Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pegasus1138 (talk | contribs) at 19:50, 22 March 2006 (adding poll archives link and archiving poll as per Netscott's reasoning at bottom of page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I think we need to clarify the editorial standards and ethics in Misplaced Pages. Understanding the Wiki policies coherently is also aimed in this project. I hope it gives a general overview of the policies, their place in the whole picture and their relations to the Wiki ethics and standards. It would be good if it leads to a policy. Resid Gulerdem 00:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

FOR NEWCOMERS - HOW DO WE DISCUSS HERE - PLEASE READ

Please review the arguments on the related pages (maybe quickly) to see if any questions you have, answered before. For the efficiency of the discussion, we modify the project as outlines below:

• copy the part from the proposal onto the discussion page or subpages: Sections or Arguments
• express your ideas why you think it is not appropriate
• give your suggestion to fix the problem, propose your version

If your suggestions get approval from the editors then it can be updated accordingly.

/Archive 1, March 20, 06

/Poll archives

/Arguments

/Sections

APPROVAL POLL

I think the build time for this has been going on more than long enough and now is the time to get a consensus as to whether this should be approved or not. This is not a majority poll since polls are evil and Wikjipedia runs by consensus. Pegasus1138 ---- 00:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Begin: 00:22, 17 March 2006

End: 00:22, 31 March 2006

Support

• Strong Support for this good initiative. It can be good as an overall summary of the policies. Minor changes might be necessary but it can be discussed further. ThoMas 03:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC) (ThoMas is a confirmed sockpuppet of Rgulerdem --Superm401 - Talk 11:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)) Wrong decision. Resid Gulerdem 23:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the users 6th contribution to Misplaced Pages. All edits within context of this article. KimvdLinde 04:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC) User blocked indef as sockpuppet, vote invalid. KimvdLinde 04:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

He is not a sockpuppet. Resid

Convince the admins first, after that, I will undo my own edits. KimvdLinde 06:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Forget it! Resid

WP:CIVILKimvdLinde 06:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Was it rude? Sorry... I did not mean to be rude, anyways. RG

• Support I am missing ethical values resp. moral commitment among many editors. Raphael1 12:10, 19 March 2006 (UT

Oppose

• Pegasus1138 ---- 00:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Working on this policy has been a POV nightmare since the beginning. Almost nothing in this policy reflects anything other than the ethical stance of Resid Gulerdem who insists on ignoring discussion, ignoring consensus, ignoring precedent, and ignoring existing policies. Almost before anything else was inserted into the policy he had an "no pornography" clause. The rest of the policy was fleshed out around that theme. It's a fantasyland policy. ॐ Metta Bubble 01:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, to many things in one policy, pro-censorship, vague ambigious language. KimvdLinde 06:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I really don't want to take a swing at this tar baby, but I think the best thing to do here is give this proposal a decent burial. -- Donald Albury 12:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There are more than enough policies already. I object to parts of this one, but I don't want to have to haggle over them. What happens if a detailed guideline is amended and comes to contradict this one? Do the writers of other guidelines have to follow this even if there is a consensus to differ from it on the relevant page? Which takes priority? If any change has to go through two pages that will compound the existing inertia. Better to just kill this off. Misplaced Pages:Five pillars is the only summary of policy that is required, and it is mercifully free of liberal or conservative bias, unlike this proposal. Osomec 17:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. I am convinced that Resid's goal towards formulating this 'policy' is to gain the 'right' to block the display of the cartoons involved with the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. If this policy were to ever come into effect one can be sure that the Jyllands cartoons would be the first victims of it's application. As a long time editor on that article I can share with others the fact that Resid previously labored hard and long via the talk pages in an attempt to have the cartoons censored in some way and in some cases he outright removed the cartoons himself (and was subsequently reverted) despite overwhelming editor support for their display. Please take note of Resid Gurlerdem's block log entries for and . Netscott 14:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This is completely unlike anything I recall seeing under the banner of "ethics". All the best policies contain a clear set of justified principles that can be operationalised. Reading this policy gives no clear explanation of how such principles as are enunciated would be operationalised. That this talk page is so acrimonious is evidence enough that what is written as "policy" here is too controversial to be accepted by the majority of Wikipedians. David91 02:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• This is redundant with many existing policies, and it conflicts with them in many ways. Rhobite 05:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is elliptical to the point of nonsense, and against Misplaced Pages spirit in many ways. — Catherine\ 06:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose The proposer of the policy/guideline has not acted in good faith and violated the very rules he proposed. There's little hope of this policy ever getting approve. Will switch over to neutral if someone else non-disruptive spearhead this project. --Jqiz 11:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• oppose Olicy would force editors to reveal their gender and thus breaks privicy policy.Geni 14:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This proposed policy or guideline seems large, unnecessary and ill formed, with potentially a hidden agenda. Since a poll at this time seems premature, I say oppose, until and unless a coherent and ocncise proposal is put on the table. Elliptical to the point of nonsense indeed. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per the above. Also, this proposal just feels utterly alien to Misplaced Pages. Sandstein 15:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose We have enough guidelines already, and they're sensibly broad ("no personal attacks", "neutral point of view", "not censored for minors", etc). Now let's get back to writing an encyclopedia. --kingboyk 16:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Metta--Acebrock 17:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)*
• Oppose, this idea is too POV and too close to violating other wikipolicies to be a useful guideline.Gateman1997 20:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Metta-Bubble. Azate 00:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - instruction creep, not necessary - not widely supported Trödel 11:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Guff. Mark 15:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose We have NPOV, CIVIL, DBAD... Rich Farmbrough 16:52 19 March 2006 (UTC).

• Oppose. Already covered in other policies. Kaldari 19:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose seeks to replace (reasonably) clear policy with ambiguous guff, that will no doubt be exploited as CSD T1 has been. Cynical 00:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose instruction creep, and it should refer to relevant policies already in Misplaced Pages. Ziggurat 00:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Redundant. Choalbaton 01:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Contradicts some policies (ie. WP:NPOV), duplicates others, poorly worded, and far too long. It would be much more constructive to work on changing or even just commenting on specific policies rather than using a broad brush like this to redefine what Misplaced Pages is about. -- noosphere 08:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not necessary. —Nightstallion (?) 10:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Vague, ill-defined, unnecessary (all the cited concerns can and should be resolved by reference to WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS etc). Would support as a commentary linking the principles back to policy. Just zis Guy you know? 12:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tomyumgoong 19:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Piccadilly 21:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing that's acceptable here isn't covered by other policies and guidelines. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Based on the numerous comments on the talk page I am actively assuming that this is a proposed guideline and not a proposed policy. Pegasus1138 ---- 00:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• The content is not yet stable for a poll. --Vsion 01:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, it is as stable as it is ever going to be and it has built up more than enough to be mature enough for people to determine whether or not it should be approved or not. It's not like the version is locked in as soon as the poll starts either, during and/or after (assuming it gets a consensus to have it be a guideline) people can still add on and edit it. Pegasus1138 ---- 01:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• We, the contributing editors to this page, already decided to have the poll later, when the policy is mature. We already called for further input from other places. Resid Gulerdem 02:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• By We you claim to be refering to yourself and to me. This is completely outrageous. I said my piece but I never explicitly opposed pegasus' poll. Please stop policing this article with your POV. I actually voted in the poll. How could you possibly interpret that as meaning I think the poll is too early? Quit twisting my words to suit your agenda RG. ॐ Metta Bubble 04:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Unbelievable... Just check what you said below in the discussions, more than once... What you are doing is generally called lying. You use the word twisting repetedly. Apperantly you are very well experienced in that. Isn't Pegasus' poll is for aproval of the policy? What kind of polls you were against before? Resid Gulerdem 05:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Over the course of 3 days your obsessive POV editing (consensus opinion) completely turned around my hope of anyone else ever getting their opinion heard on this article. I made many comments on polls and my last one was "I am looking forward to this poll". For you to dig up quotes of mine that supported your POV you had to skim over my most recent comments and go back to earlier ones. I cannot begin fathom how blinded you must be to do this. And then you have the nerve to call me a liar for it? What are you trying to achieve? Are you trying to show how much of an unethical person you really are? ॐ Metta Bubble 06:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• I just would like to teach you the meaning of twisting on a clear example. It would be good if you can see whether you are an appropriate person to discuss ethical issues at all. Resid Gulerdem 06:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I see you're struggling with the language. Let's just leave this here. Peace. Let the vote work it out. ॐ Metta Bubble 06:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Actually I am having hard time when I see dishonesty and insincerity. That is the only problem; language is OK. Resid Gulerdem 06:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Since we need to determine first if we need this poll above, the deadline setforth is no longer valid. Resid Gulerdem 08:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• The poll is already underway. Get over yourself. ॐ Metta Bubble 07:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Since we have another poll above to determine if this poll is needed, the deadline sethforth above (by the poll owner) is no longer valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgulerdem (talk • contribs)
  • No. The poll is valid and underway. Please stop trying to undermine it. If you don't agree, simply don't vote. ॐ Metta Bubble 11:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I love how the creator of this proposed ethics guideline, which explicity calls for civility in Talk pages, is calling other people liars. User:Zoe| 07:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• At the request of several people I have taken the liberty of lengthening the poll another week so it will now end on the 31 of the month. Pegasus1138 ---- 17:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

First poll already invalidates this approval poll. Resid Gulerdem 04:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This APPROVAL POLL IS the first poll. Look at the dates! Your attempts at undermining this poll are failing miserably. The results of this approval poll will determine the fate of this project. ॐ Metta Bubble 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Please note that three contributing editors to this policy are actually voting object. Such are the WP:OWN problems associated with this policy. ॐ Metta Bubble 05:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is if we should vote for it. It is not ready for the vote yet. It needs to be improved first. Everybody is accepting that. Resid Gulerdem 05:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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. Pegasus1138 ---- 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 Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and I'm sure that if before the 31_st you can sufficently improve the proposal people will be open to changing their opinions. Pegasus1138 ---- 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 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 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: Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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. Pegasus1138 ---- 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. Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 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 05:10, 21 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 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 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 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 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 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 09:36, 21 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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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\ 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 02:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My only concern is if someone wants to write a proper principle-based code of ethics for Misplaced Pages, 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 "Misplaced Pages Ethics" not "Wiki Ethics", which could apply to any wiki. ॐ Metta Bubble 10:30, 22 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. Pegasus1138 ---- 19:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I second that. ॐ Metta Bubble 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)

I take the view that in[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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. Pegasus1138 ---- 19:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)