Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics/Archive 2, March 29, 06

message: 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. Resid Gulerdem 00:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to assume good faith 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. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. Resid Gulerdem 00:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well Wikipedia is not a democracy and I'm sure that if before the 31st you can sufficently improve the proposal people will be open to changing their opinions. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Remember: assuming good faith is not just for once. Me and the other editors with ethic concerns will do it. Do not worry... Resid Gulerdem 00:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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 Metta Bubble puff 01:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Archiving is a common practise. Discuss here before rverting. The ocmments section about the poll is already there. Stop vandalizing and destructing the page. Resid Gulerdem 04:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Archiving when you have been warned not to disrupt a talk page is NOT common practice. Arhiving when there is a poll underway also is not common practice. You were warned that you would be blocked indefinitely if you continued. Why have you continued? Do you disagree with the warnings? You should take that up elsewhere, not here! ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Archiving is a common practise. Do not make up rules yourself. I explained the reason for warnings below. Please read it, and see that the reason for the warnings was actually you and your tricks. You should use your experience in Wiki for good reasons, not to kill some proposals which might be beneficial. I would recommend you not play dirty games on relatively new users anymore: Do not bite new users... Resid Gulerdem 05:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  START OVER 

message: 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. Resid Gulerdem 00:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please raise issues and make helpful suggestions on the individual policy pages: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, etc. The consensus in the poll above clearly shows that this page conflicts with many existing policies. Rhobite 01:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see my note on the Arguments page. A policy is needed so that it explains all related policies coherently. It becomes a source of information and introduction to newcomers and a reference to all. THat is how we can deal with instruction creep.  Resid Gulerdem 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going for something like Wikipedia:Five pillars, then you should rewrite this page so that it accurately reflects existing policy. Rhobite 04:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am ready for any kind of improvements. We are going to do it together. Resid Gulerdem 04:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't be participating, since I think that this page is totally superfluous. Rhobite 04:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I respect your decision. We all believe differently at different points. Resid Gulerdem 04:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments and Sections 

message: 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 Wikipedia. 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. WAS 4.250 01:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. Resid Gulerdem 03:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Incorrect. The first poll is still on this page. The Approval Poll was the first one. It is active until the 31st. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The approval poll is alrady invalid due to the votes on the Do we need poll. Actually if you look at carefully you will see that even among the people voted on the approval poll say 'It is not good time for a vote'. They couldn't vote on the 'Do we need' poll simly because of your vandalism. Resid Gulerdem 04:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd agree with closing. Nobody has supported, and I don't think many people will (see WP:SNOW). The issue has become a cause of trouble (see e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Three_users_.28and_admins.29_NSLE-Netscott-Rory096_misusing_their_privileges). I think - and it's just my personal opinion - that it would be for the good of the project if the proposal was quietly dropped and archived. --kingboyk 13:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The first paragraph says that if you think the proposal is not ready for a vote, say NO. If you think it is ready say YES. Resid Gulerdem 13:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is ready (and have listed my objections under "oppose"), and I think it would be best to archive this one and start again. I'm not sure that makes me either a "yes" or a "no" as regards your first poll? I'm not talking about polling anyway, I'm talking about closing the debate because it's going nowhere and is (ironically) causing bad feeling. --kingboyk 13:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am trying to get back on working the policy too. Please see the subpages, Sections and Arguments above. You can start making suggestions if you like. Resid Gulerdem 14:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * kingboyk that sounds very sensible. Netscott 13:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What happens next

message: Rgulerdem. I have reverted your edits to this talk page on the basis that they are vandalism. You have been explicitly warned to refrain from messing around with the structure and content of this talk page by several administrators. You were previously blocked for 50 hours for violating this and you have been told by Superm401 that you will be blocked indefinitely if you persist.
I politely requested discussion be made before anyone archive this talk page as it is relevant to the poll. Please listen and discuss civilly what you would like. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Metta Bubble, do not vandalize and revert my edits. Be civil and discuss here before your edits. Resid Gulerdem 04:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I posted a discussion and warning for every single deletion of yours I restored. What's more, 3 admins warned you just the same. No one, not even an admin, has warned me to stop reverting your deletions. In fact, it has been suggested you need Arbitration to enforce the official policies you so willfully ignore. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know very well the reason for all this mess. You were vandalising the page here, when I revert back your destruction, you were going to the 3RR page to claim that I violated 3RRule. You played a dirty game, but it is over. I wish you could expalin what is your motivation. Why do you want to kill this proposal that bad? I regret that I invited you to contribute this page at the first place. You have chosen to destroy it. The possible results of your action is not good for Wiki, I do not know why good for you... Resid Gulerdem 05:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please discuss changes in advance 

message: By current standards, the outcome of the APPROVAL VOTE should determine what happens to this policy page. The other vote should be ignored on the basis that:
# it was created to undermine the approval vote
# it was created after the approval vote
# the wording of the vote refered to user opinions which have been refuted by those users
# it was consensus decided to be archived off this page (though it has been unilaterally restored)
# it has no rules for either determining result or for when it closes
# it's wording has changed 5+ times after voting started
I realise how upsetting this may be for Resid but it doesn't justify someone trying to undermine the approval vote. If anyone other than Resid objects (or approves) of closing this policy and locking the page at the end of the approval vote please let us know below. If the vote goes in favor of keeping this policy open for more discussion, it would be an ideal time to archive the talk page. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See below for a different view on this. All the first vote decides is approval of the current draft. If (as I guess) you want to nominate the page for deletion, then that's a different vote entirely, and nomination of policy proposals with active talk pages is discouraged. Andrewa 04:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results of Approval Vote 

message: The policy cannot be determined by the outcome of the approval poll. Simply because:
* It is started by a single editor unilaterally, without a consensus. In the comments section of the first poll this clearly stated: 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)
replies: text:  Vsion. None of that invalidates the approval poll. You can't just automatically invalidate a poll without discussion. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And you cannot just start a poll to kill a proposal without discussion. A proposal even the editors do not think that ready to put into a vote. Resid Gulerdem 06:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Woah! JEREMY. If you would like to accuse me of violating any policy or of being a censor then please get your facts straight. I have never started a poll on wikipedia. I'm am entitled to cast a vote as much as anyone else. There are no vandalism reports on me, although a user was warned 4 times for creating false reports about me. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry you felt my comment applied to you personally. That was not my intent. — JEREMY 06:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you jeremy. I couldn't work out why you were calling me a censor. A charge I obviously take very seriously, given I am a member of Wikipedian Against Censorship. Again appreciated you clarifying your comments. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I did not quote in that context either. Resid Gulerdem 06:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I completely agree. Why are you quoting people out of context at me? You made it look like JEREMY was making an accusation directly at me. You even included his signature with a full link as though he posted the message. He had to come and explain before it was clear it wasn't actually him. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 10:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  And I explained the reason for it theree times above. Being well experienced is good, to use it to harm people or policies is bad and unethical. That is what you are trying to do here. Resid Gulerdem 06:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  WP:CIVIL. I have indicate no such preference and I ask you to retract your uncivil accusations. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately you are trying to kill this process. I am not sure about the reason though. I ask community be more conscious about User:Metta Bubbles actions. Please see the demage s/he caused to this policy on the page WP:AN/3RR listed under his/her name. Resid Gulerdem 06:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please refrain from speculating on my motives or desires. It's unlikely you comprehend either. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results of the first Poll 

message: The poll was always in its position at the top from its start. Please do not replace it without discussion. It is not a new poll. When a person strted an approval poll against consensus here, we asked to the community if they approve that poll or not. It looks to be that they do not approve the poll at this stage. Resid Gulerdem 14:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The poll from its start was always at the top up untill you (Netscott) decided that it should be somewhere in the middle. Please do not change its place. Resid Gulerdem 23:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Resid, anyone who has been reading the editing comments will understand my stated logic for having the "Approval Poll" at the top of the talk page. It is for chronological reasons... the "Approval Poll" came before your Poll chronologically... so for you to have arbitrarily started (placed) your poll at the top of the page (above all other prior talk and the "Approval Poll") was disingenous and demonstrated a lack of "good faith". My edit (and the edits of 6 fellow editors) merely was to reinstate the actual precedence of the original "Approval Poll". Do you understand this logic? Netscott 03:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position of the polls 

message: This proposal is obviously doomed. Why are people bothering to edit war over it? Come on folks, do something useful instead. Shall I just delete it? William M. Connolley 16:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * No I don't think it should be deleted... the "Approval Poll" has a specific end date. After that date the deletion/archiving idea should be visited. Netscott 16:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope you're joking, and I fear that you'll mislead people by such comments. Of course an administrator can't just delete anything, rather administrators are expected to know and follow Wikipedia policies. There are some circumstances in which speedy deletion is permitted, but this doesn't seem to me to meet any of the criteria. Andrewa 11:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I am against deletion of this proposed policy, because many people think, that the other policies like WP:NPA and WP:Wikikette are only about talk pages. This policy would address responsibility regarding article writing, which is very important. If you have any suggestion to improve that policy, please state them here. Raphael1 16:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * I expressed my view up above about deletion. As a side note, prior to deletion (if such a deciscion is made) User:Rgulerdem should be given the opportunity to archive this proposed policy to his User space (ie: User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics ) or have it moved by an Admin there so that he can re-pursue the formulating of the policy, but in a more private fashion. Netscott 16:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The poll was started, when the proposal was only 5 days old. This is ridiculous. If you can't bear to see that policy developing, look somewhere else. Raphael1 17:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with this point. The rules-lawyering here is doing nothing but confusing the issue. There isn't a remote chance that anything like this page will be approved as policy, so there's no use wasting more time and breath arguing about it. Salvaging this proposed policy would require a complete rewrite.. the best bet is to agree that it will never pass and move on. Let's not delete it; it is an excellent example of what not to do when formulating Wikipedia policy. Rhobite 22:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: My only concern is if someone wants to write a proper principle-based code of ethics for Wikipedia, the name "Wikiethics" will already be taken by this rejected proposal. But I guess there are better names for a real code of ethics. Rhobite 02:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikiethics is inappropriate for a title anyway because we are talking about "Wikipedia Ethics" not "Wiki Ethics", which could apply to any wiki. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 10:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion for the deletion procedure, and especially Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Before considering nominating a miscellany page for deletion. But personally I see no grounds for deletion. If this version is rejected, there's still the option of working on it. That's how wikis work! Even if the proposal is abandoned, it's probably better to archive it, otherwise we just risk reinventing the wheel. Andrewa 11:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doomed. Delete? 

message: Now that it looks like things have calmed down - what should be done with this proposed policy. It is clearly not supported by a wide variety of users - and although there was some feeling that the poll was too early, I don't think that things could reach consensus. I think it should just be listed under Misc for deletion. All of the concerns (justifications) for the need for this policy page are already addressed by current policy. I would just list for deletion but want to get some input, and I did not want list it while Rgulerdem is blocked. Trödel 16:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am against deletion of this proposed policy, because many people think, that the other policies like WP:NPA and WP:Wikikette are only about talk pages. This policy would address responsibility regarding article writing, which is very important. If you have any suggestion to improve that policy, please state them here. Raphael1 16:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * I expressed my view up above about deletion. As a side note, prior to deletion (if such a deciscion is made) User:Rgulerdem should be given the opportunity to archive this proposed policy to his User space (ie: User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics ) or have it moved by an Admin there so that he can re-pursue the formulating of the policy, but in a more private fashion. Netscott 16:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The poll was started, when the proposal was only 5 days old. This is ridiculous. If you can't bear to see that policy developing, look somewhere else. Raphael1 17:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with this point. The rules-lawyering here is doing nothing but confusing the issue. There isn't a remote chance that anything like this page will be approved as policy, so there's no use wasting more time and breath arguing about it. Salvaging this proposed policy would require a complete rewrite.. the best bet is to agree that it will never pass and move on. Let's not delete it; it is an excellent example of what not to do when formulating Wikipedia policy. Rhobite 22:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: My only concern is if someone wants to write a proper principle-based code of ethics for Wikipedia, the name "Wikiethics" will already be taken by this rejected proposal. But I guess there are better names for a real code of ethics. Rhobite 02:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikiethics is inappropriate for a title anyway because we are talking about "Wikipedia Ethics" not "Wiki Ethics", which could apply to any wiki. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 10:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion for the deletion procedure, and especially Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Before considering nominating a miscellany page for deletion. But personally I see no grounds for deletion. If this version is rejected, there's still the option of working on it. That's how wikis work! Even if the proposal is abandoned, it's probably better to archive it, otherwise we just risk reinventing the wheel. Andrewa 11:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calmer waters - but proposing deletion 

message: Looks like there's a tiger loose in the natural history museum and he's performing WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming.
Resid appears to have spammed upwards of one hundred (if not more) user's talk pages.
The following is just a sample of it see the rest here (do note the blind alphabetical order he's following).
spam 01 User talk:Borincano75
spam 02 User talk:BonsaiViking
spam 03 User talk:Blarneytherinosaur
spam 04 User talk:Benzai
spam 05 User talk:Ben davison
spam 06 User talk:Beau99
spam 07 User User talk:Bcat
spam 08 User talk:Banes
spam 09 User talk:Awcolley
spam 10 User talk:Averykrouse
spam 11  User talk:Archola
spam 12 User talk:Andrewski
spam 13  User talk:Andrewa
spam 14 User talk:Zjhafeez
spam 15 User talk:Zereshk
spam 16 User talk:Zakksez
Does this look like work for an admin to block? I probably should post to WP:AN. Comments?
Netscott 00:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that but decided not to act, I think a post on WP:AN/I would be a good idea. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: left a question about this here: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Extensive_internal_spamming.3F --KimvdLinde 00:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I noticed that he's continuing in a blind alphabetical fashion which just doesn't seem right... I made a report too: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Tiger_loose. Netscott 00:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am inviting people to the discussion. More input from the community will help better. Resid Gulerdem 01:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've blocked Resid Gulerdem for 31 hours for spamming a notice about this discussion to multiple user talk pages.  Spamming is bad, mmmkay? Kelly Martin (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest you check the blocking policy. I don't think manually "spamming" a polite message to multiple users (I was one of them) qualifies. Were there other reasons? Andrewa 01:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What part of calling people a "pro-porn and pro-offense lobby" do you find polite? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 02:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I certainly don't like that phrasing, and I think it only damaged the writer's cause. But compared to what I am regularly called in one of my daily roles, it's very polite indeed. I don't find that phrase any justification for a block, either in terms of what the current policy does say, or even of what I'd like it to say, as I'm very wary of censorship. How about you? Andrewa 08:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Both nothing and everything could be banned under this policy. It's a dictators' dream. But there is the propaganda clause:
* Manipulation of information to influence public opinion is not acceptable. Wiki articles cannot be written to support any political, social, or religious movements. Editors should be careful about the information put out by an organization or a government to promote a policy, idea, or cause. It is also good to be more conscious regarding the deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread.
Go figure. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a dictators' dream, who is the dictator? Raphael1 04:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiger 

message: I would like to propose a nutshell idea: Be wise and responsible. Any suggestions? Resid Gulerdem 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's already policy. It's certainly the intention of the current policy. But it's one we all have problems following from time to time. Andrewa 05:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that we all have problems with 'being wise and responsible' from time to time. I hope this phrase reminds us what we should do as an editor here in Wiki. Resid Gulerdem 18:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A policy in a nutshell idea