Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Do we need a poll at this stage Poll 31 April 2006

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. &#0151; 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)
 * No, the policy is slowly improving, but is not yet ready for a vote. Johntex\talk 23:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, lets wait until it is ready. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) No. The proposal needs a lot more work. Andrewa 01:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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 &#2384; 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. Pegasus1138 Talk  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? &#2384; 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. &#2384; 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. &#2384; 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:


 * 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. &#2384; 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:


 * 05:32, 17 March 2006 Your first poll
 * 06:36, 17 March 2006 You changed the introduction to your poll (after votes were cast)
 * 07:35, 17 March 2006 Changing the rules of your poll (after even more votes were cast)
 * 07:41, 17 March 2006 You changing the rules again (without discussion)
 * 00:19, 18 March 2006 You change yes/no rules of your poll (after even more votes)
 * 00:24, 18 March 2006 You adding some more unclear comments about voting procedure
 * 00:25, 18 March 2006 And signing your name to prove the sockpuppet is you
 * 00:27, 18 March 2006 You attempting to obfuscate the comments section of your poll
 * 00:29, 18 March 2006 You bolding a notice to suggest the APPROVAL POLL is officially connected to your poll
 * 03:50, 21 March 2006 Adding "what is this poll for" introduction to your poll that attempts to bias votes
 * 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. &#2384; 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. &#2384; 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. &#2384; 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)

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? &#2384; <strong style="color:orange;">Metta Bubble <sup style="color:red;">puff  10:03, 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)
 * 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? &#2384; <strong style="color:orange;">Metta Bubble <sup style="color:red;">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. &#2384; <strong style="color:orange;">Metta Bubble <sup style="color:red;">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. &#2384; <strong style="color:orange;">Metta Bubble <sup style="color:red;">puff  10:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)