Wikipedia:Non-admin protection/Vote

Voting

This is to move the policy to official policy. Voting ends on March 1, 2005 at 23:59 UTC. Please vote below. One vote per user is allowed; anonymous votes will be ignored. Comments regarding votes can be left below or on the vote Talk page. Discussion of the policy in general should be left on the parent article's Talk page.

Yes

1. AllyUnion (talk) 08:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. Thryduulf 11:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 23:10, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
4. Beta m (talk) 18:19, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

No

1. Don't think it's a good idea. Ta bu shi da yu 09:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. What about this page are we saying needs to be policy? -- Netoholic @ 02:10, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
3. A) I can't see the point and B) the last thing we need is more stuff like this in the article namespaceGeni 02:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. If an editor wants to stop editing, s/he can stop editing. S/he doesn't need a tag to do it. Gamaliel 18:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. Making this policy seems to be unnecessary. Other than cluttering the article namespace, what will this tag do that can't be done now? Carrp | Talk 18:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. If edit warriors are going to stop, they will. I think this will just be used to claim the moral highground. Rje 18:57, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
7. What will this do? As I said in Comments, the main purpose will be for one editor to claim moral high ground. If he does it after his own reversion, it's bordering on insulting. If he does it after someone else's reversion, why does he need the template? The whole idea is pointless, and, more so, it makes no sense for it to be "official policy" as it isn't prescribing any action. — Asbestos | Talk 23:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
8. Wide open to abuse by editors who want a tool with which to stop the page being edited further. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
9. If someone wants to stop, he can. We have multitude dispute-resolution tags for use then. As Laozi put it: "laws are issued when good customs aren't followed". If there is no such goodwill to make peace without outward praise, we can't expect that this one will be used with good intent. Agree with Asbestos - vandals and POV-pushers will use it as an tool to stiffen efforts to remove their rubbish. And Wikipedia has already poor achievements at defusing fanatics. Forseti 11:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. Ceasefires should be agreed on the talk page, not inside the article namespace. Angela. 15:50, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose poorly-written poll. You can't sensibly have a poll about whether or not to "move the policy to official policy" when you don't even specify the exact wording of the proposed policy. —AlanBarrett 10:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
12. utcursch | talk 12:25, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
13. Circeus 04:31, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC) Unfortunately, I do not believe this would work.

Neutral

# What will it mean for this to become "official policy"? — Asbestos | Talk 10:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) Vote moved to "No"

Comments

1. I don't understand: what precisely is being proposed here? Wouldn't it be sufficient to point out that the ceasefire template is available for use by anyone willing to do their share to de-escalate an edit skirmish? The harmonious editing club in particular might be interested. Unless I'm missing something, the proposed policy doesn't say that use of the new template is in any way mandatory. If no new obligations arise as the result of this proposal, what is there to vote on? I mean aside from the fact that de-escalation is obviously a good idea. --MarkSweep 06:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. As it is right now, I think that it is open to abuse. I expect that a very common senario during edit wars will be one editor reverting back to his own version and then sticking the notice up. At that point if the other editor reverts, the first can claim the moral high-ground because he tried to stop the edit war. I think that the idea is good, but that it should be an explicit guideline within the use of the template that you ought not to stick it up after your own reversion. I realize that the whole thing is voluntary, but I worry that without that guideline being made explicit too many editors will use it as a method of taking the moral high-ground. — Asbestos | Talk 10:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suggested changes

• Rename the policy, as suggested by Deco -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that Deco's suggested renaming should be implemented. Thryduulf 11:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral on the policy, but I agree that "Ceasefire" is probably a better name, since there is no actual protection given. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:59, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)