Wikipedia talk:Wikiblower protection/Voting

This is a vote on the proposal to make Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection an official Wikipedia policy. It shall last for one week, i.e. until 22:25, August 11, 2005, and 70% support shall be required for the proposal to pass. As on most votes, informal Wikipedia:Suffrage applies. Please do not modify the wording of Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection while it is being voted on.

Invalid Vote

According to Wikipedia:Suffrage, "Votes should only very rarely be used to form policy; other means of seeking consensus should be exhausted first. Even policies designed to address disruptive problems on Wikipedia, such as the Three Revert Rule should come to vote only after the terms, condition, start time, and duration of the voting period have been decided by consensus." Because this condition has not been met - and in fact, efforts at voting and deletion began far before the article had a chance to be formed - this Vote is a departure from established Wikipedia policy and is therefore considered performance art. Thank you for your participation. Benjamin Gatti

Support the policy as a whole

1. Yes - it's more fair than a cabal system of insiders Benjamin Gatti 00:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

   Ed's the most inside of insiders and is a founding member of the cabal. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

   TINC! Bwa ha hah.

Scrap the policy totally

1. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Strongest possible oppose. ~~ N (t/c) 21:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
3. ^…Markaci 2005-08-5 T 02:10:09 Z
4. Hell, no. khaosworks 03:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
5. Asbestos 13:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC). WP:POINT says "Ye shall not break rules, even to make a point." This proposal says "...but if you really, really want to make a point, feel free to break the afore-mentioned rule." Unworkable, and anti-wiki, where people are expected to be held responsible for their actions.
6. Nandesuka 15:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC) I categorically oppose this anti-collaborative proposal.
7. Strong Oppose. Violating WP:POINT is never necessary or justified. No exceptions should exist for anyone. Superm401 | Talk 20:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
8. Strongly oppose this poilicy or anything remotely like it. out-of-process page deletions should not be sactiond at all, and definately not to "call attention" to some issue or problem. When anyone does make such an out-of-process deletion, sanctions, such as temprorary or permenant loss of the administrator privilages thereby absued are fully appropriate, and claims of "good motives" should merely be ignored, if not actually considered an aggravating factor (The road to hell is paved with...). DES ^(talk) 21:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

   (...Italian marble). ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

9. Strong Oppose. Blatantly WP:POINT. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 21:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Michael Snow in his remarks on the policy page's vfd discussion said it better than I can. This policy evidences no understanding of the real role of a whistleblower. Jwrosenzweig 21:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose for sure. violet/riga (t) 22:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose. The feeble ttempt to connect to actual whistleblowing is particularly bad. --Calton | Talk 00:16, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose Any rule that says you can ignore other rules if you think it's justified is a quick trip to having no rules at all. Rule breakers always feel what they do is justified. There has to be some outside rules everyone agrees to follow or you may as well abandon the entire site to the banned users, sockpuppets, and POV warriors. If you feel the need to break a rule to bring attention to something, you should also be willing to face the consequences. This proposed policy is completely unworkable, decepitvely named, and pointless. DreamGuy 03:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
14. Oppose, delete the ridiciulous proposal, and censure the author for repeated violation of WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 08:01, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
15. Oppose. That way lies madness. Paul August ☎ 14:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
16. Oppose Attempts to protect unjustifiable unprotectable behavior. Not to mention some sections make no sense. And the idea's asinine. The Literate Engineer 16:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
17. Oppose. This policy would seem to set a very poor precedent for the future, in permitting users to break rules that others must follow simply because someone has decided that they were exposing some nebulus issue on the wiki. We have WP:IAR already to justify deviations from standard policy, and I am of the opinion that this policy is at odds with WP:POINT. --NicholasTurnbull 20:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
18. Oppose the policy -- This would essentially be obliteration of WP:POINT: ultimately, anyone in violation would be arguing that they are trying to solve a problem that merits Wikiblower protection. Nevermind that this is not really whistleblower protection: Whistle blowing is the act of reporting wrongs, not taking matters into ones own hands such as to do what could be considered abuse of the situation... --Mysidia 02:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
19. Oppose bad idea. JesseW 17:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Echo everyone above. --BaronLarf 02:34, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
21. Double Plus Ungood.

Somewhere in-between (please specify/create suitable voting section)

Support as documentation, oppose as policy

1. Wikipedia needs to acknowledge the complex nature of decision-making, and the important role which occasional unilateralism can play in a consensus-based system. However, I don't really understand what a "policy" on Wikiblower protection would amount to. Therefore, I suggest that the page be moved to Wikipedia:Whistleblowing or something similar, and reworked. -- Visviva 02:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)