| Revision as of 03:50, 21 March 2006 editRgulerdem (talk | contribs)1,773 edits poll back - do not vandalize← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:18, 17 October 2021 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)Tag: AWB | ||
| (505 intermediate revisions by 53 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| __TOC__ | |||
| <div border="1" style="border:black solid; background-color:orange; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;"> | |||
| <div border="1" style="border:black solid; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;"> | |||
| Please vote in this proposal's ''']''': | |||
| Poll Summary | |||
| </div> | |||
| ---- | |||
| 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. ] 00:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| On March 17th two polls regarding this article were started. Both ended on the 31st of March 2006. | |||
| <div border="1" style="border:black solid; background-color:white; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;"> | |||
| FOR NEWCOMERS - HOW DO WE DISCUSS HERE - PLEASE READ | |||
| The ''""'', which started at stated: ''"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."'' <u>Result</u>: '''3''' Support, '''38''' Oppose. | |||
| 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. | |||
| The ''""'' poll, which started at , stated: ''"Please let us know whether you think an approval poll is necessary at this stage?"'' <u>Result</u>: '''13''' No, '''4''' Yes. | |||
| 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. | |||
| </div> | |||
| ] 00:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC) </div> | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| == Do we need a poll at this stage == | |||
| Comment regarding voting on "Do we need a poll?" poll: | |||
| <table bgcolor="#cccccc" cellspacing="10" cellpadding="10"><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"><td bgcolor="#cccccc">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 top poll is about? Until this top poll's terms are clearly spelled out, votes in it appear less than valid. ] 15:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)</tr></td></table> | |||
| Please let us know whether you think an approval poll is necessary at this stage? | |||
| === 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 or not? Including main proposer of this policy, there is a concensus on not having a poll at this stage. | |||
| ===NO=== | |||
| # The policy needs more work before voted. 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.] 05:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # (see comment below) --] 06:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #Voting is evil. ]|] 07:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #Needs more discussion, not censorship-by-vote. — ] 11:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # 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? ] 11:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # 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. <font color="green">]</font>+]: ]/] 15:08, 18 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''' | |||
| * | |||
| ===YES=== | |||
| # Yes. The poll below is valid. It was started first and is underway. ॐ <small><i><strong><font color="orange">]</font></strong> <sup><font color="red">]</font></sup></i></small> 05:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # YES, get it over with. ] 06:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # 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. <small>]</small><sup>] | ] | ]</sup> ---- 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # <s>Yes, as per ]. ] 13:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)</s> '''Vote struck as the lack of terms regarding this poll appear to invalidate all votes regarding it.''' ] 15:33, 18 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 <small><i><strong><font color="orange">]</font></strong> <sup><font color="red">]</font></sup></i></small> 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. ] 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 <small><i><strong><font color="orange">]</font></strong> <sup><font color="red">]</font></sup></i></small> 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. --] 06:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Try reading ] ''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 <small><i><strong><font color="orange">]</font></strong> <sup><font color="red">]</font></sup></i></small> 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. ] 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. '' | |||
| == 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. <small>]</small><sup>] | ] | ]</sup> ---- 00:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Begin: 00:22, 17 March 2006''' | |||
| '''End: 00:22, 31 March 2006''' | |||
| === Support === | |||
| *<S>'''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. ] 03:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)</S> <small>(] is a of ] --] - ] 11:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC))</small> <small> '''Wrong decision.''' ] 23:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC) </small> | |||
| :::This is the users 6th contribution to Misplaced Pages. All edits within context of this article. ] 04:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC) User blocked indef as sockpuppet, vote invalid. ] 04:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: He is not a sockpuppet. '''Resid''' | |||
| :::::Convince the admins first, after that, I will undo my own edits. ] 06:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Forget it! '''Resid''' | |||
| :::::::]] 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. ] 12:10, 19 March 2006 (UT | |||
| === Oppose === | |||
| * <small>]</small><sup>] | ] | ]</sup> ---- 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 <small><i><strong><font color="orange">]</font></strong> <sup><font color="red">]</font></sup></i></small> 01:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''', to many things in one policy, pro-censorship, vague ambigious language. ] 06:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I really don't want to take a swing at this ], but I think the best thing to do here is give this proposal a decent burial. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font><sup><font color="green">(])</font></font></sup>''' 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. ] is the only summary of policy that is required, and it is mercifully free of liberal or conservative bias, unlike this proposal. ] 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 ]. 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 entries for '''''' and ''''''. ] 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. ] 02:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *This is redundant with many existing policies, and it conflicts with them in many ways. ] 05:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - this is elliptical to the point of nonsense, and against Misplaced Pages spirit in many ways. — ]\<sup>]</sup> 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. --] 11:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''oppose''' Olicy would force editors to reveal their gender and thus breaks privicy policy.] 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. <font color="green">]</font>+]: ]/] 15:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Oppose''' per the above. Also, this proposal just feels utterly alien to Misplaced Pages. ] 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. --] 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.] 20:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', per Metta-Bubble. ] 00:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' - instruction creep, not necessary - not widely supported <font color="#F0F">]</font> 11:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' Guff. ]] 15:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : '''Oppose''' We have NPOV, CIVIL, DBAD... ''] ]'' 16:52 ] ] (UTC). | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Already covered in other policies. ] 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. ] 00:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' instruction creep, and it should refer to relevant policies already in Misplaced Pages. ] 00:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Redundant. ] 01:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Contradicts some policies (ie. ]), 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. -- ] 08:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Not necessary. —]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 10:37, 20 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. <small>]</small><sup>] | ] | ]</sup> ---- 00:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * The content is not yet stable for a poll. --] 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. <small>]</small><sup>] | ] | ]</sup> ---- 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. ] 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 <small><i><strong><font color="orange">]</font></strong> <sup><font color="red">]</font></sup></i></small> 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? ] 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 <small><i><strong><font color="orange">]</font></strong> <sup><font color="red">]</font></sup></i></small> 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. ] 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 <small><i><strong><font color="orange">]</font></strong> <sup><font color="red">]</font></sup></i></small> 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. ] 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. ] 08:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * The poll is already underway. Get over yourself. ॐ <small><i><strong><font color="orange">]</font></strong> <sup><font color="red">]</font></sup></i></small> 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. {{unsigned|Rgulerdem}} | |||
| ** No. The poll is valid and underway. Please stop trying to undermine it. If you don't agree, simply don't vote. ॐ <small><i><strong><font color="orange">]</font></strong> <sup><font color="red">]</font></sup></i></small> 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. ]|] 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<sup>st</sup> of the month. <small>]</small><sup>] | ] | ]</sup> ---- 17:07, 18 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. ] 00:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm going to ] 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. <small>]</small><sup>] | ] | ]</sup> ---- 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. ] 00:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Well Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and I'm sure that if before the 31<sub>st</sub> you can sufficently improve the proposal people will be open to changing their opinions. <small>]</small><sup>] | ] | ]</sup> ---- 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... ] 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 <small><i><strong><font color="orange">]</font></strong> <sup><font color="red">]</font></sup></i></small> 01:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :: '''Do not start again reverting my edits'''. The comments section of the poll is already there. Archiving is a standard action. If people want to see them, they know where to look. ] 03:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disagree with Archiving== | |||
| As a former heavy contributor to this talk page I do not agree with it's having been achived and view this archiving as further evidence of ]'s ] of this project. I would '''highly''', '''highly''' recommend that anyone considering adding to this talk page first review the above archives to '''completely''' understand the nature of this project and how it came to be '''fully rejected'''. ] 17:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree, as far as the earlier proposal goes. But now Rgulerdem and friends are claiming there's a ''"a new and improved version"''. So the archived discussion isn't, on the face of it, quite as relevant. On the other hand, though I haven't looked a the new proposal yet, I wouldn't be surprised if it's really not all that different from the old, rejected proposal. So the old archives and polls will likely continue to be quite relevant for this "new and improved" proposal. -- ]]] 21:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Arguments and Sections == | |||
| == The "new and improved" Wikiethics policy proposal == | |||
| 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. ] 00:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Please raise issues and make helpful suggestions on the individual policy pages: ], ], etc. The consensus in the poll above clearly shows that this page conflicts with many existing policies. ] 01:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| In case anyone's interested 's a diff of the old vs "new and improved" Wikiethics proposal. -- ]]] 00:49, 8 May 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. ] 01:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Improvement and discussion on the Wikiethics proposal == | |||
| :: 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. ] 03:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If you would like to join the efforts of improving Wikiethics proposal please do so on . Thanks... ] 10:26, 8 May 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. <small>]</small><sup>] | ] | ]</sup> ---- 02:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 06:18, 17 October 2021
Poll Summary
On March 17th two polls regarding this article were started. Both ended on the 31st of March 2006.
The "Approval Poll", which started at 00:22:33 UTC stated: "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." Result: 3 Support, 38 Oppose.
The "Do we need a poll at this stage" poll, which started at 05:32:34 UTC, stated: "Please let us know whether you think an approval poll is necessary at this stage?" Result: 13 No, 4 Yes.
Disagree with Archiving
As a former heavy contributor to this talk page I do not agree with it's having been achived and view this archiving as further evidence of User:Rgulerdem's owning of this project. I would highly, highly recommend that anyone considering adding to this talk page first review the above archives to completely understand the nature of this project and how it came to be fully rejected. Netscott 17:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, as far as the earlier proposal goes. But now Rgulerdem and friends are claiming there's a "a new and improved version". So the archived discussion isn't, on the face of it, quite as relevant. On the other hand, though I haven't looked a the new proposal yet, I wouldn't be surprised if it's really not all that different from the old, rejected proposal. So the old archives and polls will likely continue to be quite relevant for this "new and improved" proposal. -- noosphere 21:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The "new and improved" Wikiethics policy proposal
In case anyone's interested here's a diff of the old vs "new and improved" Wikiethics proposal. -- noosphere 00:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Improvement and discussion on the Wikiethics proposal
If you would like to join the efforts of improving Wikiethics proposal please do so on this page. Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 10:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)