Warcraft Wiki talk:Policy status phases

Rejection and Grandfathered status

Here is an addendum to the status and phases policy I overlooked. Some policies existed before the phases process existed, so what should we do with them? This also includes the missing rejected status which is implied by the proposal below, but not specifically described.

Proposal

1. Policy pages should have an additonal status of rejected for those proposals that have lost the vote or grandfathered policies that were effectively adopted before a process was in place, but can still be recalled.
   • Rejected – A proposal policy has some number of users that have voted no ("rejection minimum") that exceeds the number of yes votes by some amount ("rejection ratio") and a certain time period (rejection time) has elapsed for it to be rejected. This policy proposal should not appear in the Policies category.
   • Grandfathered – A grandfathered policy has been around before the ratification and adoption process, but is adopted for the purposes of policy. This policy is officially accepted by the wowwiki community in so far as it is not recalled by a certain number of no votes in the future.
2. Vote ratios and time:
   • Rejection minimum – I suggest 5 votes.
   • Rejection time – I suggest 1 week (7 days), but we could have a shorter time, like 3 days, if the rejection ratio is high (4 to 1 in against) and the number of no votes is high (15?).
   • Rejection ratio – If the rejection minimum has been met and the no votes exceed the yes votes by 3 to 1, then the policy is has met the rejection ratio. Examples: 5 no votes & 1 yes vote, 6 no votes & 2 yes votes, etc.

Votes

Yes:

1. Fandyllic 9:57 PM PST 4 Jan 2006
2. Powerlord 16:24, 11 Jan 2006 (EST)
3. Aeleas 16:30, 11 Jan 2006 (EST)
4. Yes Terrybader 14:07, 10 Feb 2006 (EST) - ()
5. Yes Ralthor 00:19, 7 April 2006 (EDT) - ()

NOTE: This vote has met the ratification minimum of 5 votes and the ratification ratio of better than 3:1 in favor, so it just needs to wait the ratification time of 7 days before being adopted as Wowpedia policy. --Fandyllic 11:02 AM PDT 7 Apr 2006

Comments

1. Perhaps this vote should be mentioned on another page so that people will actually see it? --Powerlord 16:24, 11 Jan 2006 (EST)
2. Yeah, I made it so it will show up on the Policy proposals list. --Fandyllic 10:30 PM PST 21 Jan 2006

Policy by admin decree

You're probably not going to like this, but some policies will be established by admin via decree without voting, unlike normal policies. The primary example is the Exploits policy which AlexanderYoshi established to be in line with Blizzard's anti-exploit policy.

Community input is still valued in cases where an admin doesn't seem to have good reasons, so maybe another admin will revert it. So still add comments to discussion.

--Fandyllic 9:15 PM PST 13 Jan 2006

Policy status phases

Proposal

1. Policy pages should have a status at the top that indicates whether the policy is still a proposal, ratified, or adopted. A policy can also be recalled by users or vetoed by the Admins.
   • Proposal – Some user has proposed the policy, but no one has voted on it or it hasn't received the minimum number of yes votes (ratification minimum) to be ratified.
   • Ratified – A proposal policy has some number of users has voted yes that exceeds the number of no votes by some amount, but a certain time period (ratification time) has not elapsed for it to be adopted.
   • Adopted – A ratified policy has been around with an amount of yes votes exceeding no votes for the ratification time for it to be adoped. This policy is officially accepted by the wowwiki community in so far as those who voted represent the community.
   • Recalled – If an adopted policy gets more no votes than yes votes at some time in the future, it becomes recalled back to a status similar to proposal status, except that if the no votes exceed yes votes for some period of time (recall time), the policy becomes a candidate for deletion.
   • Vetoed – The admins can always veto a policy outright. There rule is law, but the users can of course comment on vetoed policies to try to persuade the admins.
2. Vote ratios and time:
   • Ratification minimum – I suggest 5 votes.
   • Ratification time – I suggest 1 week (7 days), but we could have a shorter time, like 3 days, if the ratification ratio is high (4 to 1 in favor) and the number of yes votes is high (15?).
   • Ratification ratio – If the ratification minimum has been met and the yes votes exceed the no votes by 3 to 1, then the policy is has met the ratification ratio. Examples: 5 yes votes & 1 no vote, 6 yes votes & 2 no votes, etc.
   • Recall time – I suggest 1 week (7 days), but we could have a shorter time, like 3 days, if the recall ratio is high (4 to 1 against) and the number of no votes is high (10?).

Notes: I made the standard for recall lower than adoption, since a policy that people mostly don't like is likely to cause more trouble than a policy that people do like, but some disagree with.

--Fandyllic 11:16 AM PST 9 December 2005

Yes

1. Fandyllic 11:16 AM PST 9 December 2005
2. Aeleas 23:33, 18 Dec 2005 (EST)
3. Laisren 07:12, 19 Dec 2005 (EST)
4. Schmidt 07:49, 19 Dec 2005 (EST)
5. Powerlord 03:44, 3 Jan 2006 (EST)

No

1.  _ℑilver§^ℑide 20:29, 14 Dec 2005 (EST) (See below)

Suggestions

[SilverSide] I see that a policy wiki page is just like any other. Just do it, if your adding; ask and wait a little and then do it if your removing or changing. Only difference is that it is probably best (notice words probably and best, as a contradiction to defiantly and the only way) if small-time editors and new users kinda look around a bit before they add. Sometimes things are they way they are for a reason, even if it isn't written anywhere. Anyway, I believe the, well, 'policy' on policy to be the same as anywhere else - BOLD, revert, discuss - just do it, because either:

1. Nobody will have a problem with it
2. Somebody will have a problem with it

((I would say that covers all the bases, wouldn't you?)) - in the case of 1, then your fine and your edit helps the community, and in the case of 2, the person(s) with problems will say so on the talk page and probably edit your edit (or even revert it entirely), then you can discuss it with them, tell them why you felt the way you did and they can explain why the felt the way they did and so on. This is the wiki system and it works just as well for articles as policies, right? Feel free to flame me here I was just spewing my thoughts! --  _ℑilver§^ℑide 20:29, 14 Dec 2005 (EST)

I think policy pages, since they (hopefully) affect the entire content of the wiki and have far reaching implications, need more consensus than standard pages. A change in policy can affect hundreds of other pages; it would be best to see if people agree with the change before making such dramatic shifts.

I like the changes proposed; they would give a little more effect to getting new policies decided on. --Aeleas 23:33, 18 Dec 2005 (EST)

In the interests of keeping things orderly, even at the expense of efficiency, it would be nice to have things voted on. This way we don't have to wonder if something that is found on the policy page really was arrived at with concensus. The reasoning behind me even starting the policy page (I'm very surprised no one had developed one beforehand) is that I wanted everyone to agree on it. It was poorly worded, and I had hoped that someone would be able to rewrite it by now. I hope that we can write things a little more formally (not esoterically) and vote on things as written, and if someone disagrees we can reword it before it gets to the regular policy page so that we don't have to rewrite anymore. Is this understandable? (I'm pretty tired.) Schmidt 07:49, 19 Dec 2005 (EST)

Comments

Too bad it couldn't have been unanimous, but I guess this policy has been ratified. I started making banners for the various statuses. I'll also be adding Glossary terms for the various statuses. I also want to add articles for the policies on this page (maybe as templates) and put them in separate articles in the Policy category. We will assume that existing policies were ratified and adopted, since by the new policy status they can be recalled. I'll start adding banners in a few days. --Fandyllic 6:07 PM PST 3 Dec 2006

Okay, the last vote was 3 Jan 2006, so even though there are a few hours before exactly 7 days has passed, I'm comfortable marking this a adopted, since it has met the minimum (5 votes), hit the ratio (5-to-1 is better than needed 3-to-1), and me the ratification time (7 days).

Now I will go about implementing it (see what I'm doing in my worklog), until it gets recalled.

--Fandyllic 4:51 PM PST 10 Jan 2006

Re-write policy recall process

I was just reading through this and noticed the recall process detailed is written a bit oddly:

Recalled – If an adopted policy gets more no votes than yes votes at some time in the future, it becomes recalled back to a status similar to proposal status, except that if the no votes exceed yes votes for some period of time (recall time), the policy becomes a candidate for deletion.

It seems to me that this essentially leaves a policy proposal vote open for the rest of time, and old users changing their votes may further muddy the process.

I would like to re-write this to require a new vote in order to recall a policy. This method of recalling a policy seems to already be detailed further down the page (Project:PSP#Starting a policy recall vote). So I would re-write the above line to:

Recalled – A policy may be recalled with the same requirements for passage as a normal policy vote. Once recalled, the policy no longer has effect. However, the recalled policy should be kept for further discussion and not deleted.

I would also remove the recall time definition, this just seems to me a random confusing distinction from a normal policy vote.

Votes

Yes

1. Yes PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 18:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC) - (Originally proposed)
2. Yes Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC) - (This just makes logical sense.)
3. Yes Xporc (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC) - (optional comment)
4. Yes PeterWind (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC) - (Sounds reasonable.)
5. Yes Alayea (talk / contrib) 02:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC) - (no comment)
6. Yes Aliok (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC) - (no comment)

No