Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/Archive3

message: What is actually at issue here? I ask this once every day or two, and never get a clear answer. I do not believe that what is at issue is whether or how we should have a poll. What is at issue must be the basic level of ATT, and unless we can come to some sort of consensus on that, whether we exprress our lack of agreement on one page or three is a relatively minor question. To debate rules ndefinitely indicates a hidden agenda, and I urge those with a substantative position to say so directly.DGG 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "substantive position"?  Can you give an example?  --Rednblu 02:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: what is the issue

message: Have we not even decided on the length of the poll? If it is going to last for two weeks (as an example), we should instead state: "This poll will run from 04/xx/07 00:00 UTC to 04/xx+14/07 00:00 UTC". Otherwise a strict reading of it states it is going to last for no time at all! Mathmo Talk 09:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... which would be ideal. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd suggested 7 days for duration for whenever it ran. The xx was just to put something up there that whoever launched the poll could fill in at the appointed hour. 7, 14, 21, whichever works. I think anything less than 7, should it go live... would be too short. - Denny 13:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This poll will run from 04/xx/07 00:00 UTC to 04/xx/07 00:00 UTC" 

message: Please see: Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/InsaneDennyIdea.
Basically turn it into a RfC on Attribution cum Poll. Replies to sections go on Talk, not on the front page, for the simple fact of not making people's basic opinions completely unreadable/drowned out. Any threaded discussion can go on the Talk page. Technically, still a poll, which is what Jimbo asked for. - Denny 15:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But... we already have that' here: Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence the insane part. That was for people to debate it. Threaded discussion, right on the page. This would be a completely open-ended poll: What do you think of the merger? ArbCom style. Go. That sort of thing. Jimbo can then just look at that page, and it should be fairly obvious if the thing is supported or not (by having the threaded talk happen on Talk page). - Denny 15:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Denny, we are achieving what needs to be achieved through discussion. The poll is dead for now. If a poll is needed we can have one when the need is manifest. WAS 4.250 15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the poll not running per you? I remind you again that sweeping statements of "I have decided" are rude/not helpful... If you want to kill the poll, MfD it, or ask people for concensus of that. Tell Jimbo that his requested poll is dead. Will you tell him? Or should I post to his talk page that "per WAS 4.25, your poll is dead"? - Denny 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Aye, Aye! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Unilateral comments like WAS's are antagonizing. But if it's dead, let's MfD this. Who is willing to do it? - Denny 15:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/InsaneDennyIdea]] 

message: === Semi-protection please! ===
Could an admin reading this reapply semi protection to the following? There is no need for IPs to contribute here, and Jimbo had semi'd the page originally. I think it came off when AzaToth unprotected for the earlier MfD. The following need semi:
* Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll
* Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/header
* Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll (this page)
Thanks! - Denny 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why shouldn't IPs be able to contribute to this page? Picaroon 21:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Decline, while still in the development phase. We can talk about it just before going live. Marskell 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see why any anon IP needs to be able to contribute to a debate about core content policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Can we open the poll now, or are we waiting to do it after April 1st? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can agree to pull it off for 4/1/07 or 4/2/07 I think it'd be awesome. Maybe wait to see if anyone really opposes it, and if no one does then go live 4/2/07 00:00? - Denny 23:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're ready, I think we should open it now, assuming we're going ahead. We need to get this over with. Also, I hope we're not keeping it open for too long? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be the last person at this point to object to launching. ;)  Lets go for a round number. 7 or 14 days? I vote 7 even. 00:00 to 00:00. - Denny 23:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Seven days should, be aplenty. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: remaining housekeeper work

message: Could an admin reading this reapply semi protection to the following? There is no need for IPs to contribute here, and Jimbo had semi'd the page originally. I think it came off when AzaToth unprotected for the earlier MfD. The following need semi:
* Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll
* Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/header
* Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll (this page)
Thanks! - Denny 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why shouldn't IPs be able to contribute to this page? Picaroon 21:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Decline, while still in the development phase. We can talk about it just before going live. Marskell 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see why any anon IP needs to be able to contribute to a debate about core content policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Can we open the poll now, or are we waiting to do it after April 1st? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can agree to pull it off for 4/1/07 or 4/2/07 I think it'd be awesome. Maybe wait to see if anyone really opposes it, and if no one does then go live 4/2/07 00:00? - Denny 23:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're ready, I think we should open it now, assuming we're going ahead. We need to get this over with. Also, I hope we're not keeping it open for too long? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be the last person at this point to object to launching. ;)  Lets go for a round number. 7 or 14 days? I vote 7 even. 00:00 to 00:00. - Denny 23:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection please! 

message: Also, for when we do:
	A poll is now underway about the Wikipedia:Attribution merger. <BR>Please express your opinion about Wikipedia:Attribution in this poll.
Posted it here, ready to copy/paste in: MediaWiki_talk:Watchdetails#ATT_poll_notification_template_-_for_when.2Fif_it_launches. 
* Day 1 (0-24 hours): that notice, as-is.
* Days 2-7: Lose the graphic, add back in the "Dismiss" button.
If the poll goes longer than 7 days, I guess we can look at it then to see if the notice is worth keeping for the full duration. But a week would ensure that no one later can say they missed it, at all. - Denny 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seven days should, be aplenty. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notifications

message: * Slim, Jossi, if we're gonna do the semi on the main page, could one of you get both the header include and my QUESTION graphic too? - Denny 23:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra stuff

message: thanks everyone for your patience, during this mess. Sorry if I seemed to get pushy in pushing for general forward movement at any point. Just wanted to say it before all the pre-poll Talk stuff went into archive hell (as they should when we launch to clean slate this). - Denny 23:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone here really think there is consensus for this sudden and huge reversal of direction?  --Rednblu 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be why we asked and put it out as an idea above. - Denny 23:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, FWIW, we have about 70 people that have touched this page. If they don't speak up to say, "Don't do this," well, then what? Don't do it based on their silence? - Denny 23:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rednblue, please don't WP:POINT, thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm curious.  So what operational definition for consensus are you using?  --Rednblu 23:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patience, thanks 

message: I'm sorry to have caused this mess, but apparently I accidentally deleted a comment by user Avraham during an edit conflict here.  also a comment by Radiant!, but apparently the latter user added that comment back in.  The comment by Avraham is still not in, I believe:  "# First version; at least there is a representative range of choices. -- Avi 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help fixing edit conflict? 

message: The poll has died. A structured discussion lives. Discussion is how wikipedia got to where it is. The current project page of this talk page is now a structured discussion. That is entirely appropriate and can be of great value. I am all for it. 4.250.132.238 00:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a restritcted format discussion. To keep it from going to useless anarchy all threaded talk is being forced to this talk page, that will be blanked/archived right before the polling goes live. - Denny 00:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've lost track. Some people are saying we should start the poll now; others that we should start it in two days; others that we are having no poll. Does anyone know what the majority position is? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't think any one single point has EVER had majority. That's why I've been working under the, "If no one screams when I poke the page this way, it must be ok to do so," mode of thought. If no one gives a meaningful reason to not launch at 4/2/07 00:00 I say go for it then. - Denny 01:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ignores the fact that all sensible people have been screaming silently about it since it was first suggested. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't wanna start any more steam this late, but y'all should have spoken up. ;) Moving on, lets get it done. - Denny 01:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say: start the poll, and let those that want to participate do so. We just need to be vigilant for April 1st, that's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I say we should go ahead with the poll or structured discussion as of now for seven days. How do we open it? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take down the notice to not vote yet, edit the Watchlist header (and keep random people from undoing it!) and then cross-post like mad. - Denny 01:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say go for it. Crum375 01:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Open for business. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we'll have problems on Apr. 1, but if others are willing to clean up the mess, then whatever.  I don't know what the rush is to do this now instead of in 2 days. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither do I; I just jumped at the chance to make the first statement (again). Picaroon 01:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The poll has died. A structured discussion lives.