Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Cancelled poll

Your approval please

In order to see if there's general consensus for this change after the above discussion, I'd like to hold a quick approval poll. This is not a vote, although if there's one option that clearly has general consensus, it'll probably end up on the policy page. To participate, please sign your name for each alternative that you agree to, endorse, or would prefer to live with. You may choose more than one. --FOo 08:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A: Original proposed text

This text is added to the section on "When blocking may not be used":

Administrators may not block editors with whom they are in an ongoing conflict, even if they believe the blocking policy justifies a block. Personal disputes, editing or revert wars, or mutual accusations of bias all tend to blur people's judgment of each other's actions. An offense always seems more threatening when someone we don't like or trust is the one doing it.

An administrator involved in a conflict should do what any other editor should do -- use dispute resolution. In cases where an administrator in a conflict thinks an immediate block is necessary, they may post to WP:AN/I to ask uninvolved administrators to review the situation and perform the block.

(First approver)
(Second approver)
...

B: Amended proposed text

This text is added to the section on "When blocking may not be used":

Users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in an article editing conflict. Nor should an admin block if it could reasonably be perceived as a conflict of interest by the wider community, even if they believe the blocking policy justifies a block. Personal disputes, editing or revert wars, or mutual accusations of bias all tend to blur people's judgment of each other's actions. An offense always seems more threatening when someone we don't like or trust is the one doing it.

An administrator involved in a conflict should do what any other editor should do -- use dispute resolution. In cases where an administrator in a conflict thinks an immediate block is necessary, they may post to WP:AN/I to ask uninvolved administrators to review the situation and perform the block."

(First approver)
(Second approver)
...

C: Amended proposed text #2

This text is added to the section on "When blocking may not be used":

Users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in an article editing conflict. Nor should an admin block if it could reasonably be perceived as a conflict of interest by the wider community, even if they believe the blocking policy justifies a block. Personal disputes, editing or revert wars, or mutual accusations of bias all tend to blur people's judgment of each other's actions. An offense always seems more threatening when someone we don't like or trust is the one doing it.

An administrator involved in a conflict should do what any other editor should do -- use dispute resolution. In cases where an administrator in a conflict thinks an immediate block is necessary, they must post to WP:AN/I to ask uninvolved administrators to review the situation and perform the block."

(First approver)
(Second approver)
...

D: No change

The section on "When blocking may not be used" remains as it is today. That is, admins may not block when involved in a content dispute with an editor.

I oppose proposals A, B, and C, because they'd make things easier for trolls, who will cry "conflict of interest" whenever it suits them, or will create a conflict with an admin so that the admin can't take action against them, as people do with arbitrators, then demand the arbitators recuse themselves. The current policy prohibits an admin blocking where they're involved in a content dispute, and that's enough in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allow people to comment

Foobar, don't try to stop people commenting when they vote, please. It's bad enough holding a poll on a major policy change, but trying to stop people from saying why they hold the view that they do is not appropriate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. You've made lots of comments here. Nobody else but you is calling it a "vote", by the way -- Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Since we're already discussing this elsewhere, I don't see any need to fragment the discussion. --FOo 21:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]