Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics/Archive 3, May 06, 06

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Wikiethics. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Fresh Start

Let us go back to work on the policy. The subpages Arguments and Sections can be used for further discussions. We can use this page for overall comments - just a suggestion... Resid Gulerdem 01:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I archived the polls and other inactive sections for a fresh start. Please feel free to get them back here if you think necessary. Resid Gulerdem 12:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of typing "Please feel free to get them back here if you think necessary.", when you're going to archive the poll over an objection raised? Also, there was no consensus which says you may archive the poll. He instructed you to seek community consensus. Please do not twist his words: See my remark on AN, I have other things on Wikipedia I'd rather devote my time to so I'm gonna drop this from my watchlist and leaving it up to you which means that you are welcome to close the poll I started if you can convince everyone else it's a good idea --Jqiz 19:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the summary, revert without discussion is not a good way to go. Objection need to be discussed first here. I archived inactive sections too but all are reverted. It is just a violation (revert without discussion) not an objection. If you want the poll stay there, no problem with me. I will arcive the inactive sections again, if you think they should be here, please get them back, but it would be better if you discuss first. Resid Gulerdem 20:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And what exactly do you think you're doing when you archived an active poll without a discussion/consensus? --Jqiz 20:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jqiz, did you see my note above: I would prefer to close the polls tomorrow if there is no objection about it. Why did you wait till I closed the poll? Would not that be better if you say you want to see it there till the deadline? And what kind of discussion you are looking more? Please not that all I want to do is close this poll session and stop the energy loss around the polls so that we can concentrate on woring more on the policy. Isn't this reasonable? Why do you think I am archiving it? Resid Gulerdem 21:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem is that someone objected and you decided to archive it anyway. --Jqiz 21:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please check the history carefully. I left the note that I will archive the poll yesterday. I archived it today. Someone reverted back to the earlier version and reverted my other edits unrelated the poll, without discussion. I said do not revert without discussion and put it into archived form again. Then you came into the scene and know the rest. Clear now? Resid Gulerdem 22:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This proposed policy was rejected quite soundly. The first thing you should do is wipe the front page and start from scratch on a wikiethics proposal that is vastly different from the rejected version if you wish to have a 'fresh start'. -M^ask

21:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It was not a proposal yet, it was a draft. And it is not surprising that a draft do not get support. And we will be working on it gradually. As necessary we can make changes on each section, and add more. If you see the main opponent's (maybe Pegasus) talk above, even he is saying that there are good parts in it. It founds a good and solid base to start with. Resid Gulerdem 21:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the point AKMask was trying to make is that whether draft or proposal or whatever - the general direction of the article did not have community support. So starting over may be a good idea. Maybe starting with a statement like - is this type of policy needed, what should the focus of the policy be, etc. Then based on that draft the article through community efforts. Trödel 01:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see a base for that kind of argument. I think the polls together cannot be used to make the conclusion that this proposal should be restarted from nowhere. As I said above, even the pollowner Pegasus says that there are good ideas in it. There are other editors either contributed or not give some partial support to it too. I strongly believe that there are good ideas and approaches in it as well. Most of the questions like what should the focus of it be, etc. are partially discussed already, maybe not explicitely at the beginning. So, ignoring all the efforts and ideas makes no sense at all. That ignorance does not add to the proposal anything and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. I would rather ask you and others for example read the proposal once more with peace of mind talk specifically what sections they have problem with. We can start such a discussion on the sections page more explicitely. The arguments like: is this kind of policy needed, what should be the focus of policy, what should we add more, etc can be discussed in the arguments page further. I am infact adding those questions on that page to open a discussion. Sometimes from the edit wars etc we lose our balance and neutrality. It is possible to figure out the parts need to be improved, changed, or added in a healthier way by putting this polling session behind. I think the current draft founds a solid, reasonable and a good base for further discussion. Resid Gulerdem 02:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You're working at this the wrong way. You have too much of the bad in it. You need to look at the page, see what we voted down, and why, then start over with this page and think about the why part. If you can't see a base for that argument, then think of this- There are plenty of reasons to oppose something like this without actually disagreeing with any of it. When the US was formed, under the Articles of Confederation and we saw they didn't work, but that we liked their ideas, we didn't try to fix it, we scrapped them, started anew, and got the constitution out of it. Sometimes an idea is just so horribly flawed in its execution, as this Wikiethics proposal is, that it just needs to die and start over. -M^ask

17:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a constructive aproach: Kill this and restart... I will do pretty much the same when I restart this. You should list your concerns in subpages and give the editors who would like to improve the policy a chance to do it rather than just saying: 'it is no good'. In any case, the concerns should be specified clearly so that problems can be fixed. In brief, it is impossible to read your minds regarding your concerns, and it is not helpful to say 'kill it and restart with our concerns in mind'...

I am thinking about the question 'why'. The most important reason is that the edit war on the page is misrepresented in the admin's pages. That conflict caused some troubles. Do you have a different explanation? By the way, I am in US no more than 30 years and I cannot remember how you did got the (your?) constitution. Resid Gulerdem 22:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No Fresh Start

Disagree that redrafting and rehaggling is wise. Time to let this die a natural death. Rejected. John Reid 22:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, per John Reid and the results of the Approval Poll . Please see comments below. Netscott 23:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"No Fresh Start" Comments

If Resid Gulerdem intends to continue to work on this proposal then my recommendation would be that what is here be moved to User:Rgulerdem's user space. Netscott 23:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This seems to be his personal project. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask what made you think so? Resid Gulerdem 00:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If the "No Fresh Start" section is supposed to be a straw poll I recommend you clearly state the subject matter of the poll, and in such a way that people can "Support" or "Oppose". The way you have it now it's not exactly clear what you're "Disagreeing" with. Are you disagreeing with "No Fresh Start" or with "Fresh Start"? I suspect the latter, but it's not clear, so you should make your intentions explicit (ie. not in the individual comments of the voters). -- noosphere 00:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Noosphere's 00:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) comment. I understood John Reid's intention was to express disagreeance with the "Fresh Start" idea.... but I must admit that when making my comment I was not clear if his intention was to start another straw poll (which almost seems silly at this point). Netscott 00:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the note at the top of the page. More polls do not help. This polling session should end to be able to do something constructive. Resid Gulerdem 00:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with John Reid, Netscott, Noosphere, and Dalbury. This policy is toyed as a pet project. Rgulerdem should nurse it on his own sandpit and mould it in his own playtime where he is free to use his own pencil case exclusively. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Completion of the proposal

I think we are talking about completing the proposal at this point. Approval poll is not valid due to the votes on the second poll. Talking about it open and public will improve it faster. The more contributions, the better results... Resid Gulerdem 23:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Poll summary needed

I believe there needs to be a permanent record at the top of this page regarding the outcome of the archived polls, so that anyone coming to this page for the first time does not have to dig through the archives to find out what the outcome was. -- noosphere 00:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That seems logical and in accordance with WikiPedia Policies noosphere. Netscott 00:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I am adding a poll summary to the archive as it is done in the other articles. Resid Gulerdem 00:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

One should not need to look in archives to find out the results of previous polls. -- noosphere 00:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at JP-MC case, for example, you can see how the polls are treated. Resid Gulerdem 00:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Resid's statement above is a bit of a half truth. In fact after JP-MC's polls were completed they were prominently displayed on the main talk page. Only later were they archived. Netscott 00:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you meen. They were here for weeks... The polls here have been active even more than JPMC polls. Resid Gulerdem 00:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice Resid Gulerdem's curious interpretations of the previous poll results. Netscott 00:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The very model of NPOV. -- noosphere 01:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The "do we need a poll" poll clearly does not invalidate the "approval" poll. If 38 people voted against approval in the "approval" poll, and that total is more than the total number of votes in the "do we need a poll" poll...how can you claim that one supercedes the other? By voting in an approval poll, these people are making their point known that they think there should be a poll. Therefore, the results of the "approval" poll, in fact, invalidate those of the "do we need a poll" poll.--Metros232 02:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Just the opposite, becase:

The 'approval poll' is started unilaterally by a single editor without a consensus. A draft should never be put into a vote.
It is vandalized by User:Netscott for days and the option 'do we need a poll' was not available for many users.
If you look at carefully even some people voted in the approval poll say that it is not a good time for a vote and the indicate that they disliked the idea of polling at an early stage. Resid Gulerdem 02:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest with you Resid Gulerdem, I have the distinct impression that you are not familiar with what constitues WikiPedia Vandalism. Because this may be the case I'm going to remain calm and assume good faith that my impression is correct. I strongly suggest that you read WikiPedia's page on vandalism and adjust your comments accordingly. Thanks! Netscott 02:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should both look at it. Resid Gulerdem 02:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting that he claims the approval poll to be invalid because of its unilateral start by a single editor (unilateral by a single editor...is that a redundant phrase?). I'm looking back in the archives, I don't see the concensus of the community to start a "Do we need a poll" poll. It appears this poll is also now officially invalid because it was started by a single editor without concensus.--Metros232 02:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No, 'Do we need a poll' poll as its name implies, asking the opinion of the community and looking of a consensus. The approval poll is trying to kill the process by putting a draft to a vote without a consensus. Resid Gulerdem 02:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Which you could have accomplished by voting as an opposed vote in the approval poll and leaving a comment as to such. What effect does an approval poll have if everyone opposes it? It just retains the page as it is. It just means that the proposal needs to be changed before it can become a policy.--Metros232 02:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That is what I am trying to do here. I am trying to change it according to the opinions of the community. Some people is trying to kill this process. Resid Gulerdem 03:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikipedia policy for resolving disputes states that "informal straw polls can be held at any time". Therefore, as I stated in my vote in one of the polls, my opinion is that "attempting to block a poll from taking place" (which is the whole purpose of the "Do we need a poll at this stage" poll) "goes against policy and is disruptive". -- noosphere 02:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No, your statement is self contradicting: If editors can start a poll at any time, I can start a poll to ask opinions of the community about an earlier poll. There is nothing wrong with that. I am looking for community consensus. I am not sure why you cannot see that some people are trying to kill this process and do not like to give it a chance? Resid Gulerdem 03:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can start a poll at any time. However, just because you're allowed to start polls doesn't mean that you can use them to violate policy or for disruption. -- noosphere 07:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Archived poll start time inaccurate

Taking a closer look at the Archived Polls, I see that there are two polls archived: the "Approval Poll" and the "Do we need a poll at this stage" poll.

As can be seen by this diff, the "Approval Poll" was started at 2006-03-17 00:22:33. The archive reflects this start time accurately.

Now, this diff shows that the "Do we need a poll at this stage" poll was started at on 2006-03-17 at 05:32:34. However, in the archive the poll is described as starting at "00:00, 17 March 2006". This is clearly misleading.

'Do we need' is started right after the 'approval poll' and the date is put approximately. The date is posted at an early stage of the poll and has not been change since then. It does not change anything. Resid Gulerdem 01:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the "Do we need a poll at this stage" poll was started after the "Approval Poll" then the archive should reflect that accurately, not "approximately" (especially when "approximately" makes it appear that the "Approval Poll" was started after the "Do we need a poll at this stage poll" when it was the other way around). And what it changes is people's perception regarding the history of debate surrounding this article. -- noosphere 01:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I will change it to a later time if you think is important. Thanks for pointing it out. Resid Gulerdem 01:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, the Truth can always wait... riiight. Netscott 01:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You know what the truth is: you vandalized the poll for the days and changed its place as you wish from top to below. The date is posted approximately and it hasen't been changed since then. Where were you before? In all my statements I said that the poll is started right after the 'approval poll'. Resid Gulerdem 02:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO, we shouldn't be changing anything in the archives. They're supposed to be an accurate historical record, not a page to be edited (even to correct mistakes). -- noosphere 01:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

OK if you want to change it, change it as you like or to whatever you think is appropriate. Resid Gulerdem 02:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, to make it worse, though it was started later, the "Do we need a poll at this stage" poll is listed first in the archive. -- noosphere 01:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sections

I aded remaining sections of the editorial guidelines to the Sections page for a discussion. I am assuming that the sections previously posted get approval as there were no objections against them. Please list your objections about these sections newly added to Sections subpage, if any. I hope you do not forget to propose your version if you think a change is necessary. Resid Gulerdem 01:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

How to summarize the polls

Here is how I would summarize the polls. I think the following summary should have a permanent place at the top of this page:

On March 17th two polls regarding this article were started. Both ended on the 31 of March 2006.

The "Approval Poll", which started at 00:22:33 UTC stated: "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." Result: 3 Support, 39 Oppose.

The "Do we need a poll at this stage" poll, which started at 05:32:34 UTC, stated: "Please let us know whether you think an approval poll is necessary at this stage?" Result: 14 No, 4 Yes.

The advantage of summarizing this way is that no POV interpretations of what the polls were about or what their result meant is necessary. This wording quotes the original polls themselves, and reports just the number of votes, without interpretation (except for not counting the ~~stricken~~ votes).

I would leave the actual archive page in its original state, for historical reference, and revert any changes to it from that original state as vandalism. -- noosphere 02:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That seems particularly in accord with WP:NPOV, I support the placement of your summary at the top of this talk page. Netscott 02:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all there is no such application in any article: check either JPMC, or Lolicon or anyone else. One can go ahead and check the summary from the archive. Second, if you look at the comments on the approval poll many editors state that the approval poll is no good and it is not time to put the proposal to a vote. They did not vote on 'do we need poll' just because it was vandalized by Netscott and that option was not available to them. So, the number of votes does not reflect the answers to the questions stated at the begionning of each poll. If you want to be precise make a clear counting and seperate the ones in the approval poll saying that it is not good time for a poll etc, and then you can add the summary to the archive page. Resid Gulerdem 03:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean we can't do it. I don't see how placing this summary at the top of the page would be against any Wikipedia policy. Do you? -- noosphere 03:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I clearly do. Why do not you go ahead and put summaries in JPMC article or Lolicon or any other at the top. Why this proposal should be different? Breaking well-established standards is not acceptable and shows your POV. This is another way of blocking an ongoing work in this discussion page. You can put it to the arhive page instead of mine if you like, but please make the corrections I suggested. Resid Gulerdem 03:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I support the notion of being bold and doing something not done before.--Metros232 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't I put summaries in the JPMC article (whatever that is) or Lolicon? Because I'm not interested in them. I can't be everywhere at once. As for "breaking well-established standards" (if that's what you call two articles, one of which just archived its only poll today), I don't see any Wikipedia policy forbidding it. In fact, as Metros232 notes, WP:BOLD encourages innovation. We wouldn't be violating policy, and that's what matters. As to your opinion that this is a "way of blocking an ongoing work", I disagree. The editors working on this policy need to be informed. Hiding the results of the polls in the archives works against that. -- noosphere 03:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Two articles? Just examples. Show me an article, proposal, project whatever that the summary given as you suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgulerdem (talk • contribs)

I'm not the one claiming that it's a "well-established standard". The burden of proof is on the person making the claim: you. -- noosphere 04:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I cannot proof non-existence. If you say that it is not well-established standard, you should show me why not. An example would suffices. Resid Gulerdem 04:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You're not claiming non-existence. You said we'd be "breaking well-established standards". Prove this is a well-established standard. (Not that it would matter, since "standard" or not, there's no policy against posting a summary of the polls at the top of this article, which I intend to do just as soon as I complete this edit). Note that I am not claiming it's not a "well-established standard" so I need prove nothing. However, if "an example will suffice" see netscott's example -- noosphere 04:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As to your opinion that the poll "does not reflect the answers to the questions stated at the beginning of each poll" you are probably correct. But due to all the edit warring that took place during the polls I can see no NPOV way of figuring out which editor knew what when he voted. So, again, instead of interpreting the results, why don't we just let the numbers speak for themselves? And if someone wants to know why people voted this way, they're welcome to look through the individual comments in the archive and the article's history. -- noosphere 03:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Editors are well aware what is going on. They can check the archive when they like. How came you can go and find the starting dates of the polls but cannot find the dates at which the the poll is vandalized. It is all in the history. Can't you even count the votes on the approval poll which states that 'it is not time for a poll' or 'approval poll is no good'? I just left another note to the Village Pump. We should let the new editors see the proposal with their own eyes and mind. Any efforts as you suggested will negatively effet the result. I am sure you do not want to do it, right? Resid Gulerdem 04:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

We are letting new editors see the proposal with their own eyes. I am not suggesting we put this summary on the proposal page. I don't want to touch the proposal itself. However, this is the talk page, which is a perfectly legitimate place to summarize the results of the polls, which are relevant and will remain relevant to this policy.

And of course I can count which editors said what, as you can, but that count is likely to be disputed for any number of reasons (for example, what should be counted, how to interpret what each editor meant, etc...). Thus, the raw numbers for the poll results are something that's indisputable and easily verifiable. If you want to count up other statistics, be my guest... but prepare for them to be challened on the basis of WP:NPOV. -- noosphere

I will count it definitely if you want to post such a summary. But the place for it definitely the arcived polls page, not the discussion page. Any editor can find it. Everybody know what an archive mean and what an archived poll mean. Resid Gulerdem 04:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, they know what they mean, and they can look. We're not stopping them from looking. We're just saving them the trouble of having to look and count just to get the totals. -- noosphere 05:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No ideas but intention to damage?

I cannot see why the ones who are trying to kill this process sooner than later do not try to discuss their ideas here openly... They have a chance to show that the proposal is 'bad' by listing their objections. That simple... Resid Gulerdem 03:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You can see the objections of 39 editors in the archived "Approval Poll". -- noosphere 03:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Count the votes diapproving the approval poll itself in it correctly. Saying bad is different from showing and listing the arguments that lead to the decision. Resid Gulerdem 04:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There were plenty of reasons given as to why people opposed this policy. -- noosphere 04:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why I do not know them specifically? What section, what phrase, which word? Resid Gulerdem 04:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You asked for it...

Oppose, to many things in one policy, pro-censorship, vague ambigious language. KimvdLinde

Oppose - this is elliptical to the point of nonsense, and against Wikipedia spirit in many ways. — Catherine

Oppose, this idea is too POV and too close to violating other wikipolicies to be a useful guideline.Gateman1997

Oppose We have NPOV, CIVIL, DBAD... Rich

Oppose. Nothing that's acceptable here isn't covered by other policies and guidelines. --Mel Etitis

Need I go on? There are, like I said, 34 other editors who opposed. If you're so concerned with other editors' opinions why don't you go back and read their reasons for yourself? -- noosphere 05:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Make that 33 others, since once vote from each poll came in after deadline. -- noosphere 05:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the poll archives

Since the unfortunate placement (discussed above) of a later poll before an earlier poll in the poll archive, I suggest splitting the polls in to two archives, one for each poll. That way neither poll will be blocking the view of the other poll. The summary at the top of this page could provide links to the archives of each poll. -- noosphere 03:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Putting a summary is not a way to go at the first place. Resid Gulerdem 04:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Name a Wikipedia policy that forbids it. I notice you have your own summary sitting at the top of this page. I don't see you objecting to that. -- noosphere 04:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not a summary, it is a guideline for efficiency of the discussion. There is no POV or bias in it. What you are trying to do is putting your POV at the top so that it effets the decision of all editors especially newcomers. That is not acceptible. You can start checking WP:POV, WP:NOT for example. Remeber that there is a common sense too and not all rules can be writtren. If you want to misuse something you can definitely find a way to do it. Resid Gulerdem 04:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no POV in my proposed summary of the polls either. If you think otherwise please tell me exactly what this POV is and where in the summary it is. As I see it the summary is perfectly fair. It asserts nothing but what the numeric results of the polls were, and what the polls themselves said they were about. How is a quote of the polls and their numerical results POV? Surely you must be joking. -- noosphere 04:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No I am not joking. Numbers do not lie but people do lie using and playing with them. Resid Gulerdem 04:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Poll summaries at the Top

Noosphere, please go ahead and put the poll summaries at the top of this page. Here is the perfect example to counter User:Rgulerdem's very false contention that such things aren't done. Netscott 04:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Will do. And thanks for finding that, Netscott. There's nothing new under the sun, is there? :) -- noosphere 04:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to WikiPedia, it's a bit difficult to encounter something truly "new". :-) Netscott 04:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What a pity! As you are always doing, you are cheating the community again here. First you posted a a summary and then you are giving it as an example here. Is that fair? Resid Gulerdem 04:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your previous post appears to be logically challenged. Did you happen to notice the very prominent date of Revision as of 01:04, 20 February 2006 for your diff example? Netscott 04:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether Netscott's example is valid is really a moot point. We're not violating any Wikipedia policies by summarizing the polls. There are no opinions, just quotes from the poll authors themselves and hard numbers of the vote totals that anyone can easily verify by counting how many votes there were for each side (not counting ~~stricken~~ votes and votes that came after the respective deadlines). This is as NPOV as it gets. No precedent for doing this is necessary. We're being bold. -- noosphere 05:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Although it would take a slight bit of time, I'm sure I'd have no problems coming up wiith additional examples of Poll Results being posted at the top of their article's respective talk pages.... besides doing such a thing is just common sense. Netscott 05:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need more examples. It's done, and it violates no policy. -- noosphere 05:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Rejected And Wiped Clear

I propose we have two options based on the recent poll results and many discussions asking for this page to be rested.

Stamp the policy page {{Template:Rejected}} based on the outcome of the polls.
Wipe the policy completely clean and start writing from scratch, based on consensus discussion on this talk page.

Let us know your preference. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This calls for a poll! ;) -- noosphere 06:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

More seriously, I'd prefer the first option. Resid Gulerdem could work on this policy on his own user page in peace, and propose a new policy when he's good and ready. -- noosphere 06:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Although there has been an amazing amount of wikilawyering over polls and anti-polls, the actual proposed policy has not been edited substantially since March 16. Since that date, no user other than Rgulerdem has shown an interest in continuing to develop this proposal. This proposal has been rejected. Rgulerdem is free to revise this proposal as much as he wants in his user space, and resubmit it when he feels it is appropriate. However, this version should be tagged as rejected policy. Rhobite 18:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How we discuss here : Violates WP:OWN, WP:DR and WP:CON

Given the non-stop controversial discussion on this page over the last few weeks I have moved the "HOW WE DISCUSS HERE" notice down here so it can be discussed. There are many problems with the notice. The notice was originally posted unilaterally and it has already been contested a few times and we have heard concerns that it violates WP:OWN to post such a notice. Let's clarify this below. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

FOR NEWCOMERS - HOW DO WE DISCUSS HERE - PLEASE READ

Please review the arguments on the related pages (maybe quickly) to see if any questions you have, answered before. For the efficiency of the discussion, we modify the project as outlines below:

copy the part from the proposal onto the discussion page or subpages: Sections or Arguments
express your ideas why you think it is not appropriate
give your suggestion to fix the problem, propose your version

If your suggestions get approval from the editors then it can be updated accordingly.

There are two subpages: Arguments and Sections. On the Sections page, we discuss the sections starting from the beginning. Please do not start a new section discussion if the current one did not get a consensus. If you want to start an argument discussion, please do so on the Arguments page. An approval poll can only be opened based on a consensus after completion of the policy.

Problems with this phrasing are:

It identifies newcomers as having less rights than previous editors. This violates WP:OWN
It tells users they cannot directly modify the policy. This also violates WP:OWN.
It states an ambiguous cabal "the editors" must support your view. This violates WP:OWN.
It states rules for opening an approval poll that violate WP:DR.

As a community we cannot accept these violations of wikipedia policy. They are not negotiable. We are not entitled to create new rules for editors to follow, and doing so is in itself a violation of policy WP:CON. Let's workshop a new notice for editors, or ditch the notice entirely. My preference is to keep the notice away, gone, deleted. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. I was wondering how this POV statement managed to get a permanent niche at the top of this page. I fully agree with everything you've said, Metta Bubble. It's a very thorough and objective analysis. I'd only add that telling users they have to follow any given set of rules above and beyond Wikipedia policies violates WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, and WP:BOLD. -- noosphere 07:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I made modifications at the introduction as suggested. I hope you find it reasonable. I believe that the note contributes to the efficiency of the discussions. Resid Gulerdem 22:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll let Metta Bubble speak for himself, but to me it certainly seems like your new version is still subject to all of the same criticisms as before. You seemed to have toned down some of the language so that (in some places) it no longer explicitly says what is acceptible, but it still tells other editors what would be "better", while most of the rest of the statement still tells users how to behave. This violates the above-mentioned policies, since the instructions are based on a particular POV.

The instructions at the top of the page wern't reached through any sort of Wikipedia-wide consensus, so have no place dictating (or even suggesting) what editors should or should not do. This is a job for Wikipedia policies, which your instructions certainly aren't. -- noosphere 00:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly this needs to be thrashed out before someone unilaterally posts a notice at the top of the page. I have removed the notice based on the current consensus in this subtopic. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Resid Gulerdem's comment at the top of this talk page

At the top of this talk page Resid Gulerdem has posted a comment that starts with "I think we need to clarify the editorial standards and ethics in Wikipedia..." He does not speak for all the editors of this page. Giving his opinion a permanent place at the top of this page to the exclusion of other users' comments seems to me to be a violation of WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. His comment belongs down with the rest of the comments on this page and should be moved in to the archive when the rest of the page gets archived. -- noosphere 06:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against having a small introduction to the project at the top of the page. However, it really shouldn't use I language. It would best be written as an collaborative summary that isn't signed by one editor -- 'cos that would be a WP:OWN violation, as you say. I suggest:

The goal of this project is to clarify whether or not editorial standards and ethics exist in Wikipedia; and if they do, then to define guidelines so inclined editors can choose to follow these identified standards and ethics. The project outcome may be an official guideline, policy, or just an observation on Wikipedia. Please use clear unambiguous defineable language in your edits to the article. Editors of all viewpoints are welcome.

It's a starting point, but it definitely needs work before being posted, and it's too wordy. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fair. I would agree with that language. -- noosphere 16:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the current notice pending resolution of the new notice. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Resid's notices are a good idea, to refer to their removal in an edit comment as a "consensus" decision is at best inaccurate, and might even be mistaken for bad faith (or deliberate farce) by those not following the debate. I'd suggest avoiding use of the term consensus where disagreements of opinion continue to exist. Consensus is about finding common ground, not imposing majority rule.  JEREMY 01:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The statements that were removed were in violation of Wikipedia policy, as described above. According to WP:CON, "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy)." Not that there was any kind of consensus (or even consultation with other editors) before those statements were placed at the top of this page in the first place. -- noosphere 02:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll note my previous comment begins Whether or not Resid's notices are a good idea... Your reply is non-responsive regarding use of the term "consensus" to describe an action that had no consensus (unless you're proposing that two wrongs make a right).  JEREMY 02:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That particular edit summary would have been better phrased as: "removing statements violating Wikipedia policies, as disussed on the talk page". -- noosphere 03:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That would have been a more accurate edit summary. It's important that the problem was not how it was phrased though, but the misuse of "consensus".  JEREMY 03:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are right Jeremy. Somehow the 'consensus' is always running against me. If MB wants to delete a section he just say 'there is no consensus'. If both MB and noosphere agree on a point, here is the consensus... Resid Gulerdem 05:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Good grief Jeremy. The number of admins telling Rgulerdem to stop violating consensus must be counted on two hands. He's been told repeatedly to:

stop messing with the chronology of the talk page
stop posting notices unilaterally
stop violating WP:OWN
stop violating WP:3RR

These are not random accusations. Rgulerdem has been blocked 20 times for this! 20 times?! Seriously. That's a stunning performance even for someone trying to be blocked.

So, on one hand we have a whole bunch of admins saying:

please stop repeatedly violating WP:CON, WP:OWN and WP:3RR

And, on the other hand we have Resid and posse (Daniel and yourself) saying:

please be more accurate with your edit summary

If the best you can complain about is an inaccurate edit summary, you really haven't got anything to complain about. Try to perceive the context here. You've come to a page that's suffering from proven major WP:OWN issues. The editor who is violating WP:OWN has been blocked repeatedy for his actions. And here are you, arguing that this editor is getting the rough end of the stick?

You're seriously not building yourself up as a good character reference. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 05:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

In your half-page screed you've accused me of being part of a "posse", and told me I have nothing to complain about, that I'm imperceptive, a newcomer to the page and not a "good character reference". Your argument seems to be "he's doing bad things, so stop complaining when I do them too". I have watched this page since its inception. I think Resid is somewhat misguided in his attempts to save Western Culture, but I also think that the actions of those who oppose him provide ample evidence of what it needs saving from.  JEREMY 11:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As I explained below there is no WP:OWN issue here. If I would be as someone you portrayed I would not invite many people and would not post on the Village Pump an announcement. It is evident that when pepole come they will put their input and it might not always be something I like. I am open to that... Regarding my blocks, thank you and a few others who know the trics here very well and played very well. Actually I am not worrying about my block log as much because I know that most of them was unfair. If you look at the list you will see a dominant figure on the list whose one of the hobbies is blocking me from editing. Your wording and interpretations of my edit history are, as in general, not correct, not accurate and problematic as on the page you dedicated to me under your account. And after all, you are refactoring my comments by complaining from personal attack. Good grief... Resid Gulerdem 06:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No WP:OWN issues here, eh? Then how about the placement of your own POV statement at the top of this page? How about the fact that you created this policy, and then insisted that other editors don't modify what you've written without first coming to a consensus on the talk page (despite there being no Wikipedia policy prohibiting them from doing so, and WP:BOLD actually encouraging the opposite)? How about your archiving of polls started by others while they're in progress? How about the placement of your own poll, which started later, at the top of another, which started earlier?

These actions certainly seem to fit this description from WP:OWN: "Some contributors feel very possessive about articles they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders."

But, as WP:OWN also states, "You can't stop everyone in the world from editing "your" prose, once you've posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." -- noosphere 17:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, Metta Bubble may have been a bit overzealous in lumping you in to Resid Gulerdem's "posse", and treating you accordingly. But Resid Gulerdem is not merely "somewhat misguided in his attempts to save Western Culture".

If the opinions expressed in his policy was the only issue, he would not have been repeatedly blocked; and he would not have the attention of any editors or administrators beyond a simple oppose vote on his policy (and perhaps the insistence that this be marked as a failed policy once the vote was over).

In fact, it is Resid Gulerdem's numerous and gross violations of Wikipedia policy which have caused "the actions of those who oppose him". And those actions have been mainly aimed at enforcing Wikipedia policies and trying to prevent (per WP:OWN) Resid Gulerdem from exerting dictatorial control over how this article and talk page are organized and presented. I fail to see what in those actions is "evidence of what [Western Culture] needs saving from." Perhaps you'd care to elaborate? -- noosphere 18:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything to be gained by that.  JEREMY 19:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. -- noosphere 20:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Pegasus1138's unilateral actions

This discussion was moved here from the Administrators' noticeboard as it did not require admin intervention. Mackensen (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Pegasus1138 which has no contribution to the proposal Wikipedia:Wikiethics decided unilaterally to put the proposal to a vote. He started an approval poll at the very early stage of the proposal right after it is announced in Village pump and many other places to get more input from the community. He is clearly told that the proposal is not ready yet, editors working on it did not even complete writing it, it is just a first draft. Since he did not listen, some editors started another poll to ask the need for an approval poll at this early stage, at the same time. There is a consensus on that poll indicates that an approval poll at this stage is not needed. Even in the approval poll itself some editors stated clearly that it is early for an approval poll. They did not vote on the poll asking the need for an approval poll simply because it is vandalized for long time. Now Pegasus1138 is planning to mark the page as rejected against the community consensus. It is clearly an unfair action and unacceptable. Since he is involved in many edit-wars, I am wondering that admins' attention to the issue might be necessary before he will start an edit war again. Resid Gulerdem 02:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect, I have made edits to the proposal to attempt to make it into something that has a chance of passing but was reverted by Resid every single time in my attemps in his quest to violate WP:OWN which can be seen quite clearly by the fact that any edit he disagrees with in "his" policy he reverts so no real work gets done except his work and those of the people who he agrees with. His second poll is also a violation of WP:POINT and of other policies as it is solely designed to undermine my existing poll and therefore is a blatant policy violation in itself. I urge admins to watch the page and block him if he decides to vandalize the page in violation of consensus once the poll is closed and consensus can be determined. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The history of the page shows clearly that Pegasus1138' only contribution to the proposal is vandalism. He deleted 2/3 of the page without discussion when he first come to the discussion. The points he raised in the discussion page are all answered but he did not respond the answers. He chosen to vandalize the page instead. Please not that I am the one announced the proposal in Village pump and many other places for community contribution. A person as he portrayed would not inform the community about it. Since he unilaterally started a poll without even mentioning in the discussion page, it was natural to ask the community if a poll is needad and it is done so. From the result it is clear that community do not approve that an approval poll is needed on a half-written draft. I would like to ask admins take some time to review the history of the talk page Wikipedia:Wikiethics to get familiarity with the issue and be aware of Pegasus1138's possible unjustified unilateral actions. Resid Gulerdem 02:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that on the 31st my poll will close which will show that there is a huge consensus that this policy is not only flawed in it's current incarnation (which is what Resid is disputing) but flawed in it's esential idea which is something that no number of revisions can fix and he is trying to hold back the floodgates on the fact that he started a crap policy that goes against Wikipedia and everything it stands for and thus has popular support against it. When the poll is closed it will be marked as a failed proposal, he will of course revert and a revert war will ensue until an admin puts a stop to it hopefully blocking him for trolling and anyone else who may be in volation of 3RR (something that can hopefully be avoided). I have been striving to work with Resid (as can be seen on his talk page history and on the wikiethics talk page history to resolve this peacefully but he has met all these attempts with the attitude of how dare I mess with "his" proposal and because I don't agree with him I am committing vandalism and in such he has even started an illegitimate poll to undermine a legitimate poll to gauge consensus. He also has a long history of being blocked for this kind of behavior as can be seen by his block log. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

When an admin has a chance to look at our talk pages, and history of the page in question will see what is what I believe. So there is no reason to repeat the same incorrect statements as repeating them does not make them correct. I told Pegasus1138 many times that I am ready to restart again to complete writing the proposal and improving it with him. I did not get a positive answer at all. I also proved my intentions by announcing the proposal in Village pump and many other places. I am sure admins will not definitely let Pegasus1138 take any further unilateral actions to kill the process. Pegasus1138 cannot and should not claim that the policy is rejected, as the approval poll indicates that the draft is not ready for the vote and other poll shows that there is even no need for an approval poll at all. Resid Gulerdem 02:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The oppose votes include quite a few admins. In any case this isn't an admin issue. RFC is that way.Geni 04:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have confidence in what will happen will happen so I'm just going to stop dealing with the proposal and I'll drop it off my watchlist. Let me know on my talk page when it's done Resid, I definitely want to see what you work up in the end. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I will definitely let you know about it. Resid Gulerdem 03:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The resounding theme is that the whole thing should be put to bed. I believe Pegasus1138 (talk · contribs) acts on consensus and always has. I have been an active contributor on the Wikethics article since the beginning and I am now willing to part with it. It is polluted. I have created a page explaining the issues regarding Rgulerdem (talk · contribs). Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 11:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear MB, if I had time I could list refactored It doesn't make sense and useless at this point. Your list regarding my logs are organized and refactored You will probably remember that I invited you to contribute to the policy. You then refactored Thanks for your contributions... Resid Gulerdem 17:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 11:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:OWN and this page

User:Rgulerdem has recently been blocked not only for 3RR violation, but warning messages he put on my page saying my edits were vandalism. This policy, if it comes into being, will be the result of community process. WP:OWN should be remembered by the authors of this page. Lets build an ethics policy we can all agree on. -M^ask 01:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleting four section is significant in this proposal which is defined to be blanking. See WP:VANDAL - blanking. The sections are open to the discussion on the Sections subpage. I would be glad if the proposal get community approval of course. The best way to get to that point is discussion. I posted announcement on the VIlklage pump couple of times and invited many for their contribution. It itself proves that I am not acting like WP:OWN. Resid Gulerdem 02:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the unilateral notices at the top of this talk page. Discussion is taking place in the two sections above and current consensus is that the notices don't belong. Unfortunately User:Rgulerdem disagrees with this. Yet, I hold hope this isn't going to be yet another edit war over WP:OWN. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I made necessary modifications on the note. Let me know what you think is not acceptable further. Resid Gulerdem 02:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not keep placing your notice at the top of this page until consensus on what such a notice should say has been reached. -- noosphere 04:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a terrible and pointless idea

The name is foolish - ethics are not "edited by anyone", so they are not "wiki", even if we apply them on Wikipedia; the content is yet another tiresome attempt at legislating some random content policy. The proposers of this are acting badly, breaking the very community customs and standards they are puporting to be writing about. This is a terrible and pointless idea. Have a nice day. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The proposers are only trying to keep the policy alive up untill completing it and asking for community approval. It is open for discussion not destruction as any other articles or proposals. People who have concerns about it can discuss before delete some sections. 'Edit after discssing' standard is not invented in this proposal. Resid Gulerdem 03:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You are the only one I see trying to keep this alive. It seems clear to me that the community does not want this. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Resid is taking the most active role, but he certainly is not alone in working towards such a policy. I can't support the policy in its current form, but I do want to see it improved and will contribute more to it when I have more time. Johntex\^talk 03:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's see how much significant change this policy undergoes in a week, and what percentage of those changes come from Resid Gulerdem himself. That'll be a good indicator of whether this is his personal pet project or not. -- noosphere 04:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear noosphere, I am continuously trying to improve the proposal and looking for community input. I cannot complete the proposal without your input as I canot see what part you think is inappropriate. I cannot see why people do not list their concerns about it but rather talk abstract like 'it is no good'. If you have concerns please go the the sections subpage and list your conserns so that they can be fixed. Propose your version. If we cannot agree we can seek for community approval by some straw poll for even each section. Isn't it more constructive? How should I improve it to a level you might like without knowing your concerns? By the way there is no need for looking a significant change in a week, it may take months depending on the input from community... Resid Gulerdem 05:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

33 editors did voice their concerns (and more specifically than just saying 'it is not good') in the Approval Poll, and I've listed a few of those for you (at your request) at the end of the No ideas but intention to damage section of our discussion above. If you are really interested in the other editors' concerns you could take a closer look at Approval Poll and edit the proposed policy accordingly. -- noosphere 05:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that they are not specific comments which can be used for improvement. I am looking for some specific concerns about specific sections and expressions in the proposal. The comments on the approval poll cannot be used to that end. Why do not you yourself, for example, try to list your objections about some specific sections in the poposal? Resid Gulerdem 06:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you don't understand why parts of your proposed policy violate and duplicate existing Wikipedia policies (beyond what the editors who voted in the Approval Poll stated) you may want to study the Wikipedia policies more carefully, spend more time as a regular editor of Wikipedia before proposing policy, or ask specific questions at the Wikipedia Help Desk. Good luck. -- noosphere 18:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Dicsussion Advertisements

Please note, User:Rgulerdem has made multiple advertisements for this discussion on some talk pages. This may result in attracting specific editors, not nesicarily representative of a consensus of users. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I announced the page couple of times on the Village Pump too. Resid Gulerdem 04:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, having an open announcement is always good (see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Wikipedia:Wikiethics ) — xaosflux ^Talk 04:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You are wellcome. Resid Gulerdem 04:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You've also placed these unsolicited advertisements on a large number of talk pages before, and been blocked for it[1][2]. -- noosphere 04:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It was informing selected group of people who might be interested in the proposal but might not be aware of it. I started a discussion on the page you linked above. It turned out to be that there is no administrative consensus on this being spaming or unacceptable at all. Resid Gulerdem 04:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... -- noosphere 04:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It might be a goose got cold :) Resid Gulerdem 05:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I for one, was not "spammed". I was kindly invited back here by Resid, since I clearly indicated to him earlier that I would be interested in the long term development of the proposal, and I thank Resid for bringing it to my attention again. But I can not save this proposed policy from the aggressive nature of previous discussions. Perhaps one should start a series of new guidelines instead? For starters: A new guideline to clarify guidelines:"ethics-of-discussion-methods first", so that the next guideline can follow:"ethics-of-content" where the discussion itself can be required to follow the directives of the first guideline? I can imagine even more steps, but gives the gist of the idea.DanielDemaret 07:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Since I am fond of quotes, I thought this one would be appropriate: "The means do not justify the ends. The means define the ends"- from "The first idea".DanielDemaret 07:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for coming Daniel... A seperate guideline for it seems to be a good idea. Do you think the first part of this proposal constitute a base for it? The first part is actually meant to serve as 'ethics of discussion' as you suggested. Second part was for 'ethics of content' in my mind. Resid Gulerdem 09:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Is your solicitation of Resid Gulerdem's attention supposed to excuse spamming others? Does Resid Gulerdem maintain that every one of the people he sent advertisements to specifically indicated their interest in this project, as you had? If so, I'd like to see some evidence of that. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. If you look at this administrator's noticeboard discussion, you'll see that Resid Gulerdem left messages on "upwards of one hundred (if not more) user's talk pages" in "blind alphabetical order". I seriously doubt that that many users explicitly expressed interest in this project to Resid Gulerdem personally, as you have. But I'm open to being convinced, if there's any evidence of that. -- noosphere 02:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at carefully you will see my response and question to admins too on the same page. I do not want to repeat them here again. Resid Gulerdem 05:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have looked carefully, and all you've said in that discussion is that the targets of your advertisements were a "select group of people". You did not say how they were selected. And you surely didn't provide any evidence that they (how many is it? 100? 200? more?) personally, and explicitly expressed interest in this project. So, if you have any such evidence, please bring it out in to the open. -- noosphere 18:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit after discussion

The first rule I have learned here in wiki editing was: 'edit after discussion'. I was wondering why some people do not want to do that here on this page? I want to believe that they are able to discuss what they believe. This is nothing to do with WP:OWN, it is a well established standard.

The note at the beginning of the page is just to improve the efficiency. I made modifications when some concerns are arised. In the last modified form, what is wrong now? The core of the note is just to remind the basic rule in editing: edit after discussion. Resid Gulerdem 05:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Wordy

Based on the overwhelming feedback in the approval poll about how wordy this policy is I am trimming the repetition and the meandering phrases from the whole policy. Best intentions. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Expl

Resid! "Expl" is not a useful edit summary. Please make an effort to summarise what you do. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting is for vandalism

Resid! Reverting is for vandalism, not for undoing my edits. I am open to discussion here. Why don't you just step back and watch the efforts that will shape this into a better policy. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

7 Reverts for the owner of this article

Resid. You cannot use revert as a tool to oppose edits you disagree with. I have reported you on WP:AN and I can only hope that you get blocked from this behaviour soon. You should understand by now how reverting works. Please desist. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert, edited as you did. Can you see why I am blocked that much now? COnsider yourself as a factor... Resid Gulerdem 07:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're up to 8 reverts now. Clearly you do not understand what a revert is. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy in a nutshell

I propose 'be wise and responsible' be a nutshell idea for the proposal. Any comments? Resid Gulerdem 07:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It says nothing about ethics. This is a policy proposal not a mothers club. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, it's flakey. Say something tangible if you're going to summarise.

Thirdly, the policy isn't even written yet. The time to summarise a policy is AFTER you've fleshed it out, not before. Lest you bias the development of the policy according to your hidden agenda. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Forgive, forget, and restart

The idea behind Wikiethics is noble and worth pursuing. After reading through the proposal, I think its more along the lines of "netiquette" than a moral code (moral being loosely defined here). User Rgulerdem has a penchant for getting himself into trouble but I think his heart is in the right place. How about we forgive and forget and start afresh. Let Rgulerdem be unblocked and let's restart the entire Wikiethics page. This time the page gets built slowly with everyone's input. Netpari 20:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If Rgulerdem gets unblocked why don't you and he work on this policy in his userspace. That way there'll be no WP:OWN or WP:NPOV objections as will likely arise if he starts editing here again. Then, when you're both satisfied that you've come up with a mature policy bring it to a vote. Otherwise, I'm afraid all the silly warfare over the content of this policy is liable to start over again, which is just a waste of everyone's time. -- noosphere 20:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If you think that it's worthy of being continue, continue it. You don't have to wait for User:Rgulerdem to be unblocked since it is everyone article's, not just Rgulerdem's. -- Metros232 21:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ethical behaviour exists, whether stated or unstated

People do things in certain ways. It might not be possible to set out an ethical guideline or policy. The statements in it might be too general to be broadly understood. Yet such behaviour does exist, whether it is spelled out or not. For example, one administrator, User:ChrisO contributes to a personal website, he says, [3]] and then edits in articles which cite the information of that website. Is this ethical behavior or not? In one situation, a statement might be taken as a joke, in another context it might be taken as a literal threat. Which statement would be ethical, when the words of both statements might be exactly, literally the same? Yet ethical standards exist, whether they can be spelled out for common understanding or not. Terryeo 17:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

May you should also mention the discussion at User talk:Terryeo#Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Personal websites as primary sources, where I find your interpretation of policy to be a bit strange. In any case, if you have a dispute with ChrisO, please don't try to sneak in an apparantly off-hand, casual remark that is a criticism of ChrisO into this page. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 18:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)