Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Approval Poll 31 April 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 APPROVAL POLL

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:CIVIL KimvdLinde 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 (UTC)
Strongly Support. I really think it's the perfect time for a change in the articles and be conforming to a state of 'higher' quality. Wikipedia, without this quality would not have the reputation it has now. If we continue to go on like this, that reputation might be lost. What we need to do is kick the quality of the articles up a notch. For those who oppose this, I just hope that you will feel miserable if you win, knowing that you could have saved Wikipedia from being a low-reputed wasteland filled with horrible editing. I'm not saying that it is, or editorials are right now, but if we don't go up now, we'll only keep plummeting down. That's my stand on this. Crad0010 02:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. I support almost all of the policies set forth, but I still think it needs time to be polished - decisions for policies need to be tentative Tanzeel 19:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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. —Nightst a llion (?) 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)
Oppose. I don't see anything in this that's particularly useful - generally, editors of an article are well-able to determine the appropriateness of whatever it is they're editing. If there's disagreement, there are already steps to take in order to resolve such a conflict, and ethical guidelines are not the way to go (as who is to say which is correct?) ... I mean, if someone looks up 'Anus' on Wikipedia, I don't think they should be too surprised to find anuses there - there's no need for excessive offensiveness or lewd pictures, but obviously no editor here is intending to do that (Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith - people intend only to make the article the best it can be, and aren't intending to offend anyone or post pornography or such). -JC 05:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Without doing more than glancing at the policy page, I can tell that this is unneccessary instruction creep. The Trifecta and the Other Trifecta is all the rules we need. --Carnildo 06:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Nothing more than a veiled attempt to POV push via "ethics." Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose ethics guidlines are inherentlly flawed in that it will then be wrongly assumed that anything not outright declared bad is acceptable. Also undermines WP:AGF --T-rex 18:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Purely POV. Joey 19:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose For most of the reasons stated by others. Hawkestone 05:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose and the poll itself is unwise per Dalbury (tar baby) John Reid 23:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Calling this ethics is absurd. It's censorship, nothing more. -M^ask 04:52, 28 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)