Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-11/Short blocking policy

Rationale

I saw multiple editors being confused, taking the full text of WT:BLOCK page to be the policy. The current setup seems confusing. It seems most preferable to have a policy page contain only policy and nothing else. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dan Polansky. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Sheesh, how much clearer can it be about which part of it is policy? It reads, right at the top:

This policy page consists of two sections: (a) policy, the statement of binding policy; (b) explanation, a non-binding explanation of the policy, and guidelines showing how the policy is usually applied. The only binding section is “policy”. The section “policy” is not merely the policy in a nutshell but rather the complete statement of the policy itself.

Policy

The blocking policy itself is as follows:

1. The block tool should only be used to prevent edits that will, directly or indirectly, hinder or harm the progress of the English Wiktionary.
2. It should not be used unless less drastic means of stopping these edits are, by the assessment of the blocking administrator, highly unlikely to succeed.

Where are these people who take the whole page to be the policy? Not that I don't believe you, Dan, but I'm curious to see the context.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@msh210 At Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/October#Restoring WT:CFI, I edited CFI to change something and @Dan Polansky asked the policy to be restored; which I did.

Dan Polansky argued: "It introduces phrasing 'It has been voted' and it introduces rationales in 'One reason for having separate pages ...'. That is bad for a policy page, IMHO, and AFAIK some people agree with me in this regard. A policy page should state its shoulds AKA regulations and that's it."

I'm leaning towards agreeing with his reasoning. If WT:NORM is any indication, a policy only listing "shoulds" without further explanations looks good IMO. The explanations and further help can be listed elsewhere. I suggested Help:Blocking as a place that is free for everyone editing; it makes sense protecting only the policy proper, since that is what actually changes what people should do when considering blocking someone. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• @msh210 One misunderstanding was when Ivan Štambuk blocked Kephir in 2013. The relevant discussion is at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2013/November#Block of User:Kephir, and the relevant part is 'But there is also the explanation section which states: Causing our editors distress by directly insulting them or by being continually impolite towards them. So block was per policy AFAICS.' Another misunderstanding is a recent one but I cannot recall what it was; I saw someone pointing to the non-policy parts as if they were policy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks. That doesn't seem like many. And the page seems very very clear to me, fwiw.​—msh210℠ (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

  @msh210 I found the recent case in the block log of Purplebackpack89, from 1 November 2015. The blocking summary says this: 'Per WT:BLOCK: "1-7 days - Primary blocks for behavior which is counter to policy, productivity or community." [...]' --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  @Dan Polansky, I don't see that that indicates at all that the blocking admin thought that it was policy. I might easily use a similar summary ("Per...") myself to indicate compliance with non-policy advice or guidelines.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

  I was the blocking admin. I know, and knew at the time, what are the policy and non-policy parts of WT:BLOCK. msh210's assessment is correct. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

  @msh210 Ok, so the blocker was not confused about what is and is not policy. But the edit summary gave the impression that WT:BLOCK was used as a policy, to me anyway. If we remove the parts I propose for removal, such block summaries (misleading to my eyes) become impossible. And this instance is evidence that these "mere non-policies" stand a good chance of going to be used against editors as if they were policies. I sense something rotten there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  @Dan Polansky, msh210 I believed at the time that my block was conforming of the actual 2-item policy at WT:BLOCK. I was trying to stop one of pointless repeated discussions involving the blocked user, which I believed qualifies as "edits that will, directly or indirectly, hinder or harm the progress of the English Wiktionary". I still believe these things.

  The non-policy parts of the page are described in the same page as "a non-binding explanation of the policy, and guidelines showing how the policy is usually applied" and are the only part of the page that suggested what exactly is the time limit for a block, so I followed it. The guidelines suggested this (I'll shorten it): "1-7 days = primary blocks"; "7-31 days = second blocks"; "> 1 month = third blocks". The blocked user had been blocked before, although unblocked at all times after the blockable issue had been settled, so I considered this was not a "primary block" but I blocked him for 3 days anyway like a "primary block". I said in the block summary: "actually it's not a "primary block", but I feel more than that would be too much". So, I did not even follow the guidelines to the letter.

  I'm not sure if you are saying that WT:BLOCK is "rotten" or that my block or block summary was "rotten", but I don't believe I was wrong in blocking the user that day.

  That said, I'm the creator of this vote (but, for credit purposes: shortening the policy that way was your idea, Dan Polansky) and IMO WT:BLOCK should only have policy contents, without any "non-binding explanation" of the policy. I acknowledge and agree with your point: "But the edit summary gave the impression that WT:BLOCK was used as a policy, to me anyway. If we remove the parts I propose for removal, such block summaries (misleading to my eyes) become impossible." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)