Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics/Archive 2, March 29, 06

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

START OVER

I have archived discussions and the poll. Please copy paste here if you think is necessary. If you still want to vote, you can do at the top of the page too. As polls indicated, either this project is not ready for voting, or it is not appropriate in this form. In any cases, we need to improve it. I proposed a new organization below. Resid Gulerdem 00:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith that you didn't know that it was bad to archive an ongoing poll especially one where you are actively opposed to it's even existance. I have de-archived the poll. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It is good that you assumed good faith. I already put a note that you can bring it back if you want to. I do not see any reason to keep it though. The result won't change. We need to go back to to the policy for an improvement. I would prefer the poll be archived. Resid Gulerdem 00:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Well Wikipedia is not a democracy and I'm sure that if before the 31st you can sufficently improve the proposal people will be open to changing their opinions. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Remember: assuming good faith is not just for once. Me and the other editors with ethic concerns will do it. Do not worry... Resid Gulerdem 00:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I've unarchived the discussion. I'm open to discussing the merits of archiving this page. However, given the poll refers to the content of the page it seems relevant to people's decisions about voting. Quite a few seem to be voting on the basis that the policy creator has acted too unilaterally too often. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 01:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Archiving is a common practise. Discuss here before rverting. The ocmments section about the poll is already there. Stop vandalizing and destructing the page. Resid Gulerdem 04:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Archiving when you have been warned not to disrupt a talk page is NOT common practice. Arhiving when there is a poll underway also is not common practice. You were warned that you would be blocked indefinitely if you continued. Why have you continued? Do you disagree with the warnings? You should take that up elsewhere, not here! ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Archiving is a common practise. Do not make up rules yourself. I explained the reason for warnings below. Please read it, and see that the reason for the warnings was actually you and your tricks. You should use your experience in Wiki for good reasons, not to kill some proposals which might be beneficial. I would recommend you not play dirty games on relatively new users anymore: Do not bite new users... Resid Gulerdem 05:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguments and Sections

I started two subpages for discussing the policy: Arguments and Sections. It might be good to seperate these two. I think we should discuss each section seperately one by one. After consensus on a modification, we can update the policy. Other overall ideas related to the policy can be discussed here. Please note that not only the critiques, but also your suggestions are very important. We are here to create a good source of information for both newcomers and also all editors. A possitive, constructive approach is necessary... No reason to rush! We can do it slowly but surely. Resid Gulerdem 00:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please raise issues and make helpful suggestions on the individual policy pages: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, etc. The consensus in the poll above clearly shows that this page conflicts with many existing policies. Rhobite 01:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Please see my note on the Arguments page. A policy is needed so that it explains all related policies coherently. It becomes a source of information and introduction to newcomers and a reference to all. THat is how we can deal with instruction creep. Resid Gulerdem 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
If you're going for something like Wikipedia:Five pillars, then you should rewrite this page so that it accurately reflects existing policy. Rhobite 04:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I am ready for any kind of improvements. We are going to do it together. Resid Gulerdem 04:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I won't be participating, since I think that this page is totally superfluous. Rhobite 04:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I respect your decision. We all believe differently at different points. Resid Gulerdem 04:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What happens next

What happens next is this proposed policy becomes a failed proposal and is categorized as such. Attempts to recreate this failed policy will be seen as an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. Anyone who wishes to move on should create a subpage in their user space and work on their ideas until it does not resemble this failed policy proposal. THEN you can, in a non disruptive way, make a new attempt with a new and different proposal. What won't work is trying to resurrect this specific proposal if/when it fails. What won't work is immediately recreating this very same failed proposal. Just some good advice. WAS 4.250 01:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two polls. First one already indicated that there is no need for a poll. Second one already says that, it is not approprite in this form. So, we need to improve it. Resid Gulerdem 03:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect. The first poll is still on this page. The Approval Poll was the first one. It is active until the 31st. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The approval poll is alrady invalid due to the votes on the Do we need poll. Actually if you look at carefully you will see that even among the people voted on the approval poll say 'It is not good time for a vote'. They couldn't vote on the 'Do we need' poll simly because of your vandalism. Resid Gulerdem 04:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Well we don't know if it will have a consensus to become a guideline or it will fail until the poll closes on the 31st and I would strongly suggest against closing early since it would weaken the results but if it does fail then that is good advice. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree with closing. Nobody has supported, and I don't think many people will (see WP:SNOW). The issue has become a cause of trouble (see e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Three_users_.28and_admins.29_NSLE-Netscott-Rory096_misusing_their_privileges). I think - and it's just my personal opinion - that it would be for the good of the project if the proposal was quietly dropped and archived. --kingboyk 13:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph says that if you think the proposal is not ready for a vote, say NO. If you think it is ready say YES. Resid Gulerdem 13:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is ready (and have listed my objections under "oppose"), and I think it would be best to archive this one and start again. I'm not sure that makes me either a "yes" or a "no" as regards your first poll? I'm not talking about polling anyway, I'm talking about closing the debate because it's going nowhere and is (ironically) causing bad feeling. --kingboyk 13:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to get back on working the policy too. Please see the subpages, Sections and Arguments above. You can start making suggestions if you like. Resid Gulerdem 14:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • kingboyk that sounds very sensible. Netscott 13:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss changes in advance

Rgulerdem. I have reverted your edits to this talk page on the basis that they are vandalism. You have been explicitly warned to refrain from messing around with the structure and content of this talk page by several administrators. You were previously blocked for 50 hours for violating this and you have been told by Superm401 that you will be blocked indefinitely if you persist.

I politely requested discussion be made before anyone archive this talk page as it is relevant to the poll. Please listen and discuss civilly what you would like. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Rgulerdem. Please Don't not act unilaterally on this page. Please make a request for others to follow. Your reverts are reckless. Please stop it. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Metta Bubble, do not vandalize and revert my edits. Be civil and discuss here before your edits. Resid Gulerdem 04:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I posted a discussion and warning for every single deletion of yours I restored. What's more, 3 admins warned you just the same. No one, not even an admin, has warned me to stop reverting your deletions. In fact, it has been suggested you need Arbitration to enforce the official policies you so willfully ignore. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
You know very well the reason for all this mess. You were vandalising the page here, when I revert back your destruction, you were going to the 3RR page to claim that I violated 3RRule. You played a dirty game, but it is over. I wish you could expalin what is your motivation. Why do you want to kill this proposal that bad? I regret that I invited you to contribute this page at the first place. You have chosen to destroy it. The possible results of your action is not good for Wiki, I do not know why good for you... Resid Gulerdem 05:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Results of Approval Vote

By current standards, the outcome of the APPROVAL VOTE should determine what happens to this policy page. The other vote should be ignored on the basis that:

  1. it was created to undermine the approval vote
  2. it was created after the approval vote
  3. the wording of the vote refered to user opinions which have been refuted by those users
  4. it was consensus decided to be archived off this page (though it has been unilaterally restored)
  5. it has no rules for either determining result or for when it closes
  6. it's wording has changed 5+ times after voting started

I realise how upsetting this may be for Resid but it doesn't justify someone trying to undermine the approval vote. If anyone other than Resid objects (or approves) of closing this policy and locking the page at the end of the approval vote please let us know below. If the vote goes in favor of keeping this policy open for more discussion, it would be an ideal time to archive the talk page. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

See below for a different view on this. All the first vote decides is approval of the current draft. If (as I guess) you want to nominate the page for deletion, then that's a different vote entirely, and nomination of policy proposals with active talk pages is discouraged. Andrewa 04:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Results of the first Poll

The policy cannot be determined by the outcome of the approval poll. Simply because:

  • It is started by a single editor unilaterally, without a consensus. In the comments section of the first poll this clearly stated: It is obvious that Pegasus1138's calling of poll is to preempt the discussion requested by Rgulerdem in village pump. This is a quite unfair, to be honest. An approval poll at this stage would be illegitimate, and it is wasting voters' time. Also I can't understand why the anti-censorship members feel so threatened by this proposal. Just relax, it is only a proposal, nobody is removing any picture yet. Let more users participate in the discussion first, please. Since Rgulerdem is asking for more time as he seeks community's opinion, be cool and give him more time. --Vsion 06:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Vsion. None of that invalidates the approval poll. You can't just automatically invalidate a poll without discussion. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
And you cannot just start a poll to kill a proposal without discussion. A proposal even the editors do not think that ready to put into a vote. Resid Gulerdem 06:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • First poll is created to ask the community if we really need the poll. So far the result indicates we do not.
  • Even in the approval poll there are votes states that: 'the approval poll is redundant'. The policy is premature at this point for a vote.
  • Nobody, including main proposer, or any other editor thinks that this form of the policy is final, good or the most approprite. Both polls tells us that, it needs improvement.
  • There was no consensus of the arciving first poll. The votes on that poll indicates this clearly. It is vandalized many times (by User:Metta Bubble, see the history of this user vandalism on the page WP:AN/3RR) so that it was not active for long. The 'approval poll is redundant' votes in the second poll clearly indicates that, some people would chose that option if it was available to them.
  • The wording has not been changed so that it effects the understanding the editors. A section is added to answer questions raised by some editors later: What is this poll for.
  • It is not good that a anti-censorship member is trying to censor this page with a ill-stated poll, as indicated by a voter: Needs more discussion, not censorship-by-vote. — JEREMY 11:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Woah! JEREMY. If you would like to accuse me of violating any policy or of being a censor then please get your facts straight. I have never started a poll on wikipedia. I'm am entitled to cast a vote as much as anyone else. There are no vandalism reports on me, although a user was warned 4 times for creating false reports about me. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you felt my comment applied to you personally. That was not my intent. — JEREMY 06:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you jeremy. I couldn't work out why you were calling me a censor. A charge I obviously take very seriously, given I am a member of Wikipedian Against Censorship. Again appreciated you clarifying your comments. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not quote in that context either. Resid Gulerdem 06:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. Why are you quoting people out of context at me? You made it look like JEREMY was making an accusation directly at me. You even included his signature with a full link as though he posted the message. He had to come and explain before it was clear it wasn't actually him. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 10:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


And I explained the reason for it theree times above. Being well experienced is good, to use it to harm people or policies is bad and unethical. That is what you are trying to do here. Resid Gulerdem 06:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The approval poll as indicated by the editors' comments is already designed to kill this process. But first poll and even some votes in the second poll indicates that, the approval poll is invalid. Resid Gulerdem 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL. I have indicate no such preference and I ask you to retract your uncivil accusations. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately you are trying to kill this process. I am not sure about the reason though. I ask community be more conscious about User:Metta Bubbles actions. Please see the demage s/he caused to this policy on the page WP:AN/3RR listed under his/her name. Resid Gulerdem 06:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from speculating on my motives or desires. It's unlikely you comprehend either. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


Position of the polls

The poll was always in its position at the top from its start. Please do not replace it without discussion. It is not a new poll. When a person strted an approval poll against consensus here, we asked to the community if they approve that poll or not. It looks to be that they do not approve the poll at this stage. Resid Gulerdem 14:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The poll from its start was always at the top up untill you (Netscott) decided that it should be somewhere in the middle. Please do not change its place. Resid Gulerdem 23:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Resid, anyone who has been reading the editing comments will understand my stated logic for having the "Approval Poll" at the top of the talk page. It is for chronological reasons... the "Approval Poll" came before your Poll chronologically... so for you to have arbitrarily started (placed) your poll at the top of the page (above all other prior talk and the "Approval Poll") was disingenous and demonstrated a lack of "good faith". My edit (and the edits of 6 fellow editors) merely was to reinstate the actual precedence of the original "Approval Poll". Do you understand this logic? Netscott 03:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Doomed. Delete?

This proposal is obviously doomed. Why are people bothering to edit war over it? Come on folks, do something useful instead. Shall I just delete it? William M. Connolley 16:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • No I don't think it should be deleted... the "Approval Poll" has a specific end date. After that date the deletion/archiving idea should be visited. Netscott 16:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope you're joking, and I fear that you'll mislead people by such comments. Of course an administrator can't just delete anything, rather administrators are expected to know and follow Wikipedia policies. There are some circumstances in which speedy deletion is permitted, but this doesn't seem to me to meet any of the criteria. Andrewa 11:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Calmer waters - but proposing deletion

Now that it looks like things have calmed down - what should be done with this proposed policy. It is clearly not supported by a wide variety of users - and although there was some feeling that the poll was too early, I don't think that things could reach consensus. I think it should just be listed under Misc for deletion. All of the concerns (justifications) for the need for this policy page are already addressed by current policy. I would just list for deletion but want to get some input, and I did not want list it while Rgulerdem is blocked. Trödel 16:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am against deletion of this proposed policy, because many people think, that the other policies like WP:NPA and WP:Wikikette are only about talk pages. This policy would address responsibility regarding article writing, which is very important. If you have any suggestion to improve that policy, please state them here. Raphael1 16:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I expressed my view up above about deletion. As a side note, prior to deletion (if such a deciscion is made) User:Rgulerdem should be given the opportunity to archive this proposed policy to his User space (ie: User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics ) or have it moved by an Admin there so that he can re-pursue the formulating of the policy, but in a more private fashion. Netscott 16:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The poll was started, when the proposal was only 5 days old. This is ridiculous. If you can't bear to see that policy developing, look somewhere else. Raphael1 17:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

As this policy is seeking to prune content for reasons other than its uninformativeness, it is not ever going to make proper encyclopedia policy. The above poll is something of a mandate against the development of anything of this sort... It should be rolled up, archived and serve only an an example of why you shouldn't try to legislate your point of view, ethical or not, on the encyclopedia. Tomyumgoong 22:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this point. The rules-lawyering here is doing nothing but confusing the issue. There isn't a remote chance that anything like this page will be approved as policy, so there's no use wasting more time and breath arguing about it. Salvaging this proposed policy would require a complete rewrite.. the best bet is to agree that it will never pass and move on. Let's not delete it; it is an excellent example of what not to do when formulating Wikipedia policy. Rhobite 22:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am against deletion of this proposal. The initial poll was started way too soon. The proposal has improved since then. I still can't support it as written, but it is moving towards something I could eventually support. I will try to suggest improvements myself when I have more time. Johntex\talk 23:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if it's taken as read that this has failed, we don't delete failed proposals. Why would we do that? They take up just as much disc space when they are deleted, even. If there are issues around someone not understanding that something has failed, deleting the page isn't going to convince them. - brenneman{L} 02:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My only concern is if someone wants to write a proper principle-based code of ethics for Wikipedia, the name "Wikiethics" will already be taken by this rejected proposal. But I guess there are better names for a real code of ethics. Rhobite 02:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikiethics is inappropriate for a title anyway because we are talking about "Wikipedia Ethics" not "Wiki Ethics", which could apply to any wiki. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 10:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion for the deletion procedure, and especially Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Before considering nominating a miscellany page for deletion. But personally I see no grounds for deletion. If this version is rejected, there's still the option of working on it. That's how wikis work! Even if the proposal is abandoned, it's probably better to archive it, otherwise we just risk reinventing the wheel. Andrewa 11:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

2nd poll invalid

I contend that the do we really need this poll poll is invalid and a blatant violation of WP:POINT as well as WP:AGF as Resid's comments show as well as the fact that he's brought it back multiple times despite the consensus that it is not needed and only serves at an invalid attempt to scuttle an ongoing and valid poll and as such I ask that another editor please archive and close that poll. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I second that. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 10:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

According to User:noosphere in an earlier post on this talk page, "according to WP:DR 'informal straw polls can be held at any time'. Thus, attempting to block a poll from taking place goes against policy and is disruptive." which may also be applicable to Resid's poll no? Netscott 11:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I did in fact intend my comment (quoted above) to refer to Resid's "Do we need a poll at this stage" poll. A further clarification is that the WP:DR policy does not state that "attempting to block a poll from taking place goes against policy and is disruptive". That was my own interpretation of the policy. An interpretation which I stand by, since the policy does state "informal straw polls can be held at any time". -- noosphere 01:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I take the view that in wikipedia the meaning of the word "poll" does not mean the same as "vote to decide"? The word "poll" originally simply meant opinion poll to see where everyone stood. Perhaps wikipedia should be clearer on its usage of the word. After all, the word "poll" can also mean "a tame parrot" or "a part of a horses head", so it behooves us to define the word so that we at least have a consensus on what we mean by the word in wikipedia. DanielDemaret 12:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, you are always impressing me with your wisdom. Resid Gulerdem 18:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
As per Netscott's reasoning that WP:DR defines that poll as disruptive and thus a WP:POINT violation as well as being against policy as it is a poll specifically designed to block a poll (again per WP:DR I have archived the second poll. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The poll was blatantly created to disrupt the first poll started. It's all too clear. The second poll states its intent itself by trying to become the unofficial prerequisite to the first poll.
"If you say YES
If you say YES in this poll, you can chose one of the options in the approval poll below. Please add your suggestions to your critiques so that this pols become useful and the policy can be improved. You might want to itemise your critiques and suggestions accordingly for efficiency."
Is there any clearer evidence of its intent than above? --Jqiz 20:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
It definitely did not. It is not good to start a poll to kill a process at the first place. Netscotts idea is self contradicting and kind of funny. 'informal straw polls can be held at any time' is his statement. Asking community what do they think is not blocking a poll. What you and Netscott did (vandalizing and deleting the poll) is exactly what 'blocking and distrupting' mean. Resid Gulerdem 20:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
And trying to make your poll the prerequisite to the poll Pegasus started is not disruptive? --Jqiz 20:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
No, because he started the poll without a consensus after I invited people in the village pump and many other places. He is putting a proposal to vote: a proposal that even the contributing editors do not think is written completely. Is that fair? I started this poll right after Pegasus unilaterally started his poll. I just wanted to ask if it is needed, to the community. It was a correct step to take. Resid Gulerdem 21:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You don't need a consensus to start a poll, the point of a poll itself is to gauge consensus so needing consensus to gauge consensus is both repetative, contradictory, and doesn't make much sense. I honestly doubt you'd be complaining if the poll was leaning towards support for this policy. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
That is your opinion. As a person started a poll you should be respectful for other similar actions. Please do not attempt to delete the poll. Resid Gulerdem 23:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Please stop vandalizing the poll. Resid Gulerdem 23:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You have stated on your edit summaries that I can't revert without discussion or consensus yet you are doing just that so you are being extremely hypocritical. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 23:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I am leaving the decision about you and your actions to the community here. Resid Gulerdem 00:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Tiger

Looks like there's a tiger loose in the natural history museum and he's performing WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming.

Resid appears to have spammed upwards of one hundred (if not more) user's talk pages.

The following is just a sample of it see the rest here (do note the blind alphabetical order he's following).
spam 01 User talk:Borincano75
spam 02 User talk:BonsaiViking
spam 03 User talk:Blarneytherinosaur
spam 04 User talk:Benzai
spam 05 User talk:Ben davison
spam 06 User talk:Beau99
spam 07 User User talk:Bcat
spam 08 User talk:Banes
spam 09 User talk:Awcolley
spam 10 User talk:Averykrouse
spam 11 User talk:Archola
spam 12 User talk:Andrewski
spam 13 User talk:Andrewa
spam 14 User talk:Zjhafeez
spam 15 User talk:Zereshk
spam 16 User talk:Zakksez

Does this look like work for an admin to block? I probably should post to WP:AN. Comments?

Netscott 00:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that but decided not to act, I think a post on WP:AN/I would be a good idea. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
left a question about this here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Extensive_internal_spamming.3F --KimvdLinde 00:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I am inviting people to the discussion. More input from the community will help better. Resid Gulerdem 01:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked Resid Gulerdem for 31 hours for spamming a notice about this discussion to multiple user talk pages. Spamming is bad, mmmkay? Kelly Martin (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Suggest you check the blocking policy. I don't think manually "spamming" a polite message to multiple users (I was one of them) qualifies. Were there other reasons? Andrewa 01:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What part of calling people a "pro-porn and pro-offense lobby" do you find polite? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 02:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I certainly don't like that phrasing, and I think it only damaged the writer's cause. But compared to what I am regularly called in one of my daily roles, it's very polite indeed. I don't find that phrase any justification for a block, either in terms of what the current policy does say, or even of what I'd like it to say, as I'm very wary of censorship. How about you? Andrewa 08:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Would spamming User pages be banned under this proposal? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Both nothing and everything could be banned under this policy. It's a dictators' dream. But there is the propaganda clause:
  • Manipulation of information to influence public opinion is not acceptable. Wiki articles cannot be written to support any political, social, or religious movements. Editors should be careful about the information put out by an organization or a government to promote a policy, idea, or cause. It is also good to be more conscious regarding the deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread.

Go figure. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's a dictators' dream, who is the dictator? Raphael1 04:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


A policy in a nutshell idea

I would like to propose a nutshell idea: Be wise and responsible. Any suggestions? Resid Gulerdem 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's already policy. It's certainly the intention of the current policy. But it's one we all have problems following from time to time. Andrewa 05:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we all have problems with 'being wise and responsible' from time to time. I hope this phrase reminds us what we should do as an editor here in Wiki. Resid Gulerdem 18:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Snowball Clause

I think this policy approval poll officially falls under the snowball clause and should be closed immediately since there is no chance of this poll getting a rough consensus for approval. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 23:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not happy to have to say this Pegasus1138 but your move to do this while User:Rgulerdem (the founder of this policy) is technically blocked doesn't seem to be very much in line with good Wikipedia:Wikiquette. Netscott 02:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
No, since there would be no way to reach a decision in the next few hours when he becomes unblocked and can (and surely will) strongly object to this and the fact that he was blocked was not a factor in my timing of this.

ISTM that it's not a big issue either way. The poll was never likely to succeed, and it was called for exactly that reason. The proposers of this policy can decide whether to work on it further, and call a poll when they have something to present for approval. The fact that an earlier draft was presented for a vote against their wishes and rejected surely doesn't prevent them from presenting a later version, I also am actually strongly opposed to the edit warring both ways on the position of the polls since I believe that my poll on the validatity of this as a proposal will not be affected by where it is in relation to his since it's pretty obvious to anyone who cares to look which one came first and which one is the serious poll, thus I never got involved in the edit war regarding the poll's location on the page. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest that they work on a guideline first, and see whether the support then justifies upgrading it to a policy. Andrewa 03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Check WP:OWN it is not his proposal, it's everyone's proposal and he has no greater right to it then anyone else including the right that he (and apparently you) have to veto a vote on it. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I think there's a good point there, but you're stretching it. WP:OWN of course redirects to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, and this is not an article. It also deals with ownership of text, and points out that you do have some ownership of what you sign. That's why we don't sign articles.
The mistake that these people have made is to bring a proposal into the project namespace, where they do lose ownership of it, before they were ready to put it to a poll. Fair go, they're new here. It's not a serious or uncorrectable mistake, and wouldn't have mattered at all in a less hostile environment.
The mistake their opponents have made is to react in a hostile way. There has been hostility on both sides, and neither is helpful. In particular, the block has no support in current policy, and achieved nothing. (It did receive support on the admin noticeboard, but even there it was noted by the supporters that no rule had been broken.) The proposal (above) that the page should be summarily deleted if the first poll failed (even more clearly contrary to current policy) was I hope made in jest, but in the context of the fact that we know that some of the participants are new here, IMO it was not very helpful.
In fact it might be completely counterproductive. What if the proponents of this policy do take their proposal offline, and develop it not just in the user namespace, but in a private forum to which they invite selected Wikipedians only? I would not be part of this, but some might. Is that really what we want? Isn't it better to have the discussion out in the open?
This forum needn't be secret or even sneaky. It could just be in the user space of an innocent-looking account set up for the purpose. Are we going to find it? Do we really want to spend our lives chasing such activities?
IMO the wiki way is to encourage open discussion whenever at all possible. That's why I think calling the first poll was also a mistake. It sought to guillotine the proposal. That's bad on two counts: One, it won't work, and two, even if it does that's an even worse problem.
I have the same problem with the suggestion above that this becomes a failed proposal and is categorized as such. Attempts to recreate this failed policy will be seen as an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. There are two problems here. One is who decides? Considering the ease with which a block and a speedy deletion have been proposed above, I think this is a worry. I'm also interested to know how this this idea is justified in terms of current policy. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is a guideline, and reading it leaves me in considerable doubt as to whether recreating a policy proposal would contravene it anyway, unless there were no significant changes to the proposal. But what is significant? This brings us back to who decides again.
I pointed out before the irony of those concerned to avoid censorship being so ready to censor their opponents. There's another irony in those who want to have a voice in forming policy ignoring existing policy themselves, isn't there? Even if you find the other side completely unreasonable, that's just handing them ammunition. Andrewa 16:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Well I guess closing early actually would weaken the argument rather than closing on time. When closed on time it will be hard to argue that the legitimate poll does not show a consensus that this is a failed proposal. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The argument is weak in any case. I ask again, are there any policies that justify the claim that this becomes a failed proposal? ISTM that all that the first poll establishes is that a draft version was not accepted as policy (to nobody's surprise). Does that then gag further discussion and development of the proposal? Surely not. That may have been the intention of the poll, but it's a dubious tactic IMO.
There is a procedure for proposing deletion of the page. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Before considering nominating a miscellany page for deletion, and note that this procedure explicitly discourages nomination of policy proposals while discussion is active.
Unless the page is deleted (and by the proper procedures), then if further edits address the concerns raised in the first poll, a new poll would then be perfectly in order. Andrewa 09:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm unable to see what part of consensus could lead Pegasus1138 and others to believe that polling has anything to do with achieving it. Voting is the opposite of seeking consensus, and no result from the current "Approval Poll" can possibly demonstrate anything about the issue of editorial consensus on this proposal, other than that there is no consensus. — JEREMY 10:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Check the poll, there seems to be a clear consensus that this proposal has failed miserably. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 22:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Pegasus1138's idea of closing the poll might not be so bad. It caused lots of energy loss in my opinion. The result was clear from the very start, the intention is questionable. Please note that the approval poll cannot be used to make any decision about the policy as other users indicated clearly. The result of the second poll and some user comments on the approval poll itself indicates that the approval poll should not have been opened at the first place. The only benefit from it would be some users' suggestions and concerns. They will be considered seriously when we restart working on the policy. I am adding another statement to the directions at the top of the page that, approval polls without consensus is not acceptible and will not be wellcomed. If needed because of some disputes, we can consider opinion polls for the sections in question. I am calling for a fresh start: Let us go back to work on the policy. It would be good I think if we use subpages for further discussions. Resid Gulerdem 01:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
When I said close the poll I meant close it and interpreting the consensus which appears to be that this policy has failed and it should be noted that this was in no way a vote so numbers don't mean anything but the matter of opinion appears to lean towards this not being a good guideline solution. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 22:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
It is apperantly not possible to make that conclusion. You can close and archive your poll. The ideas and suggestions in it will be used as the improvement proceeds. A draft should not have put to a vote at the first place. If you put it to a vote the result doesn't tell that the policy is no good. It says the draft is not ready to be a policy and needs to be improved. That is the point we are all agree on. It was well known to us but not to you only. Please see the other users' comments on the issue above too. Resid Gulerdem 00:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Check the opinions, there seems to be a clear consensus against this policy and when the poll time ends I plan on archiving it (assuming nobody does it before I get a chance to) and mark the proposal as {{rejected}} since consensus is clearly against the proposal and only you and one or two other editors think that this proposal should be made official and/or has any chance and/or was a good idea to begin with. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I should warn you for not marking it as you like and wish. I do not want to make any further explanation either as you won't understand it. Let me just say this: I assure you that marking it with your POV won't work. Resid Gulerdem 01:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
At that point it won't be my POV it will be consensus and any attempt to change or remove the tag will be vandalism and I intend to treat it as such, though I am going to assume good faith and assume you won't vandalize the page. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 01:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I won't vandalize it as I never did such a thing before. I will just delete the mark you are planning to post on the page because it is totally unacceptible: You have no contribution to the policy. One day you decide to come and start a poll here. You are told that the proposal is not ready yet, we did not even complete writing it, it is just a first draft. You did not listen of course. The poll I had to start is asking the need for an approval poll at this stage. There is a consensus that it is not needed. So it invalidates the result of your poll. I hope you become reasonable and do not start an edit war. Resid Gulerdem 01:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope you realize how ridiculous it sounds to be stating that you need a consensus to judge consensus which is what you are stating. The poll that I started is perfectly valid and there is an obvious consensus that this policy has failed, also your poll is illegitmate and a violation of WP:POINT as it's sole purpose is to scuttle a previous started poll. Though we don't have to deal with this for a few more days when the poll ends. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, you can't count yourself as a one man consensus, there are only one, maybe two editors who support you and that isn't counting all the suspicious anon and newuser comments that randomly pop up on this page and randomly have full knowledge of what has been going on. It is also very innapropriate to state that anyone who does not agree with you is "committing vandalism" and sabotaging your proposal since A) it is not your proposal and if you followed WP:OWN you'd know that and you do not have the power of consensus just because you want to have full control over it. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 01:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The two users are not supporting me, they are supporting what is reasonable. Is there anyone supporting you in your actions? I do not think that the policy is mine, I said that many times. The point is, you cannot decide unilaterally to start an approval poll which will definitely have the result you wish for. The approval poll can only say that the draft need to be improved, that is it. When we complete the proposal, an approval poll then could say that the policy is rejected. Resid Gulerdem 02:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, and don't lie, I did contribute to this but you reverted every single one of my contributions since they did not fit into the policy idea that you envisioned even though your idea does not have a chance in hell of succeeding. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I always tell the truth. I said you did not contribute the the policy, I did not say that you did not vandalize. Apperantly they are different. When you first come, you deleted 2/3 of the page without discussion. By the way, the part you vandalized was not even the part I wrote. It was someone else suggestions. All your concerns in the talk page are answered but you did not respond them, chosen to vandalize the policy instead. Let us see what will admins say about your unilateral actions.
That was a low blow reporting me on AN just because you don't agree with me on this. Well hopefully we'll soon be done with this when the proposal fails and we can all get back to doing better things like working on an encyclopedia which is something by the way you do not seem to have much practice in as seen by your contributions listings. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I am tired of your unilateral actions, vandalizms and edit wars. As I always do, I want to get remarks from community and admins as well. I am not only person do not agree with you in killing the proposal as it is just a draft, remember. Resid Gulerdem 02:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
See my remark on AN, I have other things on Wikipedia I'd rather devote my time to so I'm gonna drop this from my watchlist and leaving it up to you which means that you are welcome to close the poll I started if you can convince everyone else it's a good idea. Please leave a message on my talk page when you have a final version of this proposal since if nothing else I want to see what you come up with because even though I don't agree with it overall parts of it definitely have potential and are good ideas. now dropping page off watchlist, please direct further responses towards me to my talk page. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I will let you know about the final version. I would prefer to close the polls tomorrow if there is no objection about it. We can concentrate more on improving the proposal. -- Resid
The resounding theme is that the whole thing should be put to bed. I believe Pegasus1138 (talk · contribs) acts on consensus and always has. I have been an active contributor on the Wikethics article since the beginning and I am now willing to part with it. It is polluted. I have created a page explaining the issues regarding Rgulerdem (talk · contribs). Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 11:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear MB, if I had time I could list refactored It doesn't make sense and useless at this point. Your list regarding my logs are organized and refactored You will probably remember that I invited you to contribute to the policy. You then refactored Thanks for your contributions... Resid Gulerdem 17:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 11:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive_2,_March_29,_06&oldid=1143731456"