Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft
Vote tally section
[edit]Hey, Ryk72. Removing people's comments seems a bit uncool. Is there any particular reason for you reverting a users attempts to comment twice, given that the comment is not disruptive nor does it violate policy? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- The IP editor is neither commenting nor otherwise participating in the RfC. Should they wish to make a !vote or to comment on an existing !vote, that would be appropriate. RfCs are, by policy, not a vote; summaries or tallies of !votes are disruptive to the process. Diffs:1,2 - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- I mean, I tend to agree that the table isn't particularly helpful, but I don't think it rises to the level of removal. WP:VOTE certainly says that there is nothing binding in a poll, and that they should be approached with caution. But it still contemplates their use occasionally, and it does not say that they need to be removed on sight. I think the best practice here would be to let the table stand and note the reasons you cast a jaundiced eye upon it. But to each his own! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- The "poll" is the RfC itself, which remains firmly in place; and will need to be closed with reference to the weight of arguments, not their number (per WP:CONSENSUS & WP:CLOSE); vote counts, tallies & summaries subvert this. And, while I thank you for the concerns, please be assured that my liver is in rude health. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- I quite agree! But neither 'unhelpful' nor 'redundant' are reasons for removing someone else's talk page contribution (oh, but if they were!). Better to let the table stand and say just lay out your argument, as you have, I should think. And I meant no offense by my idiom! In this case, my eye is just about as jaundiced. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Where neither "unhelpful" nor "redundant" might suffice, one might consider "disruptive". It could well be a bizarre form of Stockholm syndrome, but the absence of participation in the RfC or of any other contribution to the encyclopedia may colour my view. And I thank you for the clarification; none taken. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- I quite agree! But neither 'unhelpful' nor 'redundant' are reasons for removing someone else's talk page contribution (oh, but if they were!). Better to let the table stand and say just lay out your argument, as you have, I should think. And I meant no offense by my idiom! In this case, my eye is just about as jaundiced. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- The "poll" is the RfC itself, which remains firmly in place; and will need to be closed with reference to the weight of arguments, not their number (per WP:CONSENSUS & WP:CLOSE); vote counts, tallies & summaries subvert this. And, while I thank you for the concerns, please be assured that my liver is in rude health. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- I mean, I tend to agree that the table isn't particularly helpful, but I don't think it rises to the level of removal. WP:VOTE certainly says that there is nothing binding in a poll, and that they should be approached with caution. But it still contemplates their use occasionally, and it does not say that they need to be removed on sight. I think the best practice here would be to let the table stand and note the reasons you cast a jaundiced eye upon it. But to each his own! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Since the challenged section is nothing but simple data, I don't think it counts as a comment deserving of protection under TPO. Either way, I believe it's inappropriate and somewhat disruptive, and I think TPO and editorial wisdom support removing it completely. Rebbing 20:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)