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I have no insight and experience with blocking, and I am not an admin, so I should think twice before taking part in governing admins. --Dan Polansky 12:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

   Nothing wrong with thinking twice, but nothing wrong with voting on this issue, either. Just mho.​—msh210℠ 16:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

2. Abstain until my revision is included in the proposal. --Vahagn Petrosyan 22:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Final count is 6-2-2. Not much interest in this vote, but 75% should be enough to pass it. this one had 77%, this one too. this was no consensus with 12-7-1. this one passed at 7-2-0 --Rising Sun talk? 23:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Passes at 75% --Rising Sun talk? 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)