Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Occupation of Palestine/Tally

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isn't this vote over? I keep seeing new edits, including the anonymous addition of a name to the delete list. -- Jmabel 21:45, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think that as long as there is a standing issue (currently everything is suspended by Christopher Mahan's request until Saturday) people should allow to add/change their votes. As far as I have seen, closing time of voting for anything on Wikipedia is not hard-wired. Gadykozma 23:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This vote has been closed since September 19, 2004. The offical tally is here. The tally below is not valid.

(the last remark was added by self-proclaimed Wikipedia lawyer HistoryBuffEr to the tally page. I moved it here where it belongs. Gadykozma 09:45, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC))

What a mess. I have removed from this page the note I placed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Occupation of Palestine/Tally, which had been moved here by User:Gadykozma complete with my signature. I'm afraid I regard this as misquoting me. Move text by all means, but when that text contains signatures, please make it clear what you have done. It's all in the history, but it shouldn't be necessary to look at the history to verify that signed comments are what they appear to be, which in this case IMO they were not. Andrewa 10:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies, I had absolutely no intention to misrepresent you. I thought the comment was clear outside its context, therefore I only remarked on the move on HistoryBuffEr's comment which wasn't. Again, I thought I was doing janitarial work, if I was wrong, I'm sorry. Gadykozma 11:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I really think we should vote again. The situation is so messy now that whatever the outcome, some people will be very unhappy about it. And it is not clear whether we were voting just about one article or two. - pir 11:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I kind of see your position, but the one/two article mess was created by Ed, which should have known better than to split a page under VfD without prior discussion. Voting again will open the door to a general "avoidance mechanism" by which a side which sees it's about to lose a VfD causes a mess forcing a revote. Gadykozma 11:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think this vote is exceptional. If a decision is not taken through a process that is accepted by all, I fear that it will lead to a significant reduction in Wikilove. - pir 11:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I fear a significant reduction in Wikilove has already happened... thought this of course does not preclude further reduction :-( Gadykozma 12:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's true and very unfortunate. Maybe it would be best not to take/force a decision at this point, but the agree that we disagree just for the moment ; in the meantime we should think of different possible compromises and write drafts of possible articles, and then vote on a comprehensive solution that does not lead to lasting grievances among Wikipedians. I think general Wikilove is important and worth the effort. - pir 13:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And during this time do you suggest that the pages be content or redirect? Oh no, there's no way out!!! But let's continue this on the main page, here should be only for the voting period and all that. Gadykozma 14:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think Ed had the right idea, and I can't see any problem with what he did. If he'd used sysop powers to do it, that would have been a problem, but what he did could have been done by any user without even signing in. It was Wiki in action. I do however still object to removal of my comments from the tally page to here. It at least creates the impression that my opinions are being hidden by those who don't agree with them. The creation of this new talk page was IMO unnecessary and counterproductive. For the record, I think that the vote closed 5 days after the listing or when a sysop redirected and protected the page, whichever came first. That's why I don't update my vote, although it has changed, twice now. There's no point in updating the vote now, unless the intention is to make the mess even bigger. Andrewa 22:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say what Ed did was improper. I said it was not very nice. Gadykozma 23:15, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)