Wikiquote talk:WikiProject Policy Revision/Archives/2007-04

Have reviewed all pages in the Wikiquote namespace and categorized, will do more tomorrow to sort through and start getting ideas together. -- Essjay ·   Talk 22:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Policy drafts
We currently have a backlog of policies currently being drafted. In order for them to become official policies, we need community review and acceptance. The following is a listing of the policies themselves. Please review them and post your comments below under the appropriate section. If you agree with all them completely, place Endorse followed by your signature. If you have comments or concerns, place them next to a bullet, but please note that your comments may be struck out when they become irrelevant to remove confusion. Thanks, WikiProject Policy Revision  Cbrown1023  talk  21:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Questions:
 * Who speaks on the above on whose behalf?
 * Who is invited to submit his or her endorsement?
 * Where was this "endorsement" announced? I checked VP and CP but haven't no annoucement. By myself I cannot invite the community since I have no idea who I can invite on whose behalf.
 * In which situation those "endorsement" become effective?

I think it is a good idea in general, but the "invitation of review and ask for endorsement" seems to be haste and not well constructed. Aphaia 08:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. I noticed an editor have edited a draft and then endorse his version. I don't care it since that is anywa y a draft and everyone is invited to edit (though personally I think it is not a careful deed). However I don't have idea if it is meaningful to open the draft for editing and to ask endorsement for the current version, not a particular frozen version at a certain moment. Aphaia 08:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above is supposed to be spoke on behalf of the attached project page, meaning that all members of this WikiProject can edit it. (There are only two active members, Jeff and myself, and Jeff knows that he has the right to edit my comments to a certain degree per my comments at Meta.)
 * Anyone is allowed to place their endorsement.
 * The above was announced on the WQ:AN and you can announce it wherever else you would like. Funny you should ask that right now, because I was just looking for other places to put it.
 * We don't know when this will end yet because we don't know how long it will take people to respond.
 * Re: P.S. Anyone can edit, there is nothing finalized yet.  Cbrown1023  talk  17:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking policy

 * Endorse  Cbrown1023  talk  04:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: While I support nearly everything in this policy, I still think there should be some provision for those (hopefully rare) occasions when it does make sense to block someone indefinitely. Otherwise, I would endorse this policy. ~ UDScott 17:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that matter would have been settled in my addition of the "Elastic clause".  Cbrown1023  talk  18:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, you are correct. I guess I glossed over that part. ~ UDScott 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I once placed an indefinite block on an IP user who created an attack page which included the Social Security, bank account and credit card numbers of the person being attacked. Even if it was a hoax, it needed permanent blocking, so it seemed to me, because of the potentially quite serious damage that could have been caused if the info was real.  I did this as an  instance of what would be called "Ignore All Rules" and would consider it to be defensible now as part of the Elastic Clause provisions.  I mention this here as an example of using the clause and because it occurs to me that I had not pointed it out at the time.  If there is a consensus to reverse the judgment I made, I will look for the IP in the blocking log and will change the block.  - InvisibleSun 21:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is one of instances, another one would be heavy long-term vandalism, heavy sockpuppet usage, "Cplot" on en-wiki... there is a large amount of possible instances.  Cbrown1023  talk  21:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse. ~ UDScott 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyrights

 * Endorse. ~ UDScott 17:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Protected page
moved to Wikiquote talk:Protected page

Votes for deletion/Log

 * Endorse ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse  Cbrown1023  talk  04:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. ~ UDScott 17:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Image use policy

 * Endorse the current "no new uploads here; use Commons instead" policy. We have no specific statement yet about existing images, licensed or not. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added a clause in the policy about past images and their fate, please review and comment.  Cbrown1023  talk  04:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse  Cbrown1023  talk  04:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. ~ UDScott 17:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

 * Endorse  Cbrown1023  talk  04:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This draft is not yet ready to be progressed. In particular, there are a number of areas which need to be gone over and/or written by an editor with experience in sourcing audiovisual works.  121a0012 15:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

General comments
I expect not to comment or vote on many of these policies for a few weeks. We've been operating for more than a year in some cases on a loose attachment to these draft policies, relying on the ability to call on Wikipedia developments when appropriate, and general sysop judgment in many cases. I don't want to attempt to lock down all of these policies at once. Nevertheless, I appreciate Cbrown1023's effort to move us forward on these things, and I hope that we'll get a good bit of review and consideration on them. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cbrown1023's initiatives for formalization of those drafts is welcome, and I admit some documents are almost okay to bring to that stage of call for endorsement. On the other hand, having answered by Cbrown1023 no those documents are frozen and in possibility of later revisioning regarding as the answer if it was okay he revised a policy draft once after another editor had endorsed, I have no good reason to endorse the documents in such situation; or my endorsement would be given to the document I haven't had a chance to review it. Such request for endorsement is meaningful only for a particular revision of documents given with permalinks or shortly "frozen" versions in my opinion. Again I daresay, I wouldn't like to give my carte blanche to other editors even I know they are on a good faith. --Aphaia 09:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for completion of categorization
At the top of this talk Essjay said "All pages categorized", and it seems true at that time but categories themselves were not placed in the category tree. Since isolated categories for documents were created and it is not so much helpful to grasp the situation in a sight (at least for me). There are uncategorized categories including:


 * Category:Policies needing adoption
 * Category:Policies needing expansion
 * Category:Policies revised and adopted
 * Category:Policy Revision
 * Category:Wikiquote policies

Since you guys may have ideas their structure, I would invite you to put them their own place. If you have no interest, I'd like to take care of their meta-categorization in this weekend unless you have a good reason to leave them isolated rather than categorized at this moment. --Aphaia 09:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A relevant proposal is found at Category talk:Wikiquote policies. I would invite all interested parties, specially participants of this project. --Aphaia 06:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Since no one gave feedback, I've become so bold as to make an action. All the above are now subcategorized under Category:Policies and guidelines. --Aphaia 09:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks and sorry no one responded!  Cbrown1023  talk  22:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Next step
Last month, Cbrown1023 invited the community to this page to review the listed policy drafts and endorse whatever they think nice/ready to adopt. Now, the last edit to this page is done more than one month before and I think we won't see any change in a near future.

Now I think we can step to the next stage, adopt some, try to revise some either in dispute or not attractive for the community. Say:
 * There are two policy drafts with three endorsement and no opposition (Votes for deletion/Log and Image use policy). I think we are ready to adopt it to the community as an official policy. If appropriate, I would invite the community to make a final review in a week or so.
 * We are ready to adopt on these two, I believe.  Cbrown1023  talk  17:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is another policy draft with two endorsement and also no opposition (Blocking policy). This could be a candidate for the last minute review as well the draft on the above.
 * I support that this should be done.  Cbrown1023  talk  17:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One point we would remind - even after turning them into the official policies, it doesn't mean they are set in stone and never revised. All community member are invited to take initiatives for their improvement. Now we are only to confirm those pages reflect properly the existing community consensus and we can rely on them to handle incidents on the community for a while.
 * The policy about protection seems to need to be discuss, but it is regarding how to run it rather than its core thought. We will be able to discuss details on its talk page, and later ask a review.
 * Yes.  Cbrown1023  talk  17:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Other drafts have no objection, but only one endorsement or nothing. Perhaps they aren't ripe enough adopted to our community for now, or just we aren't. However, if anyone isn't unhappy, and I assume perhaps we are doing so already, we will be able to adopt them "policy drafts in experiment"? If they go along with the reality of our community, later - in one month or longer - we would like to consider them as official policies. Otherwise, we'll stop our experiment and put them back to the former status, policy draft in discussion.
 * I would prefer we just hold these until they get at least 2 endorsements.  Cbrown1023  talk  17:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In this one month we have other new concerns, including Licensing Policy (see WQ:VP. I think it would be better for us to reassign priorities to our issues and try to deal things critical or in urgent need. Also as I stated before, the procedure calling for endorsement could be elaborated. After we deal the current request for endorsement, I would like to try improving its procedure.
 * I agree that thi is needed.  Cbrown1023  talk  17:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * About procedure, I make up a note on User:Aphaia/Policy making. It isn't far away from our existing custom to approve policies and guidelines. Hopefully it could be a starter to the further discussion. --Aphaia 01:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comment will be appreciated. --Aphaia 16:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Since April 21, there has been one clear support, no objection, so I tagged them as Official policy. If you think I acted too boldly, please revert it and make a comment. If there is no objection within three days, I'd take it your approval. --Aphaia 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)