Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for comment/Rangeley - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NuclearUmpf (talk | contribs) at 18:29, 29 January 2007 (response, sigh oy ve). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:29, 29 January 2007 by NuclearUmpf (talk | contribs) (response, sigh oy ve)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Reply to Nuclear

"27 users got together to create a straw poll and give feedback"

Nuclear-- it's hard for me to understand how this could be anything but an intentional lie. 27 users did not create the poll-- Rangeley created a poll, and proceed to spam the talk page of people he thought he might agree with him. You guys have been warned about why this was inappropriate. --Alecmconroy 12:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but Nescio was informed, someone who obviously wouldnt agree. And try to AGF, your accusations are disruptive.--NuclearZer0 17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"it was criticized for attempting to reach a consensus through a straw poll"

It was not criticized for that. Strawpolls are used alll the time. It was criticzed because its wording asked people's personal political opinions, rather than asking their opinion on any content dispute. It was similarly widely criticized for the widespread votestacking.--Alecmconroy 12:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Wrong as you can see from the abstain votes, such as voting is evil etc. The criticism was on the fact that it was a straw poll. The admin who closed the MfD stated that straw polls should not overright discussion, and it did not as discussion continued on talk page. --NuclearZer0 17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"so off to the talk page the users who still were not convinced went and discussed and negotiated middle grounds, from that an eventual 25-2 consensus formed."

25-2, eh? Kindly produce the names of users who were not involved in the votestacked poll but who made up the 25-2 "consensus". Similarly, can you produce any time when you could have only known about a grand total of TWO people objecting to the inclusion? I think you're lying by intentionally not counting people just because they didn't list there objection on a specific day/time/place of your own choosing. --Alecmconroy 12:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

For:

  1. Rangeley
  2. zer0faults
  3. Rmt2m
  4. Haizum
  5. KarlXII
  6. Rexmorgan
  7. Looper5920
  8. Staxringold
  9. Ecophreek
  10. Mmx1
  11. Vaqueo100
  12. Lawyer2b
  13. Homagetocatalonia
  14. Karwynn
  15. patsw
  16. James Bond
  17. Chuck
  18. Arkon
  19. Nscheffey
  20. kizzle
  21. Runiteshark
  22. Patman2648
  23. Choess
  24. Morton Devonshire
  25. Edward Sandstig
  • Against
  1. Nescio
  2. Rkrichbaum

Sorry if my count is off. Anoranza quit Misplaced Pages mid way through this after they had an Arbcom filed against them. --NuclearZer0 17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but where did you get these names from? The only place I see these names lissed, in this order, is from the Misplaced Pages:WOT poll that was declared invalid multiple times because of the extensive vote-stacking that went on. (not to mention all the other irregularites). I know you have read the statements by the admins explaining why this poll is invalid-- why do you continue to cite it? --Alecmconroy 18:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Can I see someone saying its invalid? I seen an admin remark that straw polls should not eclipse discussions, which is when the negotiations started no the talk page. Are you telling me its more valid to make up a list of everyone who has ever reverted without discussion? People talked and came to a middle ground, one of the people you listed as voting in your favor Rkrichbaum, actually changed their mind later, same with kizzle, yet you still want to count their reverting in your favor and not in the manner in which they actually said it was to go. If you are not gonig to discuss this sincerly then I am jsut going to ignore you. PS the spirit of Misplaced Pages is not to put blind reverts with no discussion ahead of contributing editors and pages of discussions and negotiating to reach a middle ground. --NuclearZer0 18:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The admins, as I know you know, were Xoloz and El_C. See their remarks here and here. --Alecmconroy 18:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Not sure your point? How many of the normal participants on the talk page felt it should not be included there? How many people of your 38 actually participated in discussions on the talk page? Its funny cause you criticize one groups discussion then support blind reverters and oddly enough count people as opposing who are listed in that poll as being for its inclusion. Sounds like cherry picking. If you are trying to establish a moral line, you are failing. The truth is that even now there is a 10-3 majority of people who support its inclusion, with only you and Timeshifter and professor saying i shouldnt be included. Yet you oddly enough call that a concensus. --NuclearZer0 18:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)