Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics/Archived polls, March 29, 06

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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. The approval poll is designed to kill the process. The editors proposing it do not believe that it is ready and in the final form. The proposal is not even completely written yet. It is not fair to vote a half-written proposal down. Resid Gulerdem 20:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  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)
  10. No, lets wait until it is ready. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. No. The proposal needs a lot more work. Andrewa 01:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. No. I think we could use a little more work under the hood over there if you know what I mean. Crad0010 02:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. NO. I support almost all of the policies set forth but some are still a bit iffy - I still think it needs time to be polished. Decisions for policies need to be tentative and decided through consensus and discussion. this vote is too early and risks abolishing the hard work of a perfectly good policy or guideline that would benefit wikipedia greatly. The vote is in my opinion premature. Tanzeel 19:41, 23 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)
  • It's a dangerous precedent, but not as serious as you might think. This vote seems to have been called as a gag... A device for preventing further discussion. That's rather ironical in the light of the subject under discussion, and not constuctive IMO. This exact tactic is often not allowed in committees and the like, you can second a motion and then vote against it but if you propose something you must either vote for it or withdraw it (if permitted to do so). Ah, but we're not a democracy! If this vote does proceed... and I think there's little chance of anything else happening... it just means that the proposers will need to develop it in the user namespace, rather than in the project namespace, and come back here with a better-developed proposal. This is probably what they should have done in the first place. The contributors to date seem new to Wikipedia, by the phrasing... they don't for example seem to know when to say wiki, when to say Wiki and when to say Wikipedia. Andrewa 01:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • My reasons are pretty much as same as Andrewa's above. --Street Scholar 11:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This vote seems to have been called as a gag... A device for preventing further discussion. That's rather ironical in the light of the subject under discussion, and not constuctive IMO - agree with this statement of Andrewa completely. Tanzeel 19:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

YES

  1. Yes. The poll below is valid. It was started first and is underway. Vote struck due to excessive re-editing of poll rules, title and introduction 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. Pegasus1138Talk | 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)
  1. Yes, to kill this irredeemable dog's breakfast of duplication and tendentious bias. Hawkestone 05:31, 25 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:
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)

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. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Begin: 00:22, 17 March 2006

End: 00:22, 31 March 2006

Support

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 (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

  1. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. Oppose, to many things in one policy, pro-censorship, vague ambigious language. KimvdLinde 06:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. 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)
  5. 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)
  6. 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)
  7. 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)
  8. This is redundant with many existing policies, and it conflicts with them in many ways. Rhobite 05:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - this is elliptical to the point of nonsense, and against Wikipedia spirit in many ways. — Catherine\talk 06:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. 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)
  11. oppose Olicy would force editors to reveal their gender and thus breaks privicy policy.Geni 14:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. 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)
  13. Strong Oppose per the above. Also, this proposal just feels utterly alien to Wikipedia. Sandstein 15:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. 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)
  15. Oppose per Metta--Acebrock 17:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)*
  16. 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)
  17. Oppose, per Metta-Bubble. Azate 00:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose - instruction creep, not necessary - not widely supported Trödel 11:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Guff. Markyour words 15:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose We have NPOV, CIVIL, DBAD... Rich Farmbrough 16:52 19 March 2006 (UTC).
  21. Oppose. Already covered in other policies. Kaldari 19:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. 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)
  23. Oppose instruction creep, and it should refer to relevant policies already in Wikipedia. Ziggurat 00:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose Redundant. Choalbaton 01:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. 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)
  26. Oppose. Not necessary. —Nightstallion (?) 10:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. 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)
  28. Oppose. Tomyumgoong 19:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose Piccadilly 21:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. Nothing that's acceptable here isn't covered by other policies and guidelines. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  31. 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)
  32. 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)
  33. Oppose. Nothing more than a veiled attempt to POV push via "ethics." Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  34. 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)
  35. Oppose Purely POV. Joey 19:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose For most of the reasons stated by others. Hawkestone 05:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  37. Oppose and the poll itself is unwise per Dalbury (tar baby) John Reid 23:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  38. Strong Oppose Calling this ethics is absurd. It's censorship, nothing more. -Mask 04:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

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. Pegasus1138Talk | 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)

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)

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)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archived_polls,_March_29,_06&oldid=1137357103"