Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics

I think we need to clarify the editorial standards and ethics in Wikipedia. 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.

There are two subpages: Arguments and Sections. On the Sections page, we discuss the sections starting from the beginning. Please do not start a new section discussion if the current one did not get a consensus. If you want to start an argument discussion, please do so on the Arguments page.

/Archive 1, March 20, 06

/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^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 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 Wikipedia. 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^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 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 ^puff 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^(Talk) 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. Wikipedia: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 [23:46, 3 February 2006] and [09:18, 17 February 2006]. 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 Wikipedia spirit in many ways. — Catherine\^talk 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 Wikipedia. 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^{your words} 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 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^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 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 ^puff 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 ^puff 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 ^puff 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 ^puff 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 ^puff 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|^(talk) 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^st of the month. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 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 ^puff 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 ^puff 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)

What is this poll for?

The approval poll is started without consensus, and by a single individual. This poll is for asking the community if we really need the approval poll at this stage? Including main proposer of this policy, there is a concensus on not having a poll at this stage. Simply because the contributing editors even do not think that it looks like a policy at this stage. In that sense if the result of this poll is NO, it invalidates the approval poll's result. If it is YES, together with the approval poll, it will serve as a guide to improve the policy. This poll is vandalized for days and it was not active. Please note that even some users in the approval pool below says that: 'It is early to put this policy to a vote'. If this policy was not vandalized, they would vote here on this poll. Resid Gulerdem 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Poll Begin: 00:00, 17 March 2006

Poll End: 00:00, 31 April 2006

Do we need a poll at this stage

Please let us know whether you think an approval poll is necessary at this stage?

NO

1. The policy needs more work before voted.
2. (see comment below) --Vsion 06:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Voting is evil. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Needs more discussion, not censorship-by-vote. — JEREMY 11:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Perhaps this policy could be split onto smaller smaller and clearer micro-policies instead of one large all-encompassing policy? Then either vote for each part or spawn as new guidelines? DanielDemaret 11:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
6. This proposed policy or guideline seems large, unnecessary and ill formed, with potentially a hidden agenda. A poll (unless you want oppose as the outcome) seems premature. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Its clearly not ready yet. Wait for it to be fully formed till vote. --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
8. There is no need for a rush. Raphael1 17:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
9. No, the policy is slowly improving, but is not yet ready for a vote. Johntex\^talk 23:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If you say NO

If you chose to say NO, please give us some hints why you think the policy is not ready for vote. Let us know also about which section(s) you think need improvement together with your suggestions in this section.

• It is not ready for vote simple because it is not stable yet. It reflects 3-4 editors opinion. I announced this proposal in many places. Feedbacks from the community will improve it. Can anybody see a reason for such a rush?!... As a person who initiated and continuously contributing to this proposal, I feel that we need much more input from the community. Resid Gulerdem 07:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not sure I'd approve of it, personally, when it is ready, but right now it is clearly not a clearly defined policy initiative. When it is ready a vote should proceed. Voting on voting, isn't this fun. --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

YES

1. Yes. The poll below is valid. It was started first and is underway. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 05:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
2. YES, get it over with. KimvdLinde 06:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Yes, this proposal is as mature is it will ever be in terms of acceptability as a guideline so now is as good a time as ever to have a poll. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Yes, as per Pegasus1138. Netscott 13:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Vote struck as the lack of terms regarding this poll appear to invalidate all votes regarding it. Netscott 15:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Yes. It's pretty clear to me that nearly everyone that voted in the poll below thought that it was valid, or they wouldn't have voted. Plus, note that 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. -- noosphere 05:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

   This poll was vandalized for days so it was not active. You can see from the poll below that some people say: It is not a good time for vote. They would vote on this poll if this fist poll ws active. Resid Gulerdem 06:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, virtually all those people who voted "NO" on this poll did not vote in the other poll (which makes sense, since they don't think it's valid). However, virtually everyone who did vote in the other poll either did not vote in this poll (the vast majority of them), or also voted "YES" here. But regardless of whether or not they voted in this poll, I believe the other poll should be allowed to continue, for the reasons I stated above. -- noosphere 03:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

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.

Further Comments

Since when can you vote a poll off a page because you disagree with it? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 05:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

People should be aware of that existence of the poll is already questioned. If you put it to the bottom it will be missed. Be honest please... I can understand your twisting every other minute although I cannot respect for it, but at least let the peole know that there is no agreement on the poll, it is also an option that they may chose to say: later... At the bottom of the page, this poll is useless. And if you change the title it will be distriting the meaning of the poll. Resid Gulerdem 05:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm honoured to not have your respect. Your comments are lies, your editing is obsessive, your agenda is unethical, and your policy is not improving. It's time for a vote. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

Try reading WP:DR If consensus is difficult to gauge from discussion alone, or if some users seem to be ignoring the consensus, consider conducting a publicized opinion survey. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

And if you are really serious about consensus, you may look for it when you decide to start an opinion survey. Resid Gulerdem 06:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The part copied from above: I said we and it includes MB, Vsion and me. MB in fact suggested that we need two months below. Vsion is also voted that we need some more time. Pegasus decided himself that he need a vote for it. Let us then determine first if we need a poll at this stage. As far as I remember MB was complaining all along regarding the polls at early stages of the projects. But anyways, let us vote for it to make it precise.

Comment regarding voting on "Do we need a poll?" poll:

Hmmm, perhaps I'm a bit confused.... as the editor who initiated this poll didn't clearly spell out the terms regarding it ... and judging by some of the responses, it doesn't seem apparent that those voting are clear on what they are voting about. Not having been a part of this discussion from it's start, I'm wondering, is there an editor who's been involved with it for awhile that can elucidate clearly what this poll (not in reference to the 'Approval poll') is about? Until this poll's terms are clearly spelled out, votes in it appear less than valid. Netscott 15:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This poll was created after the APPROVAL POLL and the wording has changed upwards of 6 times. Different voters have all been voting on different versions of the poll. It's anybodies guess what the current rules are. Resid initially stated he added the poll in order to invalidate the existing APPROVAL POLL, and that he proposed his new poll based on consensus. He changed the chronology of the polls so it would appear his poll was created first. It wasn't.

If deleting this poll above is too strong an action, perhaps the votes could be merged into the APPROVAL POLL below as "Support: This policy deserves more attention before a vote." or words to that effect. There's already upwards of 20 editors objecting to this policy being allowed to continue in the direction it's heading, and that's including 3 regular editors from this policy page. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 05:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The poll has not been changed. There is no statement added or deleted so that people are voting on different polls. What has happened is this: User:Metta Bubble vandalized the poll many times, I had to reinstate each time. A section added later to answer the questions raised by some editors: Why is this poll for. Resid Gulerdem 06:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are some diffs of you changing your own poll:

• 05:32, 17 March 2006 Your first poll
• 06:36, 17 March 2006 You changed the introduction to your poll (after votes were cast)
• 07:35, 17 March 2006 Changing the rules of your poll (after even more votes were cast)
• 07:41, 17 March 2006 You changing the rules again (without discussion)
• 00:19, 18 March 2006 You change yes/no rules of your poll (after even more votes)
• 00:24, 18 March 2006 You adding some more unclear comments about voting procedure
• 00:25, 18 March 2006 And signing your name to prove the sockpuppet is you
• 00:27, 18 March 2006 You attempting to obfuscate the comments section of your poll
• 00:29, 18 March 2006 You bolding a notice to suggest the APPROVAL POLL is officially connected to your poll
• 03:50, 21 March 2006 Adding "what is this poll for" introduction to your poll that attempts to bias votes

I tried many times to restore your poll to it's initial state so editors wouldn't insist it has become invalid. Unfortunately I failed. This doesn't even include your attempts to bungle the approval poll, which thankfully has remained in it's original state. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There is nobody insisting on the poll becoming invalid, at all. You like very much to put your words to other peoples mouths, which is totally unethical. You interpret even a single comment as consensus if you like. You ignore strong evdences if you dislike. You did not try to put the poll into original from. What you did is this: you tried to take the options stated in the poll so that it becomes YES-NO game and poll become useless. As the history page indicated, I was trying to put the poll into a form that it becomes beneficial. I was asking peoples comments to improve the policy. You are still doing just the opposite, trying to kill the process. There is no single statement in the poll so that, people voted could think it was not what they approved. The cosmetic changes is just for efficiency not for the core of the poll. They are able to say, no we did not vote for this, themselves, if you are right. Do not worry about it. We still have time for that poll more than a month. Resid Gulerdem 07:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"There is nobody insisting on the poll becoming invalid, at all."... Um * finger pointing upwards * Try reading recent voter comments! They think it's invalid. I have to say I agree. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all one person does not make consensus. Second, that is why I am making explanations: As a newcommer, a person can look at the votes and can say that. They do not know that the first poll is vandalised. They do learn now. You should probably look at the votes on the approval poll saying that: 'it is not a time for vote' too... Resid Gulerdem 07:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that they've learnt you vandalised your own poll it isn't exactly going to endear them to you. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandaizing my own poll: self-contradicting statement. The users are valuable for me and their comments are important as well. That is why I am trying to get their comments. I will use them to improve this policy. Even you are important for me :) I love and respect human being very much and in fact every single creature. Resid Gulerdem 08:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Resid, it surprises me that you continue to try and make 'WikiEthics' work when you yourself have set a less than ethical example. You were blocked for 3RR violation on this project whereupon you circumvented the block by using at least one sockpuppet User:ThoMas (as correctly determined by WikiPedia's CheckUser.. the WikiPedia authority on such matters) and a few sockpuppet IP addresses. You denied that User:ThoMas was a sockpuppet (and it appears that you continue to deny that) despite CheckUser's pronouncement on the matter. As well MettaBubble who came to help edit this project in good faith describes editing it as a "POV nightmare".... Netscott 08:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• First, I do not use sockpuppet. I used IP, but I used them explicitely and signed my name all the time. You cannot find a single incident that I did not sign. I do not like that idea of using sockpouppets and simply I do not need. Second, I cotacted to the CheckUser about it and will determine the reason behind their wrong decision. Third, my blokedge was due to the game played against me. I was trying to keep this process alive as some people very known to public now was trying to kill it for no reason. They were going to 3RR page and claiming my edits as violating 3RR rule. I was not aware of that page. That is how my blockage started. I think experienced users should not misuse their knowledge about Wiki to harm others and proposals. Lastly I have invited MettaBubble here to contribute the page. S/he chosen to destroy it instead. I would prefer, still I do, s/he and you also too, become a contributer not a terminator. Resid Gulerdem 08:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• DO not revert the poll. The poll is at the top all along the way. You cannot replace it without concensus. You were crying out loud when I touched to the Pegasus poll, weren't you? Resid Gulerdem 10:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this a separate poll to the poll you started earlier below? How does this one work then? Are we meant to just make random comments either agreeing with your poll introduction, or something else? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 10:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the explanation part what the poll is all about. Please make your comments on the comments section. Resid Gulerdem 10:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

But they are clearly titled as different polls. Why do we need 3 polls on this page? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 10:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And also clearly there is a lot of support for the approval poll. I've been here since the beginning and so has pegasus. We both support the approval poll at this time. You've been hard to work with so a poll was the only way forward left for us. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 10:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I might be stupid - but I don't understand the above paragraph nor it's prominent placing. --kingboyk 13:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The above statement is now out of context given shuffling/reversion/I know not what. --kingboyk 14:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it made sense in it's original context. Resid moved my comments here and deleted the third poll or something. Who knows! You really have to ask him. He's in charge of the structure of this talk page it seems. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 10:35, 22 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^{Talk | 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 31_st you can sufficently improve the proposal people will be open to changing their opinions. Pegasus1138^{Talk | 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. Pegasus1138^{Talk | 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)

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)

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 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)

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^{Talk | 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)

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)