Wikipedia talk:Polling is not a substitute for discussion/Archive3

Draft

Draft copied over the old wording, with some changes per the above comments. Any more comments are, of course, welcome. (Radiant) 15:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As Blue Tie points out, it's still anti-polling. I don't mind it being anti-voting, but a blanket discouragement to not use straw polls is a disservice to those who find themselves in situations where a straw poll is exactly the right choice (done right, of course). I'd suggest that language on the proper use of polls ("proper" often meaning not using one) should be part of this if it's to be a guideline. I'd also like to see it moved to something like Wikipedia:Voting (a redirect to WP:STRAW right now) or somesuch, but that's a minor quibble compared to the anti-poll problems. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• That is reasonable. I believe this is mostly about article content, or did you have something else in mind? (Radiant) 12:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  Sorry, I'm failing to parse that properly. Could you rephrase that? — Saxifrage ✎ 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Oops :) I meant that it seems you believe a section on "voting on article content" is missing. E.g. list some situations where it is or is not useful. Is that correct? (Radiant) 09:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this as a guideline or a policy

The new draft is much better than the previous draft. However, this still suffers from the same error as the previous version did:

It is anti-voting

I do not have a problem with a policy or guideline being PRO-DISCUSSION.

But I am opposed to a policy or guideline being ANTI-VOTING

And this one is. Voting, polling or whatever you want to call it is used by wikipedia for difficult things, in cases of large numbers of people being involved or where a clear decision is required. So anti-voting is inappropriate since it is an important part of wikipedia process already.

But even more fundamentally, voting and polling are methods used to develop consensus. They are methods that are used by almost ALL (I actually cannot think of any examples to the contrary) validated, scientifically developed methods for arriving at consensus... even methods that are very low in persuasive pressure and that rely mostly upon discussion ... still use voting. To be anti-voting is, to me, to be the same thing as anti-consensus. That may not be the intentional purpose but throwing out one of the most important means for arriving at consensus has that result whether intended or not.

And finally, voting provides the SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that consensus has been achieved. It is not just someone standing up and declaring it to be so.

Thus, I oppose this as a guideline or a policy. I see it as a hammer to beat up people who want to use polls and votes for legitimate consensus building purposes. --Blue Tie 16:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Once more, this is a guideline to discourage voting, not a policy to forbid voting altogether. There is no contradiction here: this page is a documentation of the status quo, whereas your recent proposal is an attempt to amend the status quo, and if it succeeds at that, the documentation will change accordingly. If you find any statement on this page to be factually incorrect, please point it out. But we base guidelines on what does happen, not on what some believe should happen. (Radiant) 17:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ok. I do not want a guideline with the specific intent to discourage voting. I consider it inherently anti-consensus. --Blue Tie 21:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Once more, if you find any statement on this page to be factually incorrect, please point it out. But we base guidelines on what does happen, not on what some believe should happen. You misunderstand consensus if you believe that discouraging voting is detrimental to consensus, or if you believe that consensus needs to be shown by voting. Indeed, for consensus, simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. (Radiant) 00:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, for example, I disagree that decisions are based upon consensus. I realize that is what we say, but what actually happens is that way sometimes and other times it is distinctly different. I also disagree that "we" base guidelines on what does happen not on what some believe should happen. I know that is your statement, but I do not agree that it is, in fact, true. I believe that you misunderstand consensus if you believe that discouraging voting is not detrimental to consensus and I believe that you do not understand the concept of validating consensus if you do not see how a poll does this. Indeed, for consensus, simple vote counting is the single most common method described in various methods used in scientifically established methodologies for reaching group decisions. --Blue Tie 00:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way... I liked your old signature better!--Blue Tie 00:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Simply put, Wikipedia is not based on "scientifically established methodologies for reaching group decisions". As Kim likes to say, Wikipedia is one of those things that in theory could never work - except that in practice, it does. The phrase "simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate" is part of our longstanding description of consensus. Wikipedia is a unique community in scope, purpose and structure, and it is not generally bound by whatever rules apply in more common communities. (Radiant) 00:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I consider it anti-consensus to reject well developed methods for arriving at consensus. And I have had a brief discussion with Kim about this quote and said that there is no reason to imagine that wikipedia, in theory cannot work. Kim essentially agreed with me. Wikipedia is not in anyway special or different from other communities of people. That is a myth. --Blue Tie 04:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• We are an order of magnitude larger, for one. Basically, you're asserting that Wikipedia cannot work well except by way of these scientifically established methodologies. I assert that it is self-evident that Wikipedia does in fact work well, and does not follow these methodologies. Thus theory is contradicted by practice. A central tenet to science is that in such cases, theory is wrong. (Radiant) 09:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• In real science, nothing can be considered infallible, especially when evidence exists to the contrary. If we are to apply our own "science" to this, we find that a more discussion-oriented system does in fact work. It shouldn't according to mainstream theory, but it looks as though mainstream theory has been toppled. (Maybe we should try and pub a paper on this in a journal, eh? Oh, that's right, we'd all get called kooks by the dogmatic sci. com.) Voting may be used to monitor the progress of a dispute, but alone is not sufficient to make a decision, at least not for Wikipedia. One can discuss and vote, but the votes should not be treated as binding, rather they should be used to assess the situation. If I have, say, 10 people, discussing an issue, and I set up a straw poll and it says, like, 7 people agree with position X and 3 agree with Y, it might indicate that perhaps X is better (not certain, but possible. It could just be popular, and popular does not necessarily mean it is right.), and then Y could reassess their stance. It might also be used to test claims about how much consensus exists, like with Wikipedia:Notability, where I proposed initiating a WP:VOTE to check the consensus and see if the "no consensus for years" position was actually right. The vote would not make a decision, but I believed it might aid in the discussion process by giving us some numbers that would provide insight into the state of the community instead of just seeing discussion and saying "no consensus". For example, take the hypothetical issue I talked about above. Someone may see the debating and crow "no consensus here, none at all", but the vote shows a 7-to-3 majority in favor of position X, which suggests that position X has more ground and there is more consensus in favor of it. It does not end the discussion though (ad populum), but it can shoot down his "no consensus at all" statement since it proves a strong leaning in the direction of X. 170.215.91.131 00:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

We are an order of magnitude larger than what? England? Brazil? The United States? India? Switzerland? As far as working well, I think that would depend upon how you define "well". By my definition it is self evident it does NOT work well unless it uses ALL the tools for coming to consensus. And often, perhaps even usually, it does use them all. --Blue Tie 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps voting can be used, but it should never be binding. Ever. Binding votes disrupt Wikipedia's consensus-building abilities. A couple of polls to gauge or monitor the discussion process might be acceptable, but treating those as binding, "majority rule" debate-enders is wrong, and against Wikipedia's goals. 170.215.91.131 00:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Blue Tie, I do not think this should be a guideline or policy. Voting, polling, etc. are used in various circumstances on Wikipedia and are sometimes helpful. Even in a content dispute, a properly constructed poll (usually it would have to have multiple options) is better than endless discussion and warring. The same is true for determinations of policy. Even if one accepts the unworkable notion of policy being "descriptive" rather than "prescriptive," this proposal is not an accurate description of how Wikipedia works. I have seen people start votes, polls, etc. only to be told that "this is not how we do it on Wikipedia," sometimes with a citation to this very page or its predecessor. If policy or guidelines were merely descriptions of what occurs, the policy or guideline against polling would vanish simply by the act of a few editors starting polls. This is probably just another way of saying that the "policy by description" thing is a fallacy. If policy were really determined by describing what occurs in practice, there would never be a valid occasion to ever mention a policy as a reason why someone shouldn't be doing something that they are doing. The fact that the policy is not being followed would be evidence that it is not a policy at all. And I realize that one violation would not be enough, but the fact that various Wikipedia policies have to be cited so often in various discussions means that there really is no consensus for them. That does not mean they shouldn't be policy; it only confirms that to a degree, policy-making on Wikipedia is indeed prescriptive, and must be if the project is to function. 6SJ7 01:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• You are making the straw man that this is a policy to forbid voting. It is not. It is a guideline to discourage voting, so that it isn't used inappropriately; and your own statement admits that it is, indeed, discouraged. The statement that we can't have such a guideline because sometimes people start polls anyway is akin to saying that we can't have a spelling guide because sometimes people spell differently. You might want to read this essay which explains how guidelines are descriptive; and please point me to any statement on the (now reworded) page that is factually incorrect. (Radiant) 09:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Voting is the ability to express your opinion without backing it with facts. In a way it becomes an emotional argument since the basis for each individual vote can't be determined. Ultimately, you should use voting as a tool during a debate, but the primary deciding factor should be the debate itself. The guideline points out this and several other flaws inherant with voting, and therefor discourages voting. RazielJaTier 18:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Just dropping by from village pump (policy). The content of the page doesn't feel very anti-voting to me. With comments such as "Unless one of them is clearly preferred, an approval vote is recommended to select the best-liked standard" (taken from the "Standards" section of the page), i feel this is not so much against the use of voting, but just against putting too much significance/importance on voting and vote results. To me, it's really the title of the article that is so "anti-voting". Perhaps a title such as "Discuss, don't just vote" may be better in showing how discussion is defintely better, but at the same time doesn't completely replace voting? --`/aksha 12:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Radiant, I am not making a straw man argument. It was not me who included the words "Don't vote" in the title of this essay, guideline or whatever it is. It was not me who named its predecessor "Voting is Evil." (I suspect you didn't either, but I know you did cite it somewhere before the name was changed.) The words "don't vote" somehow suggest an antipathy to voting. As I read on this talk page, others agree. As for WP:3P, I do not know whether any of the facts are incorrect. I do know that if this sentence, "Whenever the result of process does not correspond with policy, it means that the policy is outdated.", is accurate, then the "policy" in question is not really a policy. This is made even clearer by the idea of "no binding decisions." If all of that is really true, then what we are calling "policy" really isn't policy. It should be called a "practice" or something else, but then it shouldn't be cited anywhere as a reason why someone shouldn't do something. At most it can be referred to as the way things have been done in the past, but without any power to bind anyone in the future. That shouldn't be called a "policy", because it isn't one. 6SJ7 22:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly, this shouldn't be called "policy", it should be called "guideline", which is our usual term for descriptions of common practice. Guidelines are recommendations that are expected to be treated with common sense and can have exceptions with no problems. Policy is more stringent and more official. The wording of this page suggests a discouragement to, but by no means a prohibition of, voting. (Radiant) 10:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should discourage voting, because it is seldom constructive. In particular, it is not constructive in the way that I have seen it used tediously often, in an attempt to "resolve" deep-seated controversies, or frankly any real controversies; on a wiki, votes are powerless because they can only be enforced through consensus. Unfortunately people tend to forget that WP:NOT a democracy. We need DDV (and frankly I liked the old title even better) because it warns people that voting is not a solution, except in rare cases: where (as in a value-neutral straw poll) the community is united in accepting the results of a vote, or where (as in AfD) the arbitrator closing the vote has the actual power to enforce it. Wikipedia certainly should not prohibit voting, because it is occasionally constructive in cases such as these. I agree that mentioning those exceptions would be an improvement, although per the definition of a guideline, I agree with Radiant that it isn't strictly necessary. -- Visviva 12:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Postscript: At User:Visviva/DDV, I have rearranged the page and added a few things. The specific language is not quite ready for production, but I think the three-part layout (votes that aren't votes, OK votes, not-OK votes) would help to clarify the point of this guideline. My net access is limited, so I probably won't have much time to do more work on this for a while; feel free to incorporate or ignore. -- Visviva 16:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If this is enacted as a guideline (and I don't think it should be) then the title must be changed to something more equivocal, most obviously to clearly reflect that what this is actually talking about is majority voting, and not voting per se. There is nothing wrong with voting (in fact it is essential), and we do it all the time. Whether various processes on here are actually de facto super-majority votes is another, rather tortuous issue (and whether they should be is another even more tortuous issue). Badgerpatrol 11:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• It is simply false that it's essential to decide things by vote count, or that we do this all the time (please do provide evidence of that allegation). As explained here as well as in the processes themselves, "various processes" are not in fact "de facto super-majority votes". It's not necessary to argue about what kind of votes (if any) they actually are; it is useful to educate people that (as this guideline states) they should join the discussion rather than simply stating their opinion and leaving. (Radiant) 12:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, I'd advise you to drop the adversarial tone. Secondly, please point out where exactly I make the "allegation" that we decide things by "vote count" (which I take to mean simple majority voting) "all the time", or that it is "essential" to do so? It is certainly true that respondents should actively participate in a given discussion rather than just voting and leaving- might I therefore suggest "don't just vote, discuss" as a suitable and less confusing alternative title? In actual fact, whether or not issues like AfD and especially RfA are actually super-majority votes is to say the least a controversial issue (I recall a recent massive fuss which largely centred around an RfA which was passed without a clear super-majority) and not one to be dismissed glibly. I also do not argue in the above that this putative guideline should describe the various votes we have here, of whatever variety they may be. Please actually read my comment and then respond to what I actually said rather than what you seem to think I said. Badgerpatrol 13:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well excuse me if I misunderstood you, but in your previous post you said that "voting ... is essential ... and we do it all the time". AFD is not, and has never been, a supermajority vote; that is frequently demonstrated on WP:DRV and is not controversial. RFA is, indeed, confusing; it appears that many contributors expect it to be a supermajority vote, but the bureaucrats do not. (Radiant) 16:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• You did misunderstand me. "Voting" means "to cast one's vote", i.e. to express one's individual preference. Singularly, "a vote" is an individual expression of one's choice; collectively, "a vote" is a framework in which multiple respondents (in this case, Wikipedia editors in good standing) have the opportunity to express said choice. I have a feeling that you may be confusing "voting" sensu stricto with your own intepretation of voting- which seems to be that users express their opinion for or against a given motion and then the motion is carried (or not) according to a simple majority. I do not understand how this idea that every "vote" must be a simple majority vote propagates when in fact we have abundant examples in the everyday "real" world indicating that such a scenario is by no means intuitive- presidential elections, parliamentary elections, etc etc can, and have been decided in favour of the minority, and separately it is often the case that referenda, parliamentary votes etc. require a super-majority rather than a simple 50%+1. Voting (i.e. a collective expression of editors' will) is indeed, IMHO, absolutely essential to the project, we do indeed do it all the time- and we ought to encourage and cherish it. As I say above, whether or not processes such as AfD or RfA (and I confess that it is these two areas in which I have the most experience) actually are super-majority votes is another issue. For my own part, I think that at least for RfA (where the passing or otherwise of the motion (i.e. "promotion" to adminship) is very much a matter of individual opinion and preference) a super-majority requirement is actually valid and sensible. For AfD (which is largely an issue of policy enforcement) the waters are more muddied. Your own confusion might in fact be indicative of a more widespread mischaracterisation of what voting actually is, and for this reason (if for no other) I am unlikely to ever support a guideline with a highly misleading title like "Discuss, don't vote". If it was, for example, "Don't just vote, discuss" or "The majority doesn't always win" then I might be more inclined, although frankly I am not at all convinced that it is sensible or useful to enact this as a guideline at all, to be honest. Badgerpatrol 02:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How does this page describe current practice?

Based on the discussion above, I understand that this page is attempting to describe current practice rather than change it. If so, I have some criticism and questions:

1. As I read it, the page currently says "polling is discouraged, except in the following seven (or so) circumstances." I'm not sure that that is true as a matter of common practice, and even if it were, I think a rename from "discuss, don't vote" would be appropriate.
2. I disagree that polling is generally discouraged as a matter of common practice. Out in the actual articles, (as opposed to the policy pages), people routinely "test the waters" with polls, with very little opposition to polls that meet WP:STRAW.
3. Is there a way to test whether polls are generally discouraged in the day-to-day functioning of Wikipedia that doesn't violate WP:POINT.
4. Is there a paragraph discussing the use of surveys contemplated by WP:STRAW and the surveys that get listed on Wikipedia:Current surveys, or are the proposal authors arguing that those pages no longer reflect current practice?
5. Why does this page describe current practice more accurately that Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote?

Thanks, TheronJ 15:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing on your specific points just now, sorry... but in general, I'd note that this page, originally on Meta, is actually considerably older than WP:STRAW, so I think it's rather unfortunate that it's suddenly been re-labeled a "proposal," as if it hadn't been playing a key role in community discourse for years. -- Visviva 16:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Not quite. Polling is discouraged in deletion, featuring, policy, guidelines and feature requests. Polling on people and arbitration is not what some people think it is. The only true exception of the seven you mention is standards.
2. The page as present lacks a section on articles. It would be nice to add one; please cite some links for people "testing the waters"?
3. The most recent example is a poll for an amendment to the semi-protection policy; it gained more votes against the poll than votes for or against the amendment. Also, check WP:DDV for the various instances of the standard rebuttal that "AFD is not decided by vote counting".
4. I've noted Alphax, Brenneman, Dmcdevit, Sidaway and Bruning all stating that WP:STRAW doesn't reflect current practice. Personally, I see no reason not to take their word for it.

• HTH! (Radiant) 16:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I read most of the editors you mention to be stating that they personally don't like or use surveys. In my observation, when editors think surveys may be helpful, they use them. I don't know of any reason for you to take my word for it, other than the fact that I am perceptive and honest. Do we seriously determine "current practice" by asking Dmcdevit? I admire him/her quite a bit, but that doesn't seem like a reliable test.TheronJ 16:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Actually none of the five mentions a personal dislike; please point out where you read that? Of course I don't determine current practice by asking anyone, but barring evidence to the contrary I see no reason to doubt the word of five diverse experienced users; I believe they generally know what they're talking about (and besides, do Brenneman and Sidaway ever agree on anything? :) ). So, please point to some pages that have recently used surveys in an effecive manner. (Radiant) 16:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm an experienced user, although certainly not as experienced as the five you've mentioned. What does my word count for? I am reading between the lines of Dmc's quote, and I can't find Alphax's or Brenneman's; I still disagree that the use of polls is not common practice. A quick scan through the history of Wikipedia:Current surveys will show plenty of surveys in the past few months. I assume that there are many more surveys that didn't make the current survey list, but I can't prove it. Are you saying that those surveys were in violation of widely accepted current practice? (As to whether the surveys are effective or not, I think that's too complex a question to answer, particularly if we are solely debating the descriptive question of whether they occur).
• Given that surveys do occur, let me ask the opposite question. How many surveys that comply with WP:STRAW have been deleted in the past few months? Were the people who posted those surveys warned, and with which template? How many surveys were reported to ANI, and what was the reaction?
• (Sorry if that sounds combative. I certainly don't mean it to be -- I can see that your intentions are good; I just don't think this particular proposal is an accurate description of existing practice or likely to lead to an improvement in practice.) Thanks, TheronJ 17:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, we're definitely going to need a section on polling about articles. I think Visviva had some suggestions. Still, even there it is discouraged (and not forbidden). Polls tend to be used there when discussion fails - and indeed, the list of article surveys you mention is a lot shorter than the list of community article discussions (WP:RFC). I'll check if they match WP:STRAW, but that's really beside the point - we can certainly have both some suggestions on how to hold a survey and suggestions that in most cases we shouldn't hold one. There's no contradiction there.
  • Your question of how many STRAW-compliant surveys have been deleted is really moot, since neither this page nor STRAW calls for the deletion of surveys, nor for sanctions against people who hold surveys. I think that's the perennial misunderstanding (and/or straw man) here: This is a guideline to discourage voting, NOT a policy to forbid voting. (Radiant) 09:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Update: picking ten recent surveys from the page you mention, I find six that didn't work at all, got nearly no feedback, were premature or opposed (by which I mean the poll was opposed, not the motion was opposed); one is about standardization conforming to this page; one turned into a discussion almost immediately; one failed WP:STRAW and turned heavily controversial; and the tenth was about an article title and worked out reasonably well. Evidence suggests that voting is, indeed, problematic, and that the weakly-worded WP:STRAW is not common practice. (Radiant) 09:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Assuming that this proposal merely discourages surveys, I don't think it describes current practice any better than WP:STRAW, which also discourages surveys. For that matter, I don't think it describes current practice any better than Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote, which I think is 100% accurate in its description of current practice, albiet with a different POV. As far as constructive feedback, I would probably sign on if the proposal (1) had a less combative name; (2) had a section discussing methods of dispute resolution that were generally considered preferable to surveys, and why; (3) said that many editors dislike surveys and many like them; and (4) discussed circumstances in which surveys may be profitably used. However, since that's basically an improved version of WP:STRAW, I'm not sure we're going to agree. TheronJ 15:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, you're of course welcome to improve the page as it stands now. (1) I fail to see what's combative about asking people to talk; (2) good idea; (3) true but irrelevant; the civility policy doesn't state either that many editors are incivil; and (4) good idea once more. I see no reason why we can't improve upon WP:STRAW. (Radiant) 16:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation

From a related discussion on WT:NOT :

• [..] Most new users coming to the Wikipedia editing process and decision-making style quickly get to the misconception that "majority rules" and that they can get their way if they just recruit enough other people to say the same thing. That's not particularly surprising given the democratic ideals held by the cultures that most of our editors come from. New users as a rule try to put things up for a vote and that's nearly always a mistake. Some issues flat can not be decided by vote. We are writing an encyclopedia. Majority rule can not overturn fact (though some have tried). More often, the real problem is that a premature poll or vote tends to polarize the subsequent discussion, causing participants to harden into static positions as they seek to justify their vote. Premature polls shut down the consensus-seeking and dialog that we all desire. That's the real point of m:Voting is evil. While your statement is technically true, the softer wording [of WP:NOT] would lead to an increase in the number of premature polls and a general decrease in the quality of discussion. Experience has taught us that we really do need to discourage polls pretty strongly in order to keep actual behavior about where we want it. Rossami (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• It's been my personal experience that polling discourages discussion as people tend to vote and consider their job complete. Their votes are counted in "consensus" building often without any reasonable ground to them, even if their vote or reasoning is called into question and they do not respond. --Newt_ΨΦ 14:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please explain...

Could someone that supports this essay/guideline/whatever explain in in a simple short sentence what they expect WP:DDV to accomplish? And could someone who disagrees with WP:DDV explain in a simple short sentence what they fear will happen if it becomes an accepted guideline? Cause I'm not really tracking a whole lot of difference here. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 04:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• The point is to educate (especially novice) users about the fact that (with very few exceptions) issues on Wikipedia are not, and should not be, decided by vote counting, and that representing an issue as binary tends to block a possible compromise. (Radiant) 08:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a specific page adding detail to the official Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia is not a democracy. I like it. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Then change the title and emphasis to make it clear that it pertains to vote counting and not to voting per se. Badgerpatrol 10:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason for that wording is that people should discuss rather than voting; for instance, on AFD, people are encouraged to discuss (give their meaning, respond to people, find alternatives such as merging) rather than vote ("keep ~~~~ leave"). AFD really should be thought of as a discussion rather than a vote. If people think they're voting in AFD, they get all kinds of wrong impressions; if people think they're discussing in AFD, it's more productive. (Radiant) 10:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Either the point of this is to discourage deciding issues by simple vote counting, as you state above and which I pretty much agree with, or it is to discourage voting sensu lato (i.e. an expression of one's will), which I don't agree with and which I (and other editors above) do not think chimes with reality. Let's face it, the use of "Discuss here" rather than the previous "Vote here", or editors using terms like "!Vote" rather than just plain "vote", or phraseology like "AFD really should be thought of as a discussion rather than a vote" is actually fairly unsubtle sophistry (and I mean no offence by that) designed to obfuscate the fact that we are essentially dealing with a voting framework where closers/'crats etc very rarely ignore consensus and quite rightly tend to be hauled over the coals when they do so. In actual fact, regardless of what we may or may not want them to be, it is far more parsimonious to think of processes like AfD and RfA as "votes", of a sort. To repeat, I strongly suggest that to more accurately reflect the idea that I think you are trying to convey (that users ought to participate in evolving discussions on particular topics, where they may change their own opinion or encourage others to do so, rather than just stating their judgement once and then leaving) a far less confusing and counter-intuitive title would be "Don't just vote, discuss" or similar. Badgerpatrol 10:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• The wording here is tricky. Of course everyone is free to express one's will on Wikipedia; that, after all, is the whole point. As you say, AFD closers very rarely ignore consensus - but they frequently* ignore specific "votes", and/or decide against the majority (note that "frequently" is another of those tricky words, in that it can be taken to mean "in most of the cases", which is clearly not the case here. What I mean is that it happens a couple of times per week, in a small but significant minority of AFD debates).
• The dichotomy of AFD (et al) is this: it is, strictly speaking, a vote (and note that this guideline doesn't say that it isn't). However. Novice users, if being told this, tend to get the wrong impression of AFD, and assume that (1) comments are undesirable, (2) it must be closed in favor of the majority, and/or (3) campaigning is useful. In other words, it matches the definition of "vote", but lacks the implications people tend to assume for a "vote"; it does not match the "popular meaning" (for some definition of "popular"). Not every editor can perceive this nuance. To editors who cannot (and indeed, it is those that are most in need of education on the topic), it is clearer to say that "AFD is not a vote" (note that this guideline doesn't in fact say so, but people on AFD/DRV frequently do). These editors are in fact served by making tags say "discuss here" rather than "vote here" (well, that doesn't really work on RFA, but compared to other processes RFA is the exception rather than the rule).
• But we're not just talking about AFD and RFA here. We're also talking about articles (can you vote on facts?), dispute resolution (do we vote on disputes and is the majority then right?) and proposals (are proposals ratified by vote?). In fact, those cases are more important, because AFD and RFA are watched by many advanced users, and articles/resolution/proposals not necessarily so. For all these cases, the name "don't just vote, discuss" implies that they must nevertheless be voted upon after discussion. This, again, gives people the wrong idea.
• So the problem is that people assume that this guideline is about AFD and RFA. Indeed, I've seen several people arguing that since RFA is a vote, voting cannot be discouraged. That, simply, is missing the point. It's really quite okay if people discuss without voting, even in AFD and RFA; the fact that few people actually do doesn't make it less okay. On the contrary, it is entirely not okay if people vote just about anywhere except RFA, if they're unwilling to discuss the issue. And that is why people should always be encouraged to discuss, not vote. (Radiant) 11:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Votes tend to be discounted only if they are socks. The "real world" analogy for this is voter eligibility- citizenship, age, residency, registration etc. I don't think anyone would argue with that policy. Very, very rarely is "consensus" among good-faith (non-sock) voters (which, let's face it, is usuallly taken to be synonymous with "supermajority") ignored, and on those rare occasions when it is ignored, all Hell usually breaks lose. The issues with articles themselves (where polls are rare (and "poll" I think is really a much better word than "vote" for what I think you're driving at)) and with dispute resolution (does anyone really think that the DR process is a simple vote?) are surely already better dealt with by the various articles purporting to explain what "consensus" is. I'm not sure in any case that the antidote to any possible confusion amongst new users is to direct them to this page, with a title that we all recognise as misleading and which does not resonate with reality (and hence is surely likely therefore to leave many of these new users scratching their heads). I have certainly seen many novice users participate in discussions (in good faith) where they immediately recognise that comments and discussion, whether attached to a vote or not, are most welcome. An alternative solution to enacting this as a guideline might be to construct and attach a template to be added to each situation which could be mistaken for a simple majority-rules poll outlining the ground rules, and thus removing any problems caused by ambiguous language or perceptions. Badgerpatrol 12:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:DRV for several examples of closure against the majority, that were contested on DRV (which is what it's there for) and nevertheless endorsed. Hell has, so far, refrained from breaking loose about AFD. The title of this page is not misleading, it is an encouragement to "discuss, don't vote". Some people wrongly interpret this as "voting is forbidden" which would indeed be misleading. I'm glad to see that there are also novice users that understand the value of discussion over voting without needing to be told, but that's no reason not to educate the group that does. As Rossami stated earlier, "Experience has taught us that we really do need to discourage polls pretty strongly in order to keep actual behavior about where we want it." (Radiant) 12:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Since an "opposed to this" editor hasn't spoken up with a short sentence about their concerns if this becomes a guideline, I will. My concern is that it will be used to shut down polls by direct action, like removal. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to support Radiant's efforts on this page. If the concern of the "opposed to this" editors are that this policy will be used to shut down and remove polls, let's discuss when that would or would not be appropriate. If people use a poll to test the waters and explore what the range of opinions are, that is appropriate and the poll should not be shut down. If it is used to test for consensus after discussion has seemed to reach a conclusion, that is also appropriate. If a poll is presented as a vote, not being the result of a prior discussion, with language that says the results of the vote will be binding, it should be shut down and removed. If we are to allow polling, let's not call it a vote. Consensus decision making traditions use language like "test for consensus" and "voicing concerns". If these are called votes or polls, people will assume the majority rules. -- Samuel Wantman 23:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think, as an education tool, this page will be useful. I'm still dubious that it needs to be a guideline to do that, but I appreciate that those who need education the most are the ones least likely to take a lesson from a "mere" essay.

If language about when polls can be removed is included, it needs to be very restrictive. In the same way that advertising needs to be "blatant" in order to be speedy-deleted, a poll should be blatantly, clearly, obviously out-of-line in order to be removed. Really, anything else is unnecessary since a bad poll can easily be ignored. Any claims to a poll being binding or to have created a consensus is clearly shot down by pointing to WP:CON. (Though I grant that "clearly" doesn't equal "easily", but then if it's going to be hard to show people the error of their consensus-denying ways with a poll, it would have been just as hard without a poll in the picture.)

In general, I'm strongly in favour of letting polls stay on pages in all cases, and letting social Darwinism kill the bad ones. We don't need to remove the corpses from the page in order to move on without them. Many times, a failed poll is a strong indicator that the poll-creator's position is without merit and so they contribute to the discussion and the demonstration of consensus. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the offending sentence. It is better to prevent than to cure, in that we should be educating people when not to start polls rather than stopping them afterwards. I do hold that while bad polls can be ignored, the fact that most people do not ignore them can break up a discussion. (Radiant) 15:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A possible compromise solution

Greetings fellow editors. I've just updated Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy to provide a wikilink from the word "discussion" to this page. I don't think anyone can argue that the democracy section (with a link to Wikipedia:Straw polls) hasn't been that way for some time. So we have a policy page that is now pointing to both this page as well as the straw poll page. Given that such is the case wouldn't it be more logical to continue to keep the two pages and upgrade them both to guideline status and then have a better coordination between the two pages? This discussion of guideline status or not on this page has been going on for quite some time and I seriously doubt that a consensus will be arrived at without some sort of a compromise. I propose this solution as that compromise. Thoughts? (→Netscott) 05:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Originally I had objections to this guideline, but I've given it more thought. It's not so much the guideline itself that might give the "wrong" idea, but how some stuff is presented. I think we can say almost the exact same thing, but emphases less on what "not" to do. Doing this will make people less defensive about this becoming a guideline. Maybe we could title this differently, like Wikipedia:Voting (which is a redirect to Wikipedia:Straw polls), and approach the topic as "where voting fits in with Wikipedia". Like I said, we can say almost the same things, but with a different title and a different lead in, it will make people less defensive about what it suggests. Just a thought. -- Ned Scott 06:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Reading this it clicked what my trouble with this being a guideline is: the spirit that it presents is at odds with the practice, but its letter is not. This could be fixed by changing the way the ideas are presented without changing their content much, if at all. I'm big on the spirit of policies and guidelines. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, what did you have in mind? Spirit is good. (Radiant) 16:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Netscott - being linked from a policy page does not confer any particular "status" on a page. Indeed, there are plenty of guidelines, essays and other things linked from policy pages. I think a reasonable compromise would be merging this and WP:STRAW. (Radiant) 16:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Radiant, you're not heading towards consensus with such thinking. Particularly so long as this page is named "Discuss, don't vote". So long as that name is kept I'm going to continue to push for two pages and coordination between the two. (→Netscott) 16:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • How is merging not a compromise? (Radiant) 16:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Merging is not a compromise because WP:STRAW talks about utilizing straw polls in dicussions... while the expression Discuss, don't vote says otherwise. (→Netscott) 16:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • This page discourages polling. So does WP:STRAW. This page focuses on when a poll is and isn't appropriate, STRAW focuses on what to do if it is. It seems to me the two are complementary and therefore mergeable. (Radiant) 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        • These, "Discuss first, vote last" or "Discuss and refrain from voting" or "Discuss and poll only when necessary" are titles that better correspond to the WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY wording, no? (→Netscott) 16:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
          • • I like the middle one. (Radiant) 16:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Good, now we're getting somewhere. Anyone else have another title that they think corresponds to this spirit? (→Netscott) 17:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

My first choice would be "surveys" or "voting", but in a pinch, I could accept "Discuss first, vote last" or "Discuss always, vote rarely." TheronJ 03:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• The problem with "discuss first, vote last" is that it implies that we must nevertheless vote (after discussion). (Radiant) 10:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want a title that discourages voting, then it should just be an essay, not a policy or guideline. It's just some peoples' opinion. If it is going to be a policy or guideline, it should tell people when to use polls and when not to, with a title that reflects a neutral position. This whole "voting is evil" nonsense, under whatever new name has been cooked up, doesn't work. The evidence is all around us. 6SJ7 02:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• This page does tell people when to use polls and when not to. Discouraging voting is not just some peoples' opinion, it is based on longstanding precedent and the fact that voting is often used inappropriately and causes problems when used so. Some people have the "gut feeling" that voting is probably a good idea; but at least on Wikipedia, this gut feeling is often wrong. (Radiant) 10:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • All true, but as I also pointed out, simply by giving the guideline a more neutral title (like taking Wikipedia:Voting) we'll likely get more support for it. -- Ned Scott 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Your almost-namesake proposed a number of more neutral names above. Note that most of our policy and guidelines that discourage something are named e.g. "no personal attacks". The point of this page is that we do indeed discourage voting because it often doesn't help or makes a mess, and have done so for a long time. (Radiant) 09:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeking feedback

Hiya,

OK, I've done some more work on User:Visviva/DDV, and am curious if people think it's moving in the right direction. I think it addresses most of the concerns raised here, although not the matter raised above of removing polls...which I'm not sure is really pertinent here anyway. I observed that Wikipedia:Dispute resolution recommends a survey as one step in the DR process, so I have added that along with other cases where polling seems to be permissible. -- Visviva 14:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a big move in the right direction - thanks for all the hard work. Some suggestions and questions:

1. Your point that surveys should never be understood to be binding is a great one, and I think it is probably the common ground around which we can build some kind of consensus. I might say it even more clearly - that while a survey should be understood as a method for clarifying issues in dispute or testing for consensus, no survey should ever be thought of as binding unless that survey leads to an actual consensus (in most cases) or to appropriate administrator/bureaucrat action (in cases like AFD and Admin nominations). You could actually have a closing sentence or two in each section that discusses current voting/quasi-voting procedures that explains what the actual decision making endpoint is of the quasi-vote (editorial consensus, bureaucrat action, etc.)
2. Your draft doesn't resolve the issue of a name. I still think "Discuss, don't vote" overstates the actual point of the proposal. "Discussion is normally better than voting" is too long, so I'm at a loss for suggestions, though. How about a neutral title like "Surveys and voting" - then the text of the proposal can speak for itself.
3. I'm not clear on why surveys are particularly unsuited to article content. Does that include fairly binary questions like "Source x" is a reliable source as used in statement "Y" or Statement "Y" is not directly supported by the sources offered, and is therefore original research?
4. I like the statement in WP:DR that surveys may be helpful to test for an existing consensus. Does it make sense to add that to your draft?

Thanks again for the good work, TheronJ 15:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've taken several parts from your page and added them here. Thanks! (Radiant) 16:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Theron - one of the reasons surveys are unsuitable to article content is that some people tend to vote on facts, or the suitability of unsourced information. Also, articles aren't really supposed to be stable in the first place. The problem with "surveys aren't binding" is that even the people that say in advance that they aren't, are likely to conclude afterwards that it wasn't binding but they will nevertheless follow that option because "that's what people want". (Radiant) 16:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Re your points, in no particular order: ;-)

2. I think it would not be a bad idea to have this at Wikipedia:Voting, as long as the basic principle -- namely, that voting is strongly discouraged in favor of discussion -- is maintained. Although in that case it might be nice to re-create Wikipedia:Voting is evil as a short essay, if only to balance Wikipedia:Voting is not evil.

3. I think it would include such questions, yes; except perhaps in a DR situation where canvassing might be appropriate. As I see it, these are exactly the kind of questions that must be resolved through discussion: if one editor raises valid concerns about a source, it shouldn't matter that there are 99 editors who think the source is OK.

4. I mentioned that in the "testing the waters" section, but I reckon the link to DR should be made more explicit.

1. More information on the mechanics of the non-votes wouldn't be a bad idea, although it would probably only be necessary if this was moved to Wikipedia:Voting. I share Radiant's concern over the tendency of surveys to become "retroactively binding," which I think is one reason why this page needs to discourage them in general, even when they're avowedly non-binding. It's also important to keep Wikipedia:Consensus can change, a fairly long-standing Policy, in mind; arguably, even votes which show consensus are not really binding, and even those which lead to admin action are binding only in the sense that a specific process (such as Deletion Review) must normally be followed in order to undo them.

Since chunks of the draft have already been incorporated into this page (thanks, Radiant!), I'll be leaving off work on it for now. Thanks again for the feedback. Cheers, -- Visviva 05:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What about processes that are a vote?

The title header says it all. Deletion review is a straight vote, for instance. Requests for adminiship isn't explicitly a vote, but if you get 70% support you might not get promoted, while 75% will. The simple fact remains that, even if we "Discuss," and "don't vote," we still have processes where we do vote. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• DRV was recently changed from a majority vote to a consensus-based process, a move I believe you were involved in. If you read this page, you will see that it doesn't say that we do not vote; it says discussion is preferred to voting, which is true even in DRV and RFA (witness the many questions there). "Discuss, don't vote" is not synonymous to "We do not vote", it is a recommendation. (Radiant) 16:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It was? When did this happen? The indications I was getting regarding DRV were that no one wanted to change it, and if the change did go through, no one's letting the closers know. But either way, if we're treating this as a recommendation, this needs to be clearer regarding that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It says so right at the top, "it is preferred to discuss issues rather than formally voting on them. That is not to say that voting is forbidden, but it should be used with care". (Radiant) 17:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we make a clear distinction between voting and polling. The word "vote" implies a democratic process, while a "poll" implies research to find out what people are thinking. We should avoid the word "vote" whenever possible. We discuss, we don't vote. That doesn't mean that we don't have polls, and processes that heavily rely on the outcome of polls. -- Samuel Wantman 00:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Very good point. In other words, polls are data collection, and not the decision making process itself. The data we get from these polls might have significance or not, but should be seen in context, with discussion, etc etc. -- Ned Scott 01:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but I have seen quite some editors who fail to see the difference, or "data collecting" polls that are retroactively turned into having been a "binding" vote (as in "yes, we know the poll wasn't binding, but we're going to do what it says anyway because that's what the majority obviously wants"). Polling is fine for processes such as AFD, but has a strong tendency to backfire when used for article content or proposals.

For instance, I recently saw Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). After debate showed no consensus, a poll was held on the issue, which yielded no consensus. After two more months of debate (which showed no consensus) five different proposals were made one after the other; all of these were put to a vote, and none showed consensus. A fifth poll was held to establish whether two guidelines were contradictory. After several people pointed ou that you can't vote on a fact, the person who started it claimed the poll was actually to prove he was not alone in holding his position, and closed it. Discussion continues. My point is that a reliance on polls creates a mess like this. (Radiant) 09:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However, I use polling in situations (like working on a re-write of categorization policy) as a technique to help me see where people stand, and hear their concerns. I think it has helped me with the process of working out a consensus. Ultimately, the test of any consensus is posting the completed result and not having it reverted or challanged. I have heard the phrase "silence is agreement" used in formal consensus decision making environments, and I think that is the true "vote" in a wiki. If something gets posted and nobody alters it, everyone who does nothing has voted by tacit agreement to let it remain.-- Samuel Wantman 09:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sure that some people are capable of using polling as an effective tool. However, it seems to me that most people use polls inadvisedly, prematurely and arbitrarily, and this should (obviously) be discouraged. I've seen quite a number of polls lately and about 80%-90% of them were either ineffective or backfired. Indeed, as you say, when I edit pages in Wikispace, I don't add a poll to ask whether people agree with me, I watch is people disagree and if so we discuss it. (Radiant) 09:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. People can change and they do not have to abuse polls. I think polls can and should be used, as there are lots of useful, positive functions for them, but they should never be binding votes, of course. Ie. do not abandon them. People who try to make them into such binding votes should be reprimanded and punished for abuse of WP procedures. Concrete policy is needed on the use of polls, but they should not be banned altogether. 74.38.35.171 09:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. When I advocate initiating a poll (see some of my discussions on WP:N's talk page like with the "disputed" tag) I mostly think of using it as a data collection device to figure out and to monitor the state of the community. 74.38.35.171 09:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Rounding up

Well, debate has died down here so this is a good time to round up the remaining points. Comments about this guideline boil down to three basic issues here and a few miscellaneous comments.

1. The principle. The principle of the page is that voting is discouraged on Wikipedia. It should be clear by now that issues on Wikipedia are not decided by vote counting. This longstanding principle was affirmed by many editors here, as well as in a recent ArbCom case. That some people are unaware of this principle is a good reason for having this page to educate them; that some people wish to change this principle does imply that it remains a principle until they succeed in changing it.
2. The wording. Well, the page has been rewritten from scratch and reworded by a number of people and should now provide an accurate description of how Wikipedia works. If anyone disputes this I would like to see specific counterexamples. If there are sections missing, please add them.
3. The name. Several people object to the current name of this page. There have been a few compromises proposed and I have no objection to renaming the page to one of those.
4. Miscellaneous.
   1. First, some people assert that Wikipedia should change and should adopt more formal procedures to accomplish things. These people are welcome to propose their new ways, but that is not a valid objection to documenting the status quo. Note that a recent proposal for such change was rejected by the community.
   2. Second, people keep citing WP:RFA as the counterexample to everything; because of an ongoing dispute in that area on its talk page it may be worthwhile to note that this page may not apply there.
   3. Third, some people say that the style of this page needs improvement. These people are welcome to edit the page and improve it; that is not a real objection to the content of the page. Also, note that we do not in fact have a manual of style for guideline pages.

• Comments please? (Radiant) 14:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm against this proposal as currently written. For one thing, the title is a problem because it suggests that policy prohibits voting, which is not the case. Secondly, the substance of the proposal is slanted too much against voting. The proposal needs to give a clearer indication that taking a poll is often a very valuable exercise and the proposal should embrace more instances of voting. Johntex\^talk 14:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• First, I already said I agreed to a rename; and note that neither the title nor the page itself have anything to do with policy. Policy is suggested by policy pages, not by the titles of pages that are not policy (and not becoming policy either); I really have no idea where that suggestion came from, but editors are highly unlikely to accept anything as policy that doesn't have a {{policy}} tag.
• Second, I disagree that taking a poll is "often a very valuable exercise"; please do point out recent polls that were such valuable exercise, because I can cite several that weren't (e.g. here, here, here and here. (Radiant) 15:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I know that I come across as a wet blanket, and I respect what you're trying to do, Radiant!, but I still have a number of concerns. I'm still forming a final opinion. Some initial thoughts:

1. 1. I'm glad to hear you're open to changing the name. I would strongly oppose any guideline under the "Discuss, Don't Vote" name, for the reasons I state above, and the final name chosen is likely to affect my ultimate opinion.
   2. The proposal as written today appears to be POV against voting. It accurately concedes, I suppose, that procedures that resemble voting occur daily on Wikipedia, but it always does so in a grudging fashion that appears intended to reduce the instances of procedures resembling voting in the future.
   3. The style does need work. It is true that there is no style guide for guidelines, but I would think it would be self-evident that a guideline should be helpful to editors, which requires at a minumum that its point be clear to people who aren't familiar with the debate. (WP:CREEP also comes to mind).
   4. I still am not convinced that this draft describes current Wikipedia policy any more accurately than WP:STRAW.

Thanks, TheronJ 15:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your feedback... (1) To me, the content of the page is far more important than the name. (2) The intent has never been to reduce procedures resembling voting (nor, indeed, would such an intent even be possible). However, it is vital to remember (and frequently forgotten) that those processes are not decided by vote count. (3) Regarding style, please edit it. (4) WP:STRAW doesn't really describe anything, it simply recommends polls and describes how to make one. I note that nearly all polls on policy/guideline matters (except standardization) are either pointless or backfire. Thankfully this is less extreme with article polls. Note the dichotomy that polls are used both frequently (as in, several times per week) AND infrequently (as in, only in a small percentage of the debates we have). (Radiant) 15:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reading through it once more I fail to see where you read that this page would "reduce the instances of procedures [such as AFD]". It simply states that (1) they are not decided by vote counting, and (2) people are encouraged to leave comments. Could you please elaborate on what you mean? (Radiant) 16:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a tone issue, so it's hard to point to any one thing. In general, I think the page gives short shrift to the idea that polling does occur (as you accurately point out, simultaneous frequently and rarely, depending on perspective), usually without difficulty. Let me try to find time to take a close look at the style issues, and we may be able to resolve my tone concerns as well. TheronJ 16:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Further to my point that the current language is POV against procedures resembling voting, I thought the ArbComm got it right when it wrote: "Straw polls and voting are used in a number of situations. There is a tradition which discourages excessive voting, but no actual policy. Polls may be used when appropriate to gauge opinion." If the overall thrust of the article was towards that, rather than towards "voting should almost never be used," I think it would be more NPOV as to actual Wikipedia practice. TheronJ 15:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how POV applies to guidelines or policies, it's not supposed to apply to content. Any guideline should reflect the point of view of wikipedia - WP is against personal attacks, copyright violations, unverifiable info. If consensus is truly that wikipedia should discourage voting, then the site should reflect that, POV or not. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• If I understand Radiant! correctly (and I welcome correction if I do not), he/she is arguing that the DDV proposal should become a guideline not because we think it's a good idea, but because it accurately describes existing practice. I've been responding primarily to that argument. If the discussion here is about whether Wikipedia should discourage voting, then I have numerous additional comments. Thanks, TheronJ 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, my point is that Wikipedia does discourage voting. I remain very much interested in more formal systems of accomplishing things (for instance, as used on the French Wikipedia) but I believe that such proposals should take place on a separate page, and I think it's helpful to know where we stand before we decide where we're going. (Radiant) 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, despite what the arbcom said, WP policy does discourage voting. From WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a democracy: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Votes and polls are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes, and in most cases are not recommended." So discouraging voting is already official policy. This article should just be an expansion on that, consistent with other wp guidelines and policies. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I object to this proposal as currently stated and named, per the comments of TheronJ in this section. 6SJ7 16:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition to article section

I added a paragraph to the article section.[1] I don't disagree with the previous text, but thought it was a little light on describing the circumstances under which editors do use polls in the article talkspace, and the circumstances under which those polls are likely to be constructive. (My anecdotal experience is that article talkspace polls are used somewhere between occasionally and rarely -- the hundred or so articles I watchlist probably see several polls a month between them -- and usually without much dispute). I also added a link to WP:STRAW -- I understand that it's not currently certified as a guideline, but think that if an editor plans to create a poll, then the principles for good polling listed there are worth reviewing.

Thoughts? Thanks, TheronJ 14:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I pretty much agree. Likewise, I've seen article polls used occasionally; some of them were constructive, others were simply ignored by most editors, and a select few were counterproductive. I think the most important points are to keep it simple, and to ask the right question(s); if agreement cannot be reached on what question(s) to ask, then a poll will not resolve anything and likely aggravate the issue. (Radiant) 15:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I propose to delete the following sentence from the introduction:

It is not unusual for editors to leave Wikipedia entirely, or to drastically reduce their activities, due to the bitterness left by such votes.

Is there any evidence for this statement? I am aware of a few editors leaving because of non-expert editors editing articles, and a few editors leaving (or threatening to leave) because of bad experiences in RFCs, RFAs, et al., but I'm not aware of any evidence that eliminating voting would have prevented those departures. Is it all right if I remove that sentence? Thanks, TheronJ 14:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

!vote = yes that does sound like a bit of an uncited supposition. (→Netscott) 15:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Stricken. While I'm sure that has happened a couple of times, it is certainly not "usual". (Radiant) 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can say that I myself left Wikipedia for several months following a particularly bitter and pointless poll... a poll which I probably still can't describe in detail without violating WP:CIV, so I'll stop there. And given the acrimony I've seen around many other polls, to say nothing of AfDs, I would be astonished if I'm the only one. -- Visviva 16:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, I have to wonder how many people have left in frustration over discussions that go around and around forever with no "consensus", and no universally accepted and effective manner of resolving the issue in the absence of "consensus." 6SJ7 16:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is, of course, that contentious issues can drive people away from the wiki, regardless of whether or not those issues are dealt with through voting. It is incorrect to assume that voting makes an issue contentious; it is likewise incorrect to assume that voting will resolve a contentious issue. (Radiant) 09:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I only meant that remark to explain why I had initially added that line in my draft; I agree that may be better left out. However, I would argue that by creating a zero-sum game, voting does tend to push discussions toward more and more hostile behavior, sockpuppetry, etc.; and that a close review of contentious past votes would show this to be the case. Since Wikipedia editing must be its own reward, it doesn't take much unpleasantness to push dedicated contributors away. -- Visviva 09:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And the hilarious thing is that the basic wikipedia system of negotiated consensus was designed as being non-zero sum and actually supports multiple winners. You just have to love the drive of inexperienced people who try to "improve" things. Just because wikipedia has a system that you didn't just invent 3 minutes ago, based on some superseded century old philosophy taught to you in high school , doesn't mean that you're not actually the reactionary :-P Kim Bruning 04:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Me, getting tired and bitter? Oh hmm, well I am sort of burned out. Come yell at me on my talk page if you think I'm being too harsh :-)

As to the first line, errr, that's one of the main raison d'êtres for this guideline. We tried voting, we have the t-shirt, and the scars.

Canonical example: does anyone still remember Wikipedia:Quickpolls?

Kim Bruning 04:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed v policy?

This has been accepted practice for a very long time. How is it "proposed" rather than policy? Friday (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Lack of actual consensus? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been accepted practice for a very long time, has it not? This would mean there's concensus. or do you want us to vote on it? :-) Friday (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if "accepted practice" was "consensual practice," though. Until roughly a month ago, we still had one major process as a straight vote, RfA is only a statement of consensus in theory, ArbCom plays by their own rules. We chuckle about voting on it, but I'm not entirely sure that, as a whole, the preference when it comes to more minor situations - conflicts on pages, certain inclusion discussions, situations where two consensual situations collide, that a majority vote isn't something useful. That "not entirely sure" feeling is exactly why this probably isn't a guideline right now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Do read this page, it explains exactly what you seek. (Radiant) 17:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I have, thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Mainly, there are a few people that have a "gut feeling" that voting is actually a good idea, and thus resist a page that discourages it; and there was a counterproposal for a while to mandate vote counting in all wikiprocess. (Radiant) 17:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it lack of consensus, or that consensus goes so far back that it's hard to find? This exact wording may be more recent, but the general concept seems to go back a long ways on wikipedia (and meta) and to be generally accepted. I can see arguing with the specific wording, but the general concept is already mentioned in multiple WP policies and guidelines already. If you have specific quibbles about the wording here, work toward ironing them out. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • But, after all, consensus can change. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Can you demonstrate that consensus has changed? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Sure, there's a lot to look at above, along with the way a lot of people handle their conflicts. Also, the fact that someone was to the point of proposing a voting guideline before it was unfairly nuked from orbit says a lot to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
          • That the suggestion to vote on everything was "nuked from orbit" (by which we mean, rejected after fair discussion on MFD) is a strong indication that in fact concensus hasn't changed here. (Radiant) 17:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
            • I don't consider MfD a strong indication of anything other than those who patrol MfD. As MfD isn't visited by a strong amount of established editors on a general basis, I struggle to find consensus there. The fact that we were not able to actually find a consensus and reject it, choosing rather to delete it, implies that many of the folks who went to that MfD didn't even want it discussed, which somewhat runs contrary to the spirit of how we do things anyway. There was a lot wrong with that, truly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
              • Am I confused? Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote was not deleted, it was tagged as rejected -- which reflects the fairly strong consensus among participants in the MfD. I agree with your general point about MfD (and the deletion process as a whole); but surely your objections to that particular vote-like discussion would apply equally to vote-like behavior throughout Wikipedia.... Does that mean you actually support this guideline? -- Visviva 05:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Milo - that's why this page was rewritten from scratch. There haven't been any objections to the wording lately, except that Theron wants to change the overall tone. Some people want the title to change; I have no strong opinion on that. (Radiant) 17:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• IMHO, the title as is mischaracterizes existing practice, and I am still mulling over whether the overall tone mischaracterizes existing practice. I still have some issues with the theory that once a page accurately describes existing practice, it is automatically promoted to guideline, but they would be a distraction here -- maybe Radiant! and I can take it to the Village Pump when I have time. TheronJ 17:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think "essay" would be more accurate than "proposed", if we can't agree that it's policy. Friday (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

RFA has been a consensus process for as long as I've used it, when did this change? Kim Bruning 21:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Kim, I agree with NetScott that we don't have consensus for this page yet. (particularly with the current name). If your concern is primarily with RFA, I don't think you would have a problem if you decided to tag WP:RFA as a guideline. TheronJ 21:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • From the edit summary I'm not sure Kim realized this has been totally rewritten from what was copied from Meta. --W.marsh 21:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There never was any consensus for such a change. When the meta essay was brought over into en space in January, Radiant! tried to upgrade it from meta's essay status to guideline status here but there's not been a consensus for that move. (→Netscott) 21:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is about as guideline-y as we get, IMO. There's pretty wide acceptance, and you hear the "discuss, don't vote" mantra frequently. It's clearly not a proposal, at any rate. Friday (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I respect your opinion, but I don't agree that your anecdotal experience establishes consensus. In my experience, votes happen every day, with a number of surveys happening a week on my watchlisted pages alone, and those surveys are almost never discouraged, prevented, or impeded. (The most common outcome is that everyone chimes in without objection, and then the editors agree that there's not consensus for the name change or whatever it was). While it is certainly true that many editors disparage voting, surveys, and other snoutcounting, the established practice has always seemed to be that "Votes and surveys occur occasionally, usually without objection. Some editors have strong objections to voting." TheronJ 21:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think most everyone would be fine with the {{essay}} tag displaying here in equivalency to the meta:Polling_is_evi essay tagging. (→Netscott) 22:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)l

• I wouldn't. The meta page makes it clear that this more than just an essay; but {{essay}} does not. This is a guideline; it accurately describes our experience with voting, which is that it is not seldom constructive, and usually does far more harm than good. -- Visviva 05:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a point of confusion here - while surveys happen on a regular basis (including things like AfDs), even though they look like votes with all the "support"/"oppose", they are not in fact votes since the result doesn't depend on the numbers, but on the arguments that follow those "support"/"oppose". Meaning a position with a fewer number of "votes" (not votes) may previal. Attempting to call a vote is also generally useless because there's no definition of how many votes would be needed anyway - the site makes it pretty clear that simple majority certainly doesn't equal consensus, and supermajority isn't defined in numbers. The whole "Voting is Evil" concept applies to doing it as seldom as possible, and that in almost all cases on wikipedia, even when a survey is done, it's not a vote even if the people doing it call it that. What makes things sticky is that in most disputes, there's no voice of god to come in and declare a "winning" side. But hopefully that means the two sides will negociate and find a compromise or an otherwise acceptable solution. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• As written, it seems to me that the proposal discourages surveys. If the proposal said "don't vote, but non-binding surveys are not votes and therefore used when editors feel they would be helpful," I would probably not oppose. TheronJ 03:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude, is supporting or opposing really such a good idea? Guidelines should be descriptive, not prescriptive. Let me explain:

In the current en.wikipedia system, holding a majority vote would be a bit of a disaster, so we really want to reccomend against that. What's almost equally bad is when people grab an opinion poll at the outset, and thereby kill any kind of consensus gathering (oops). Perhaps somewhere we should warn people about these potential pitfalls, while at the same time helping them understand how to avoid them.

So that's why guidelines should be descriptive: What we really need is a realistic description of what goes right and why and what goes wrong and why, so that maybe one day we might even have a written body of guidelines that has some remote resemblance to actual daily practice on wikipedia.

*sigh* Perhaps I should just give up and let people write fairy tales in the project namespace. It'd certainly make me more popular ;-) "* support : my truthy feeling is that this person finally understands policy after all these years with wikipedia" :-p

Kim Bruning 04:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this dose of sanity. -- Visviva 05:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I should note that the argument that "this is not a guideline on meta" is irrelevant since meta doesn't have a guideline tag in the first place. Many older essays on meta, such as meta:be bold, are important to our culture and considered what we call guidelines on the English Wikipedia. (Radiant) 22:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comparing the bringing over of the "meta:Voting is evil" essay to the bringing over of Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages is a bit of a false analogy. The {{Guideline}} template wasn't destined to exist on "en" for another 3 years when in 2002 User:Larry Sanger brought bold to "en". (→Netscott) 23:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding meta essay status and DDV compare the equivalently {{essay}} tagged: meta:Polls are evil with meta:Voting is a tool also there's the often cited essay meta:Don't be a dick (which I can't imagine ever becoming a guideline). While it is true that there aren't technically "{{guideline}}s" on Meta there are clearly marked "Guides". (→Netscott) 02:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• This may be a minor point -- since after all the meta page is rather different from the one here -- but the header for m:Polls are evil says clearly "This is an important essay written by the community. Although it doesn't have the force of policy or guideline, it is nevertheless heavily referenced on many Wikimedia projects, especially the English Wikipedia." The meta page has included that text, or something similar, for some time. I guess if we include that here, I would not find the {{essay}} tag quite so, well, absurd. -- Visviva 04:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Visviva, yes I had noticed that wording and I was intending to comment upon it myself. I think that is an excellent idea. Maybe we could create a new template and call it {{established essay}} or some such with the wording from meta. (→Netscott) 04:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Meta "guides" appear to refer to help pages instead. The problem here is that people are attaching way too much importance to the word "guideline". Guidelines aren't official, or formal, or binding, and are to be treated with common sense and exceptions as appropriate. The tag "guideline" even says so, as does WP:POL, as well as my dictionary on the topic. What would you believe to be the difference between an "established essay" and a "guideline"? Do we need a further "hierarchy" of pages in Wikipedia namespace? (Radiant) 09:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-binding surveys

Continuing from the above...

As pointed out somewhere above in the discussion, the problem with "non-binding" surveys is that they tend to be used after the fact as a blunt instrument to enforce "consensus," and be damned to WP:CCC and WP:NPOV too. I don't see anything here that would discourage anyone from posting "Here's an idea, what do other people think about this?" on a talk page, nor anything that would discourage the respondents from mentioning that they support or oppose the idea. Anyone who would cite DDV in such a context is just being annoying. However, my experience is that more formal surveys, on more contentious issues, lead to nothing but grief. I guess TheronJ's watchlist is different from mine, but on the rare occasions that a vote, survey, or other zero-sum ploy crosses my 6000-page watchlist it usually has something to do with a painfully controversial issue (see the archives of Talk:Dokdo, Talk:Imjin War, et al.), and the vote does absolutely nothing to advance the discussion. -- Visviva 05:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I concur. (Radiant) 09:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Title

Regardless of the guideline/essay/whatever issue... Is there a title for this page that would better reflect its purpose and content?

• The current title "Don't vote" is somewhat contradictory to the actual contents of the page, which describes in some detail when it is and isn't constructive to engage in vote-like behavior.
• In this respect "Voting is evil" is actually better, since it doesn't tell anyone what to do, it just describes our experience that voting tends to have a vicious effect on the project.
• "Voting" has been suggested, but is neutral and boring and fails to reflect the normative role of the page. (Is that a problem? Given the way people jump into voting here, I think it probably is.)
• What about "Avoid voting"? That seems to accurately reflect the page contents, and doesn't give the (mistaken) impression that the page opposes vote-like behavior entirely.

Any other thoughts? -- Visviva 04:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

My first choice would be "Voting and surveys" - a completely neutral title that would let the text do the work, particularly given that the text describes several situations in which editors engage in practices similar to voting. (We seem to have survived titles such as "Vandalism" without encouraging the practice, for example). I think "Discuss first, vote rarely" or "Discussion is better than voting" would also be fine. TheronJ 19:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"Discuss, avoid voting" "More discussion, less voting" "Discussion > Voting" "Discussion is better than voting"? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TheronJ on the title, it is better to have a non-normative title. Actually I think the best course would be to merge this page with other policy pages (including proposed pages) whether pro-voting or neutral and just have one policy page about voting that says when to use polls and votes, and when not to. If someone wants to have an anti-polling page, it should be an essay or be in user-space. 6SJ7 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'd say "Avoid voting", or "Discuss, avoid voting" is a nice name. (Radiant) 10:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Explaining my "tone" edits

I just started on my proposed "tone" rewrite. Unless people are grossly offended, I would ask that people try to fix any problems rather than blanket reverting. Here's what I was thinking:

First edit - Introduction: [2]. I tried to get the tone closer to what I think is the current practice - that quasi-voting occurs from time to time, usually without objection, that some people don't like it, and that it may never be understood as binding.

Second edit - Articles:[3] My general goal was to describe the current practice of (occasional) straw polls/surveys in the article talk space. I removed a paragraph about how verifiability isn't subject to voting, since voting isn't binding on any issue. With an eye towards a potential merge of WP:STRAW, I included a list of cautionary items and items to consider when conducting an article poll. I would be very interested in any additions or changes that people can suggest to the list. Thanks, TheronJ 19:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Looks reasonable to me. I've made a minor change but otherwise I'm fine with it. (Radiant) 09:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Looks good to me as well. -- Visviva 10:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• I like it. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm done with tone edits for now. If anyone has any questions or wants to tweak them, fire away. With these edits, I would have no objection to moving this page to guideline as both accurately descriptive of current practice and as describing "best practices," although I would still strongly prefer a different name. TheronJ 17:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the improvements. (Radiant) 10:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Supermajority?

One question that the proposal does not currently address is whether a poll can be used as evidence in favor of "concensus by supermajority." When I read something like this, it makes me cringe. On the other hand, if people are going to argue that in some cases, a supermajority is as good as a consensus, then surveys aren't a crazy way to test for the existence of that supermajority. More specifically, the relevant policy section currently states:

• "Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate." and
• "However, when supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus. The stated outcome is the best judgment of the facilitator, often an admin."

I don't know if we ought to link to/and or discuss the Wp:consensus#Consensus_vs._supermajority section, or if so, what we ought to say about it. If we're being purely descriptive, we could say that some editors use votes to test for supermajorities, but that attempting to force concensus through supermajority is controversial and often disruptive, and attempting to determine that supermajority through a vote often exacerbates the situation. If someone wants to give a crack at it, go ahead -- otherwise, I'll probably sleep on it and try it later this week. Thanks, TheronJ 21:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like that would be a sensible addition. -- Visviva 06:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is that a supermajority is actually not as good as a consensus, and attempting to substitute supermajority tends to cause a lot of trouble. I think we should simply link to that issue under "see also" and not attempt to explain it again here. (Radiant) 10:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Wikipedia:Consensus

As this page evolves, it is becoming a fairly good description about how consensus is reached, the value of discussion, and the pitfalls of "voting". This is also what Wikipedia:Consensus talks about, but with less of the how-to details that this page has. This "how to reach consensus" explanation is very important, and not explained well enough on the consensus page or any other page that I know of. So how about either merging this page with Wikipedia:Consensus or expanding it and making it a subpage with the title "How to reach consensus" or "The Wikipedia consensus process". As such, I don't think it would be unreasonable to talk about why "vote" is not a good word to use in Wikipedia discussions. There are not democratic votes here. There are sometimes straw polls, and they should probably never be called "votes". --Samuel Wantman 11:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This might be a good move. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a strong view at the moment as to the merge, but I strongly agree that it is important to distinguish between the words "poll" and "vote", which emphatically do not have the same meaning. By the same token, and by analogy with the real world, what most people would call "a democratic vote" does not necessarily have to be a decided in favour of a simple majority, as I think you're suggesting (apologies if that's not the case). Numerous poliical systems (including, I believe, the United Kingdom and the United States) regularly hold important elections in which the winner may not have necessarily received the most votes, and a super-majority requirement is quite common when seeking the endorsement of e.g. treaties, constitutional changes, etc etc. Badgerpatrol 16:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No matter the percentage, I don't think we want to encourage a culture of "voting" at wikipedia. Even at the xFDs the word "vote" is destructive to the process. The word "poll" can go both ways, so I think we should only talk about "straw polls" and "testing for consensus". The issue is creating a culture here that makes these distinctions clear. Perhaps this page should be called "Vote" is a word that should not be used in discussions. -- Samuel Wantman 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking before a merge with Wikipedia:Straw polls might be good, but I can see how this would work with Wikipedia:Consensus. It would help avoid instructions creep and possible confusion by minimizing the number of guidelines we have. Also, placing this same advice under a different title will definitely make people less defensive about it. -- Ned Scott 22:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WTF? You're kidding me? Kim Bruning 22:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean there... why would a guideline merge be a bad thing? --tjstrf talk 22:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Quick thoughts on the Arb Comm quote

A few quick thoughts on the Arb Comm quote:

Straw polls and voting are used in a number of situations. There is a tradition which discourages excessive voting, but no actual policy. Polls may be used when appropriate to gauge opinion.

I am inclined to include it in a "See also" section at the bottom, but not to quote it directly, for the following reasons:

1. I think the proposal as written accurately reflects the substance of the quote - if not, let's discuss changes to the proposal;
2. The statement that there is "no actual policy" that discourages excessive voting was accurate when made, but the policy may change. I don't want to freeze the normal development of policy and guideline by relying on Arb Comm excessively;
3. IMHO, something along the lines of "See also the December 2, 2006 decision of the Arbitration Committee relating in part to polls and voting" at the bottom of the page would be appropriate.

Thoughts? Thanks, TheronJ 16:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• To my knowledge, no policy or guideline uses ArbCom quotes. Since the ArbCom doesn't create policy, neither is that appropriate. Note that the same ArbCom case contains this finding: "[someone] fundamentally misunderstands how Wikipedia treats policy, and how it is created. He has stated ... that Wikipedia resolves discussions through the use of voting." Note also that the statement that there is no actual policy discouraging voting is technically incorrect ([4]). (Radiant) 17:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting this, but I am only going to do it once, and let people draw their own conclusions from what happens next. It seems to me that there is a conflict between what the ArbComm says and what you say, that needs to be resolved before this page can even be considered as anything more than an essay. It may be true that the ArbComm does not make policy, but they do have to determine what the policy is before they decide a case based on the policy, and therefore I think that an ArbComm statement of a principle should be a pretty good indication of what the policy is. If this is not the case, then the Wikipedia policy process is in even worse shape than I thought. 6SJ7 18:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• If you must have a quote, please give the whole quote, including the part that says that it is a fundamental misunderstanding to believe that Wikipedia resolves discussions through the use of voting. As to the difference between the ArbCom finding and what I say, all you have to do is look at WP:NOT, which is a policy that discourages voting. (Radiant) 18:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• 6SJ7, what is the conflict that you see between the current version of DDV (other than the name) and the Arb Comm quote? Thanks, TheronJ 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Evidently Radiant sees the conflict, or at least part of it. I think he should take it up with the ArbComm, not try to turn something into a guideline or policy that is in conflict with an ArbComm decision. That could only result in confusion. By the way, why do you guys insist on using bullets on talk pages instead of just indenting? 6SJ7 22:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• By the way, I said I was only going to revert once, and I meant it, so the page may have been protected, but it's not protected from me. 6SJ7 22:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Given that ArbCom does not set policy, a quote from that one case doesn't merit inclusion in this page that said, I'd say that it does merit a link from the "see also" section. (→Netscott) 22:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only does ArbCom not set policy, they are human and they make mistakes. "turn something into a guideline or policy that is in conflict with an ArbComm decision" is a moot point when there's already policy that is in conflict with an ArbCom statement. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I see no conflict. The ArbCom said that (1) Wikipedia has a long-standing tradition against voting, (2) that voting can be used in certain circumstances (which this page accurately describes) and (3) that it is a fundamental misunderstanding to believe that Wikipedia resolves discussions through the use of voting. People have in the past omitted the third when citing this case. The reason I object to the quote on the page is not because of conflict, but because no policy or guideline has ArbCom quotes on it and the ArbCom does not set policy. (Radiant) 17:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Then I would ask why Radiant! did this. He recently replaced the entire content of WP:CHILD with quotations from the findings of the Arbitration Committee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. John254 20:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, I have explained why principles of Arbitration Committee cases are policy on Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#To_what_extent_is_.22Wikipedia..._not_a_democracy.22.3F. John254 04:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • You have given your opinion, but I haven't seen any actual wikipedia policy backing that up. What makes you think that arbcom cases automatically set policy? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Considering that past Arb Comm decisions aren't even binding on Arb Comm, I think it's fair to say that they're not necessarily policy in all cases. It's certainly interesting on this issue, however, which is why I would like to keep it in the "See also" section. TheronJ 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• WP:CHILD is an unrelated issue and discussed on its talk page. The intent there is to create a new guideline, and 6SJ7 and I decided to use common ground as a basis. Note that I have not linked that page to the Arb case, nor have I said that "it's policy because the ArbCom says so". However, it is certainly not harmful if some individual uses ArbCom findings to guide his actions; such a person should note that the ArbCom found that it is a fundamental misunderstanding to believe that Wikipedia resolves discussions through the use of voting. (Radiant) 15:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And how does Wikipedia resolve issues? Through endless discussion? From what I can see, most issues where discussion is the sole means of resolution are never resolved, and when they seem to be resolved, someone(s) new comes along and the resolution is undone. In terms of content issues, the number of perennial, intractable issues seems to be growing, not shrinking. Polling is probably of limited usefulness on many of those issues, as the "truth" cannot necessarily be determined by a vote, and voting on such things as whether a statement is NPOV is often a competition between opposing POV's. However, on policy issues, there has to be an end at some point. Ultimately this cannot be a successful project with policies changing every few hours when someone decides to edit a policy page. This proposed policy, and this discussion, does not address that problem, and for that reason I think it misses the point. 6SJ7 15:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed this page does not address the issue that our policies are ever-changing, first because that's a fundamental matter and beyond the scope of this page, and second because not everybody agrees that it's a problem in the first place. A recent attempt to make policy pages less "volatile" did not get sufficient support. (Radiant) 15:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

6SJ7 has the actual procedure down pat. In fact, it's policy: Wikipedia:Consensus can change. Tada!

Welcome to wikipedia. I know it takes a little while to get used to how we do things, but we have been terribly effective up till today. Before you try to fix the proverbial system that ain't broke, please consider how the working system is operating today. :-)

-- Kim Bruning 18:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I have been on Wikipedia for more than a year, although my rate of contributions has not been tremendously great. I do still consider myself to be "fairly new" in some ways, but part of that is because the ground rules constantly seem to be changing and it is impossible to keep up without dedicating much more time than I have available for this. I do not think it has anything to do with "consensus changing," because what Wikipedia calls "consensus" really isn't. I would explain that last comment if I had time to write several hundred words at the moment, but I do not. I also think we have different opinions about how well the system is working. I think it probably works better for people who have decided to devote a tremendous amount of their time to it, than for the people who don't or can't (like me.) I also think that the "policy set" that existed, say, six months ago, was on the whole, better than what exists today. As for trying to document the effectiveness of Wikipedia policy by pointing to a page that counts words and articles -- that's a joke, right? 6SJ7 19:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on wikipedia actually is consensus. The way the foundations are set up (M:Foundation Issues, Mediawiki), no matter what people think they're doing, when (inevitably) their precious nomiced procedures come crashing down around them, you can at least dig them back out using the real thing. :-) Kim Bruning 01:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been around Wikipedia long enough to realize that there is a certain philosophy driving the actions of certain people who have been around longer than I have, obviously including you, Radiant and others. I will admit that I probably do not fully understand the philosophy. More to the point, I do not think that this philosophy is essential to the collaborative writing of an encyclopedia, and I have seen numerous examples of where it has been a hindrance. I also know that there are numerous others who share my sense of skepticism. What I have not yet decided is whether I agree that your philosophy is so fundamental to Wikipedia that I need to leave, or to absent myself from further policy discussions and just concentrate on editing articles and hope that the state of near-anarchy does not interfere with this too much, or to see if there is some room for compromise that does not currently seem apparent. Finally, I cannot let the comments about "what people think they're doing" and "their precious nomiced procedures" pass by without noting that if you are trying to present an attitude of superiority, you have certainly succeeded. If nothing else, I have learned a new word today (nomiced), though I doubt it is actually a word. 6SJ7 21:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we got this far by actually using consensus. The entire collaborative writing of an encyclopedia is an exercise in consensus. Consider the basic premise: When there isn't pure consensus on the content of a page, someone changes it.

Some people apply consensus on a wider scale. In the spirit of the KISS principle, since we're already using consensus, why add additional decision making layers on top? Just write the encyclopedia, and seek compromise where nescessary. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an anarchy, fortunately.

Finally, I'm not trying to present an air of superiority (so please assume good faith), I just feel very very strange when people explain to me that the methods used to get here actually cannot possibly work. Originally when we started, people said "wikipedia cannot possibly work using these methods", but it did! And we think we know why too, because we stole the best ideas on online philosophy from some of the smartest people alive today! <grin>

But still, it's a very strange feeling to be told that you didn't do what you actually did, and I'm sure some of that strangeness and frustration is rubbing off on my everyday writing. If so, I apologise for that, but please try to understand why I feel this way. :-/ Kim Bruning 18:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC) (Note: the validity of the word "nomiced" depends on whether you are a prescriptivist opposed to the verbing of nouns, or whether you are a descriptivist. As an idle speculation, a predisposition towards one of these approaches or the other might also carry over to ones position on how wikipedia should be or is managed, respectively.)

Should Template:Proposed include an anti-voting statement?

The status of the anti-voting statement on this template is presently being discussed on Template talk:Proposed. John254 04:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Specifically, the point of this statement is to clarify that proposals are not enacted by majority vote, or by vote counting. It is not uncommon for novice users to assume that Wikipedia is like parliament and that one should make a motion and call a vote on that. Needless to say that doesn't actually work this way. (Radiant) 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, proposals have frequently been enacted as a result of supermajority consensus indicated through votes -- for a few examples, see Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote, Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/G4, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/10, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/11, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/13, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Blatant copyvio material, Expansion of CSD A7, Wikipedia:Blocking_policy_proposal#Vote_.2895-125-11.29, and Wikipedia_talk:Semi-protection_policy/Archive_3#Semi-protection_proposal_v.02_straw_poll. John254 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, we know that you regularly make that claim (although I wonder why you keep citing those parts of WP:CSD/P separately). As has been repeatedly pointed out, this is not "frequently", and neither is it recommended for future action. (Radiant) 15:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

When I was an admin (I've done my year, now someone else can do it ;-), I have always maintained that since these guidelines were merely checked by majority vote, they are not policy, and therefore I could ignore them with impunity. This is not an application of ignore all rules, since I do not believe these to be rules.

In one particular case I had a conflict with a small number of members of the categories for speedy deletion and deletion review communities, where finally my position was enforced by stewards. I have never had any request for comments or request for arbitration brought against me at any time (knock on wood).

As to why they are not policy, as evidenced by my never getting into official trouble for ignoring them (and not for want of trying ;-) ... well, that's something for you to think about :-)

--Kim Bruning 18:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the policies enacted through voting are policy, despite entirely unreferenced claims to the contrary. The POV that "neither is... (voting) recommended" on future policy proposals should not be asserted in the text of template:proposed, since this template is not intended to be used for the purpose of propaganda. John254 16:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course those policies are policy. But that we have in some rare cases voted on policy in the past does not imply we should vote on guideline proposals in the future. As has been pointed out before, on Wikipedia you can cite precedent for just about anything up to and including deleting WP:AFD - thus, citing precedent really doesn't prove anything. (Radiant) 17:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

How on earth can I reference something that is not? It'd be rather tricky to reference the non-existence of unicorns too (unless they happen to be invisible and pink, but that's an exception that proves the rule). Instead, you will find that there is no arbitration committee decision in favor. There has been enforcement contrary to your claim however, see the entire history of the GNAA article and all related pages on the diverse afd/drv/csd/talk/user talk/etc, including page histories of redirected and/or deleted pages. (you may need admin rights to view all of it). Kim Bruning 18:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not merely citing precedent, but standing precedent, in the form of voting having been used to enact policies that are still valid today. Ed Poor's unilateral deletion of WP:VFD was quickly overturned (and was a factor contributing to his eventual desysopping), so it is hardly "standing precedent", nor does it constitute proof that standing precedent cannot be relied upon. John254 17:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• You will note, however, that most policies have in fact not been enacted through voting on them, so standing precedent indicates that in general we don't vote on policy. While some parts of CSD have been voted upon, others have not been; this indicates that those changes enacted by vote could also have been enacted without vote. (Radiant) 18:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh gosh, VFD, what a mess. This is something that really should have been deleted by Jimbo Wales, when he still had the chance. I've been pushing for replacing and obsoleting it, but movement on that is slower than molasses on a cold day. If Ed Poor had done the deletion a year earlier, he'd probably still be around. It's something to do with self-defeating tendencies in certain communities. I'm not sure if en.wikipedia is salvagable on the long term. Kim Bruning 18:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Kim, in your discussion with me, you said Wikipedia is doing great. Now I see you saying you are not sure if it is salvageable "on the long term", whatever you mean by "long term". How do these two thoughts fit together? 6SJ7 06:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

They fit together consistently :-) While wikipedia has been fairly successful up till now, certain areas on wikipedia are basically starting to run out of control. Co-incidentally, those are all areas that tend more towards the polling model, rather than consensus.

Correlation does not make causation, however. I suspect (and may have hinted earlier) that one or more additional factors might be in play.

One factor is likely that many people haven't been educated on how to work in a consensus system, and now people are joining at a faster rate than that they can be educated (or encultured, as JamesF puts it).

Another factor is likely that certain systems on wikipedia simply don't scale to such large population sizes. For instance, Articles for deletion was designed on the assumption that every wikipedian would be able to verify every page, if they so desired.

Enculturement problems and scaling problems have been encountered in many web communities, and are not unique to wikipedia. That we are able to deal with them at all is a quantum leap as far as governance of an open online community is concerned, however, we are not able to deal with them optimally. I am somewhat worried that en.wikipedia will self destruct unless adequate measures are taken.

The de.wikipedia community has had slightly less trouble, in part perhaps because (scary to say, but true) modern german society has learned several lessons about authority and democracy that other societies haven't, and they've taken their experience onto wikipedia as well. We're already paying more attention to how they have been organising their system.

Kim Bruning 12:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

John254, if you'll forgive my noting it, your use of "anti-voting" in the header here is such an ugly and bluntly-prejudicial term. It rather flags up to people your happiness for us to devolve into black-and-white monoaxial set-piece arguments and battles rather than discussions and progress, and saddens me somewhat. Of course we use polling* at times, and, when consensus* finds it suitable*, choses to make such a poll* into a binding* vote*, yes, but that doesn't mean that such a course of action is necessarily the best, or even a good, course to take. (Asterisked items are terms of art with very specific meanings that differ betwixt different enculturement levels of Wiki{p|m}edians, so we may read my own lines in entirely different ways, sadly.)

James F. (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

How is "anti-voting" any different from the statement "don't vote" which is part of the title of this page? 6SJ7 06:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds emotionally laden. (Radiant) 11:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

While voting has been used in the past to create guidelines and policies, that doesn't stop wikipedia from discouraging it. And WP certainly does, look at WP:POLICY as well as Wikipedia:How to create policy, both of which do just that. Discouraging voting isn't "propaganda", it's simply a restatement of what is said in a number of WP policies and guidelines. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Woah, people, people...

How long has the discussion on wether this is policy, guideline, essay, propoganda, or whatever else, been going on? This is insane. Why not just get rid of the page entirley? Let Wikipedians decide for themselves if discussing is better than voting. All this arguing and discussing has gotten us nowhere but a disputed tag. Some Wikipedians find polls good because they allow people to openley discuss their opinions on why they voted Support or Oppose in a formal manner. Others think it is foolish and doesn't follow Wikipedia policy. Why try to tell them what to think, and sit here on a talk page arguing about it for months? Mankind didn't evolve so they could argue over and tell each other what's right and wrong.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 06:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them". Nobody's telling anybody what to think. (Radiant) 11:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedians have decided that discussing is better than voting. It is already mentioned in a number of policies and guidelines. While some may not like this page, the concept of preferring discussion and discouraging voting has been WP policy for a long time and unlikely to change any time soon. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedians have decided that discussing is better than voting." If that was true, then this discussion wouldn't be going on. =/ Just leave the page the way it is (or get rid of it, or whatever else) and let people decide for themselves. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it isn't a monarchy either. Imagine people getting blocked for using straw polls. It isn't really a big deal anyway. From what I can see, the groups of pro-voters and non-voters are fairly even, so what harm does it do? If you see a poll going on, how does it harm you or Wikipedia? Just ignore it and get on with your own buisness (which is the same thing everyone should do with this argument).--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 22:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say all wikipedians agree, but that is definitely the consensus and has been for a long time. Even if this page was deleted, "letting people decide for themselves" isn't really an option (unless you want to remove the bits discouraging voting from all WP policies and guidelines, good luck with that). Polling isn't forbidden, it's just discouraged. And the alternative to voting isn't "monarchy", it's consensus. As someone else said, democracy is "quantity" while wp's consensus is "quality". --Milo H Minderbinder 14:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Dude, I think you are missing the point. People look at Wikipedia pages because they want to understand how things work around here. Most people come to this project with the expectation that we make decisions using a democratic voting process. Those of us who've been around a while understand that it isn't the case. If we don't put some effort into educating people about how this project works it will eventually be run by voting. Maintaining a consensus based system takes effort. We cannot just ignore people's misconceptions. -- Samuel Wantman 01:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

When the day comes that Wikipedia is run on a democratic voting system because a bunch of noobs can't take 5 minutes to read, I will personally kiss your ass. I scincerley doubt that newbies who come to Wikipedia thinking that still think it after a month or 2. Voting is used on Wikipedia, because certain people find it easier to look at a poll and all the oppinions of the voters than to sit and discuss. Others would rather discuss because they think it's easier to understand people's opinions that way. Who cares? Either way, consenseus is reaced, so how it is reached shouldn't be a factor.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 06:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, but polling and discussions aren't the problem we're talking about, voting is. There are people who think we decide things by voting and those that misunderstand polls to be democratic votes. We write pages like this so that we can make a link to this page when people think that majority rules. It is easier to make a link than rehash this every time it comes up. -- Samuel Wantman 07:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Koji - some people do think this after a month or two, as evidenced by the people who thought the rejected proposal WP:DAV (see debate here) was an accurate description of how Wikipedia works. That should be an indication of why this page is useful. (Radiant) 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Question for NetScott

NetScott, could you lay out your objections to promoting DDV to guideline and whether you think that it's possible to resolve those objections? Thanks, TheronJ 16:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The title is wrong and frankly the concept is fundamentally flawed... I've used voting very frequently on Wikipedia and it has been very useful. (→Netscott) 16:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Also I don't see any "converts" to the idea that this needs to be a guideline... there's been a healthy opposition to this for some time. (→Netscott) 16:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You probably haven't been using voting, but polling (since the result comes from comments and not the number of people taking each position). And if you've been doing it "very frequently", you're probably not following WP policies and guidelines (such as WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY and Wikipedia:Consensus, also see [5]). If the title is "wrong" what do you suggest as a better alternative?

While I support this article and think it is at least a guideline, if not policy, I'm curious why we just don't have a copy of Polls are evil - it looks like there was one at one point (and WP seems to have quite a few links to the copy on meta), why did it change to this? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Because what's on meta is an essay (rightly so) and when Radiant! brought that essay over to en. he did so without ever having sought consensus as to whether or not it should be a guideline. Hello? en. ≠ meta. the least he could have done was to seek consensus for such a change of status instead of trying to instantly upgrade it to guideline. That is bad. en.Wiki works on consensus... particularly when it comes to policy/guideline status and upgrading essays. Polling (and in effect the voting that goes along with that) can be very effective as a tool on Wikipedia. The title should be, "Discuss first, poll if necessary last" or something to that effect. (→Netscott) 16:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How about "Discuss first, then poll only if necessary"? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC) - renaming thread is above. (Radiant) 17:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've already pointed out that reasoning is fallacious. Meta doesn't have guidelines; the "essay" tag on meta was copied from the one on enwiki. This tag was added a long time after the page was written. And since en != meta, what tag it has on meta is entirely irrelevant here. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "status" of pages and "upgrading" thereof. Wikipedia has a long-standing tradition to discourage voting; the meta page correctly states it is an important and often-referenced page. That's precisely what a "guideline" means. Polls are sometimes effective but frequently either unhelpful or disastrous (see earlier on the page). That's why we don't forbid them, but discourage them. (Radiant) 17:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Radiant! the fact remains that you did not seek consensus to tag this essay as a guideline prior to doing so... that is bad. (→Netscott) 17:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• That is not true. We've been discussing this matter for months now, it has been advertised on the village pump, and it's been rewritten from scratch and reworded several times to address the objections. (Radiant) 22:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• What is true is that when you brought that essay over to en.Wiki you simultaneously tagged it as as guideline and without even so much as seeking a consensus to do so... that is bad. (→Netscott) 07:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That was a year ago; this page has been rewritten from scratch since then. Note that guidelines are, and have always been, descriptive rather than prescriptive. Any good descriptive page is therefore a guideline, regardless of whether it's here or on meta. (Radiant) 09:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• But there still isn't a consensus. By your own standards, as seen on the "protecting children's privacy" page, this would have been stamped "Rejected" already. 6SJ7 22:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid the ad hominem fallacy. Radiant! may be doing most of the heavy lifting here, but this page enjoys wide support as a guideline. In fact, for my part I'd say there always has been a broad consensus on the basic concept, as borne out by the countless times you see Wikipedians pointing each other to DDV or VIE. -- Visviva 01:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• 6SJ7, the difference is that WP:CHILD was a proposal to change the way things work, whereas this is a documentation of the way things already work. (Radiant) 09:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If I'd ever noticed that vote, I would have objected strenuously. Judging from the subsequent discussions, it does not seem that the results were especially helpful, or that this is the sort of dispute that is likely to be "resolved" in any zero-sum way. The amount of incivility on that page is certainly instructive, in terms of the need for a DDV guideline. -- Visviva 01:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Retracting somewhat; I wasn't involved, and clearly this issue was one of nearly unprecedented controversiality. Still, can't say I see how that or any vote actually helped very much. -- Visviva 01:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Netscott, FWIW, I've withdrawn my objections to promotion to guideline. I found that when I took a hard look at the proposal and thought about what changes I thought were necessary (1) there weren't as many as I thought and (2) Radiant! was very willing to work with me on the changes. If the name changed, would you still object? If so, why? Thanks, TheronJ 17:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• What benefit does making this essay a guideline impart? It is essentially just a rewrite of meta:Voting is evil which is already heavily cited. Why this need for duplication? (→Netscott) 07:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The benefit is that novice users frequently believe that Wikipedia works by majority voting, when in fact it does not. But you're asking the wrong question here. We're not "making essays into guidelines" because that isn't how Wikipedia works. A guideline is a description of common practice (see WP:PPP). This page is a description of common practice (indeed, please point out any sentence in it that isn't actually true). So what benefit is there in not saying so? (Radiant) 09:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• I propose a compromise: If WP:STRAW is brought up to guideline status simultaneously relative to this essay then I will cease my protests over guideline tagging here. I suspect all of the others who are contesting the guideline status of this essay will agree to this as well. (→Netscott) 10:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I note you haven't answered my questions. I must also point out that WP:STRAW is not an accurate description of current practice, while this page is. I think the problem is that you're seeing guidelines as prescriptive rules, whereas they are intended as descriptions of what already happens. That is precisely why we don't have a formal procedure for creating guidelines. The page doesn't make the guideline; the common practice makes the guideline, and we base the page on that; the other way around doesn't work on a wiki. (Radiant) 12:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • As I have said before, I think there should be one page that explains to people what the decision-making procedures are on Wikipedia, not competing pages such as this one and WP:STRAW, and perhaps there are others, I don't know. (When I say one page, there can be different pages on different aspects of the topic such as policy-making, article-text decisions, AfD, RM, RfA, etc. etc., just not different articles that seek to cover the same topic as this one and WP:STRAW do.) Based on the discussion here and there, I suspect there might be some difficulty gaining a consensus as to what the page should say, but maybe that's the point. It would clearly highlight the fact that there is a real dispute over how decisions should be made on Wikipedia, rather than the false consensus that this page reflects. And by the way, if guidelines (and policies) really are just descriptions of common practice, then they shouldn't be called guidelines (or policies), because that is not what they are. Guidelines and policies are prescriptive by their very nature. If Wikipedia is using those terms to mean something other than what they mean in the rest of the English language, I think new terms are required. 6SJ7 21:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Guidelines are statements of "we usually do things this way". As the tag states, they should be treated with common sense and not be considered binding in all cases. By the very nature of a wiki, we cannot prescript behavior, because we're not a bureaucracy and do not want people to have to learn "the rules" before editing (indeed, we even have a policy against that). But I note you're not actually giving any arguments against this page - rather, you are proposing that the entire guideline/policy system needs an overhaul (note that many guidelines are overlapping or show issues from different angles; that is not generally a problem). While I tend to agree that it needs work, that is something to discuss elsewhere and has nothing to do with this particular guideline. >Radiant< 09:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy

So, one more time - is there any statement on the DDV page that isn't accurate? >Radiant< 09:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There may be quite a few statements that aren't factually accurate. The most significant problem with this essay, however, is that it gives undue weight to arguments against voting, and adopts a tone that deprecates the existence and importance of voting where it clearly occurs on Wikipedia, as in the resolution of Arbitration Committee cases, almost all requests for adminship, and the many votes that have been used to demonstrate consensus to enact policy and other proposals, such as Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote, Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/G4, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/10, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/11, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/13, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Blatant copyvio material, Expansion of CSD A7, Wikipedia:Blocking_policy_proposal#Vote_.2895-125-11.29, and Wikipedia_talk:Semi-protection_policy/Archive_3#Semi-protection_proposal_v.02_straw_poll. This page has repeatedly failed to achieve consensus for guideline status despite numerous attempts to enact it as such. John254 20:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's see. Arbitration cases are special because there is a limited and set number of ArbCom members, all of which are expected to participate in a case unless they have recused themselves. RfAs, RfBs, ArbCom elections, Steward elections and Board elections are all cases of determining which editors will fill specific roles. These are all situations that are quite different from describing policies and guidelines. Even in XfDs we have been moving away from counting votes and towards weighing policy-based arguments. What may have happened a couple of years ago may not be relevant now. -- Donald Albury 04:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom, RfA, and the policy votes are already included on the page. If there is something wrong with how they are described, please explain. -- Visviva 05:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Also, there is no such thing as "guideline status" and neither are guidelines "enacted". Wikipedia is not a legalistic system; it is not possible to change people's behavior by legislating against what they presently do (please think about that statement; it really doesn't work that way). Thus this is not, and has never been, a legislative proposal. >Radiant< 10:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Many of these votes on policy and other proposals are far more recent than "a couple of years ago": Wikipedia:Blocking_policy_proposal#Vote_.2895-125-11.29, particularly, occurred a mere seven months ago -- which is not a particularly long period of time, considering the fact that such major changes to policies and the MediaWiki software are relatively infrequent. Note that "weighing policy-based arguments" is not incompatible with closure of XfDs in a manner consistent with supermajority consensus (considering only votes by established users), if we assume (as WP:AGF seems to require) that most established users are "weighing policy-based arguments" in formulating the tenor of their votes, rather than merely casting votes based on their personal preferences as applied to the pages in question. Indeed, what "non-voting" closure of XfDs by "weighing policy-based arguments" seems to mean in practice is that one administrator closes an XfD on the basis of his/her personal analysis of the page in question, Wikipedia policy, and relevant arguments. However, we might ask: why is the analysis of the closing administrator considered to be more accurate than the collective weight of the individual analyses of each voter in the XfD, who, generally, would likewise have considered the page in question, Wikipedia policy, and relevant arguments? Do we assume that administrators are inherently more qualified to decide the question than any other users? And, even if so, what of the situation in which many of the established users voting in the XfD are administrators? Can the closing administrator really assume that his/her analysis is more correct than the analyses of any other administrators who voted in the XfD? Furthermore, in practical terms, shouldn't a vote count, at least of administrative votes, be considered in the closure of an XfD, to avoid starting a wheel war over a deletion with which most administrators would disagree? John254 05:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• If you wish to change the way our deletion process works, feel free to draw up a proposal for that. Indeed, the analysis of the closing admin can and does make a difference. In general admins are neutral in that aspect; the few that are not can be taken to RFC, and of course we have DRV to contest the closure. >Radiant< 10:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

An essay can be composed of 100% accurate statements (ie: meta:Don't be a dick) and still not need status as a guideline or policy. I don't see the need for DDV to be either myself. Nothing so far has convinced me otherwise. (→Netscott) 05:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Once more you misunderstand how guidelines work. Nothing "needs" to be anything. Guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive, so an accurate description of how things work is by very definition a guideline. If we are agreed that a page is accurate, we would be misinforming users by tagging it as "this is just some random user's opinion" (e.g. essay). WP:DICK is basically restating WP:CIV and WP:POINT albeit in some less friendly terms, so could well be thought of as a guideline (indeed, nobody is arguing that people should be dicks, right?) It's important to remember that it's not the tag that makes something a guideline. It is common practice that makes something a guideline, and we use tags to reflect that. >Radiant< 10:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I favor {{Descriptive}}, but it seems to be out of favor. Perhaps {{Lessons of bitter experience}}? -- Visviva 05:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and the high stakes vote-like nature of XfD is one of the key reasons why it is so disruptive and toxic to the community. -- Visviva 05:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Descriptive" = guideline. "Lessons of bitter experience" = guideline. There has not been a good reason so far for making the classification more complex than that. >Radiant< 10:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

John, it seems like you're out of touch with how WP works. On an AfD, a handful of views with logical arguments based in policy will beat out a larger number of "I just don't like it" statements. And this is supposed to give weight to the notion that voting is bad, that's the consensus view that wikipedia takes. Guidelines (or whatever this is or may be) aren't supposed to give equal weight to both sides, they talk about the POV that WP takes in regard to a policy issue. Verifiability is good. Personal attacks are bad. That's not giving "undue weight" to "no personal attacks", that's just the position WP holds. And this article doesn't say that voting is never used, just that it is a last resort and should generally be avoided. If there are genuine factual inaccuracies in this article, go ahead and fix them.

As for the title, which doesn't seem to have agreement, what about calling this article "Not a Democracy" (which is already wikipedia policy, so there should be no debate whether it's actually reflective of how WP works)? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The title "NOT a democracy" doesn't make sense. That would be further confusing to newbies coming to this essay in that it would tend to lend credence to this essay as though it had been what lead to the WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY aspect of NOT policy which obviously is false. (→Netscott) 14:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think WP:NOT is over-used already as it is. As I have said before, there should be one page called something like "How decisions are made on Wikipedia" and it should incorporate the consensus "guideline" elements from this page, WP:STRAW and any other relevant pages about the general decision-making process. (Issues concerning specific procedures would be left on their own pages.) If there are inconsistences between this page and WP:STRAW they need to first be reconciled. Until then, this is an essay. I also agree with the other comments by Netscott and John254. I will also repeat my previous comment that if guidelines are merely descriptive, then Wikipedia is using the word "guideline" contrary to how it is used in the English language. As for the statement "it is not possible to change people's behavior by legislating against what they presently do", it is so ridiculous that I hardly know where to begin. There are "legislated" rules on Wikipedia, they are enforced every day, and Wikipedia would not survive without them. Start with one of the core principles, NPOV: It is difficult to say that there is a "consensus" for this, given the frequency with which it is violated, and yet it is in place, and must be in place. The very idea that many actions should be taken only with "consensus" is, itself, "legislated" in a sense. 6SJ7 15:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• You once more mistake discouraging something with forbidding it. Also, the statement that this page "is an essay until discrepancies between this and another essay are reconciled" doesn't make a lot of sense logically. You want the policy/guideline structure to reorganize; I agree, there are good reasons for doing so. However, pages stand on their own, and a pending or proposed reorganization has no bearing on whether or not any individual page is a guideline. >Radiant< 23:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• I would agree that some pages stand on their own. I do not agree that this page stands on its own. As a guideline or policy, it is incomplete. 6SJ7 00:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, at least we appear to be in agreement that the page is accurate (at least, I haven't seen objections to the page's content for a long time). Pigeonholing it under what some consider "status" isn't nearly as important as having an accurate page. >Radiant< 09:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A thought experiment

• To answer those people who believe guidelines are prescriptive, let me propose the following thought experiment. I really have trouble understanding the point of view that it is even possible for guidelines to be prescriptive. Suppose that for whatever reason, we have some kind of new precription and get it marked "guideline". Now the first problem is communicating this new legislation to people. Wikipedia does not in fact have an effective way of reaching its editors. We tried our best to advertise the ArbCom elections, and got a couple hundred votes. Yet with a member roster of over a million, not counting IP addresses but including various sockpuppets, it would be a conservative count to say that Wikipedia has about 100,000 editors - and we reached hundreds of those. Second, we need to persuade those people to follow the new prescription. Since we're all volunteers here, it's quite unclear how we would manage that. So we're left with the third, enforcement. The only feasible enforcement Wikipedia has (beyond telling people to stop) is blocking. So would you think it feasible to block all people breaking the latest prescription? Would the current set of admins comply, or unblock? Would the blocking actually help the encyclopedia? Wouldn't WP:IAR interfere with blocking people who did nothing but break legislation?
• In other words, if you seriously believe guidelines can be and should be prescriptive, please explain to me how on earth you expect that to possibly work, considering we have no way to (1) inform users, (2) persuade users, and (3) enforce it on users. Challenge your assumptions. >Radiant< 23:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It does. But IAR is completely contradictory to our pillars and to how we do things anyway. As it stands, we typically warn people who aren't aware of things before blocking them, so doing so would not be out of line, but nothing would be listed a guideline without some serious discussion anyway (nothing should be, that is - I know you don't think so), so it would theoretically be hard for the majority of busy editors to miss out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • IAR, however, is official policy instated by Jimbo. That basically means that if you don't like it, forking is your only recourse. >Radiant< 00:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
      • It's official policy, but it doesn't work in practice. Jimbo either isn't aware of it, or remains ignorant of it. What IAR is in reality doesn't change, regardless of his statements on the matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We have ways to do all three. They've never been a problem before, it wouldn't be a problem later. Simply make an effort to gain widespread consensus before implementing a guideline, and make sure the things you believe are descriptive are actually descriptive. If that's done - massive advertising of the discussion, demonstration of consensus and community acceptance - you won't run into problems. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If we do have means to do all three (for guidelines, not for policy), please point them out? Also, as above, please point out any part of this guideline that isn't a valid description. >Radiant< 00:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I already have. As for this specific guideline, we have plenty of places we vote. ArbCom elections are one of the more recent examples. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
        • And of course this page explains exactly that. The fact that we sometimes do vote does not in any way contradict the fact that we usually don't. >Radiant< 00:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Yup. Reading the page is exactly how I got to this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Radiant, if you are referring to me as being one who said "guidelines are descriptive" (and I think you are based on the note on my talk page), that is not what I said. I said what I said, not what you choose to twist it into. My point is that the words "guideline" and "policy" are sometimes misused on Wikipedia, and this case is an example. 6SJ7 00:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Note

After the ArbCom said that Wikipedia has a long-standing tradition against excessive voting, and that it's a fundamental misunderstanding to say that Wikipedia does resolve discussion through voting, Jimbo Wales is now also speaking up against voting, calling a vote "bogus" and "meaningless", and stating that "We don't get to better policy by having extremists digging in their heels and voting. We get to a better policy by discussion and compromise, looking for common ground, etc". [6] [7] [8]. >Radiant< 12:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This talk page addition seems a bit irrelevant... Jimbo's talking about, "actually this IS a meaningless poll", "Please note that this is a meaningless vote", and, "The poll is entirely bogus to start with". Also the line, "We don't get to better policy by having extremists digging in their heels and voting." is nothing new as policies have never come about from voting. (→Netscott) 12:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That, and we probably should avoid taking the line that "Jimbo's word is law" if can help it. (I'm sure he'd like to be "just another editor" if we gave him a chance! ) On the other hand, quoting The Jimbo might have more of an impact on newbies. That and Netscott's note about the context is keeping me a little unsure about this little addition to this perfectly-worded guideline. --DavidHOzAu 12:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Of course Jimbo's word isn't law, and don't think (nor have I proposed) that we should add his quote anywhere to the DDV page (for that matter, shouldn't we remove that arbcom quote for the same reason?) However, I should point out that while, as Netscott states, policies do not come from voting, for several people the main argument against DDV has been the belief that policy is (or should be) "enacted" through a vote. >Radiant< 12:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Agree basically with the Jimbo thing, but see m:Foundation issues #5. Apparently his word actually is law (who knew?), but I think it's better for all concerned if we don't lay undue emphasis on that.  :-) -- Visviva 13:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There is some irony that nobody has suggested on this talk page that we vote about the status of this page. If this page survives (and I think that is very likely), that means it has the tacit approval of the community. Tacit approval -- keeping something posted and not changing it -- is the foundation of the consensus process of a wiki. It is built into the technology. The technology does not require votes to make edits. If the page is an accurate description of how things work and it is stable (which it appears to be), then it has community consensus. Isn't that the definition of a guideline? -- Samuel Wantman 18:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

But if guidelines require consensus, this cannot be a guideline because there is no consensus to make it one, as reflected on this talk page. The problem is that each person who objects to it has their own reasons, so there really is no "solid" opposition, while the handful of people who are in favor of it being a guideline are so obsessed with it that they are going to get their way. So they will get their way, but that does not strike me as being a "consensus" based decision model. 6SJ7 23:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the only objections I'm seeing now is to the label "guideline". I'm not seeing discussion about the content. The content of the page is stable. Perhaps I'm missing something, and if so, please let me know if there still are content disagreements. I am having trouble understanding the concerns of those who agree with what the page says, but disagree on calling it a guideline. If we agree on the content of the page, it is a guideline. If we don't agree on the content of the page, let's keep working on it until we agree. -- Samuel Wantman 06:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You know what is a guideline? WP:EW. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• SJ, the point is that, since Wikipedia works by consensus, an explanation of how things work in practice is an explanation of how consensus made these things work. Actual practice is consensual, by definition, because if it wasn't consensual it wouldn't be actual practice. It is natural for a page that describes practice to attract people who don't like that practice. Indeed, if you look through this talk page, you'll note a lot of people agreeing in a short comment and leaving it be, and a few people arguing and debating at length about what they believe is wrong, and generally arguing from principles rather than from what the page actually says. The error lies in thinking a guideline is made by the "guideline" tag. It is not. A guideline is made by actual practice, and we use those tags to reflect that, for educational purposes. >Radiant< 13:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• I still see this page as essentially an unecessary duplication of m:Polling is evil. I don't see the need to have a competing (read: Forked) essay. The forked nature I describe is particularly evident given the origins of this page. (→Netscott) 15:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Pages on EN cannot duplicate pages on meta. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually they can; this argument is nothing but bureaucracy. Also, Meta doesn't have guidelines, so "it's not a guideline on meta" is a vacuous truth. For instance, see m:Be bold, m:Consensus and Wikipedia and m:External links. >Radiant< 17:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I belive we are in violent agreement. I was stating that the existance of a page on meta is irrelevent to en, and thus a page on en could not duplicate a page on meta regardless of how similar they are. I am saying it is impossible to duplicate, not that it is prohibited. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• • But of course, most people don't read meta. I would have no objection to moving "polling is evil" here and using that as a guideline; indeed, it's an important and oft-cited principle. But the need for this page was pointed out several times; in particular, as you claimed above, the line, "We don't get to better policy by having extremists digging in their heels and voting." is nothing new as policies have never come about from voting. BUT not everybody knows that!. How do you propose telling them, if not with a page such as this? >Radiant< 16:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Do like we've always done and just cite m:Polling is evil..... again... I see no particular need for forking that essay here and even less need for the forked version to be a guideline. (→Netscott) 17:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Because if you point people to an essay, they will think it is just some random editor's opinion and ignore it. >Radiant< 17:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• If it is an accurate description of how Wikipedia works, then what difference does it make whether people ignore it or not? If it is so accurate, then people are already doing it this way and don't need to read about it. 6SJ7 18:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Is this a statment that you agree this page accurately describes how things work? Would you mind addressing the question below? Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, part of the dispute is over the title of the page. You can't segregate that issue by pointing anyone who raises it to another part of this talk page. It is not up to any one person to say which objections "count" and which objections don't. It is up to the proponents of this page to get consensus as to a title before this can be anything more than an essay. 6SJ7 17:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Once again you misunderstand; please read my earlier explanation of how the tag does not make the guideline. There is no "hierarchy" of pages; this page has never been an essay (per WP:POL, if it's an opinion it's an essay, if it's actionable it's not) and there is no such thing as "promotion". If objections aren't based in logic and/or fact and supporting arguments are, the supporting arguments win. That's not "up to any one person", fact and logic are something everybody can see plainly. Indeed, objections such as "this page can't be a guideline because I want to change the way MFD works" do not count. Dislike of the status quo is not an argument against writing down the status quo. >Radiant< 17:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Truly, there's nothing actionable about this. It's a series of opinions that may be endorsed by a lot of people. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • False. Asking people to discuss and not to vote is actionable, because people can then take action to discuss instead of action to vote. >Radiant< 17:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it, or is it not?

Is there anyone who currently believes this page is NOT an accurate description of how Wikipedia works? Please don't discuss how this is the wrong way for it to work, but rather actually fails to describe how it does work. Please don't defend the page from the critiques here - I'm interested in hearing the rationale of the dissenters. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Pesonally I think this question of accuracy or not isn't relevant enough to warrant a tag about it. The tagging seems more reminiscent of editors trying to get a leg up in a content/tagging dispute. (→Netscott) 17:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Since you ask, I don't think the title is accurate. Otherwise, the page seems pretty close to describing current experiences and practices. TheronJ 18:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you propose a better title? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • As I've said above, my first choice would be the completely neutral "Surveys, polls, and voting", or something along those lines. (Cf. Wikipedia:Vandalism). Then the text could accurately describe the Wikipedia experience and practice with those procedures. (I think it mostly does that now.) If we must have a title that carries a prescriptive value, then I would go for "Discuss at leisure, vote with caution" or "Discuss always, vote rarely." TheronJ 18:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I am indifferent to the name of the page as long as redirects are preserved. As such, baring future objections, I will take appropriate action in conjunction with TheronJ to remove the only standing objection to this guideline. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
        • It still lacks consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Implicit in this page is the notion that the word "vote" is obfuscatory when used on a talk page. The title "Discuss, don't vote" conveys this. The reason I would want to link to this page is because I frequently see polling presnted under the banner of a "vote". Whenever that happens, a comment such as "discuss, don't vote" or "consensus is reached trough discussion" is sure to follow. The page should explicity say that the word "vote" will likely add confusion about the process and should be avoided. It is much better to call something a poll. If this point is made more explicit, I'd have no problem with changing the title. I've been part of discussions about the word "vote" in other organizations, and the common understanding that emerges is that even when we call something a vote, there is an underlying understanding that there is a consensus to abide with the results. So in those cases, majority or supermajority polls are part of the consensus process. A single person can always block consensus, even after the community has decided to accept the results of a poll. If an individual decides to block the results, they risk using up all or most of their political good will and thereby risk loosing the respect of the community. All of this applies to Wikipedia. I'm sure I don't have to explicity mention people who have used up the trust of the community this way. -- Samuel Wantman 20:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, a single person or small group of people cannot block consensus, they can only block unanimity. But WP:CON says consensus is not unanimity. >Radiant< 08:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed that concensus isn't necessarily unanimity, but as I read WP:CON, that distinction doesn't mean that a single editor or small group of editors can't block consensus in appropriate cases. TheronJ 14:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed, neither is consensus any particular percentage; what counts is the reasoning behind it. Facts and logic count, fallacies and vagueness don't. >Radiant< 14:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Factually and logically, we do vote. As this is merely a list of opinions based upon why some users believe we shouldn't vote, this is why it can't be a guideline. It's not actionable, it goes against other situations where we do vote. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
        • You'll notice that this page lists facts, not opinions. >Radiant< 14:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Now more than ever it is extremely clear that there is no consensus for this to be a guideline. It feels as though this discussion is running around in circles. Radiant! , John254 is right you've broken 3RR twice here (I wasn't aware of your first vio otherwise I wouldn't have agreed with SlimVirgin). User:Hipocrite violated 3RR as well. Shall the edit warring over this tagging come to a close with the very evident lack of consensus? (→Netscott) 14:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
            • You'll note the revert war (which incidentally included yourself as well) wasn't about a guideline tag, but about the statement that this page is factually accurate. We don't need to pigeonhole everything, we can simply state the facts. >Radiant< 14:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
              • This irrelevant "accuracy" tag is just an extension of the push for the guideline tagging. Trying to make a distinction is just flagrant pedantry. The addition of an "accuracy" tag like the guideline tag has no consensus either. (→Netscott) 15:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
                • No, there's an obvious difference. In times of disagreement, it's good to seek a compromise, or take a different angle. Since the words "guideline" and "essay" apparently have differing connotations to different users, it may be useful to use something else. But accuracy is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. What harm do you believe it could do to state that an accurate piece of text is an accurate piece of text? >Radiant< 15:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
                  • It may be an accurate opinion on how some users view proceedings here. But that's all it currently is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
                    • In case anyone cares, I agree with the comments of badlydrawnjeff and Netscott in this section, and of John254 and badlydrawnjeff in the following section. 6SJ7 18:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problems with this essay

1. Irrespective of its factual accuracy (or lack thereof), the essay presents circumstances under which voting concededly occurs on Wikipedia in an apologetic manner, and more or less argues that to the extent that decisions are actually made on the basis of vote counting, they shouldn't be. Consider, for example, the following paragraph, concerning voting by the Arbitration Committee:

The ArbCom follows a procedure of listing principles, findings of facts and remedies; individual arbiters discuss these issues and then provide either their assent or dissent. In general, findings which attract opposition are reworded to address that opposition, with the aim of reaching a consensus view among the arbitrators.

The term "vote", and all derivations thereof, never appear so much as once in the paragraph, as if "voting" were a profane term that could only be described in euphemisms. By contrast, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration itself, cases are unabashedly described as being in the "voting" phase, without bowdlerization of the term. Much of this essay is comprised not of factual claims of ascertainable truth or falsity, but of mere opinions. Moreover, I venture to claim, based on the content of this talk page and the edit history of WP:DDV, that there is no consensus to bestow guideline status upon the opinions contained in this page.

2. Radiant! has violated the three-revert rule twice in his efforts to raise the status of this page (see the first report, and the second report). On both occasions, he has avoided being blocked, though most editors would almost certainly be blocked for the second violation, if not the first. The dispute over the status of this page is clearly a content dispute; none of the exceptions to the three-revert rule could possibly be stretched to cover this situation. Furthermore, in a legitimate content dispute with established editors, violation of the three-revert rule is a rather inappropriate application of WP:IAR. John254 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm the person who removed most of the references to "vote". I did that after discussion (see above). I'm coming at this at a slightly different tact than Radiant, but I too think this page should be a guideline. My emphasis is that if we start calling things "votes", then people will be misled into thinking things are decided by democratic process. I wouldn't mind if this entire page were just about how we should avoid the word "vote". Polling, and shaping consensus around the results of a poll is a long established part of consensus decision making, but since the average net surfer probably knows little or nothing about consensus we need to help them understand that the difference between a democratic vote and a poll. Polls and votes tend to polarize. Instead of looking for common ground, people take a defensive posture. So I ask everyone who's upset with making this a guideline to realize that people like Radiant and me are concerned because we see damage to the process the more we talk about voting and the less we talk about discussion. There is a difference in disagreeing with our goals, and with the wording or title of the page. Consensus happens by finding commonality and building on it. -- Samuel Wantman 03:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue raised in the example above, however, is that Arbitration Committee cases really "are decided by [a] democratic process" through voting -- yet this essay scrupulously avoids the use of the term "vote" in describing the Arbitration process. Consider the following item in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Non-Notability/Proposed_decision, for example:

===Polls and voting===

6) Straw polls and voting are used in a number of situations. There is a tradition which discourages excessive voting, but no actual policy. Polls may be used when appropriate to gauge opinion.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
2. SimonP 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Charles Matthews 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
5. ?the Epopt 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

This item is notable in several respects. It contains, of course, the text of an Arbitration Committee finding that is so inconsistent with the general tenor of this essay that quotations of it had to be expurgated. Furthermore, the text in this item became a part of the final Arbitration Committee decision through a vote, in the democratic sense. While Arbitrators discuss cases extensively before voting on them, the final resolution is ascertained through voting. Now, we might ask, why? Why can't the Arbitration Committee resolve cases through discussion based consensus, rather than voting? Quite simply, Arbitration Committee cases require ascertainable outcomes, which are achieved through voting. The result of placing a "the decision in this case is disputed" tag on Arbitration Committee findings would be disastrous. Requests for adminship are decided by vote counting (considering only votes by established users, to avoid sockpuppetry) in almost all cases for similar reasons; the candidate's sysop bit is present or not; it cannot effectively be flagged as disputed. By contrast, the persistent edit wars over the status of this page have demonstrated the inability of "discussion-based" consensus to resolve contentious policy issues on Wikipedia. While it's true that most policy has been made without voting, most policymaking has been relatively non-contentious. As described previously, votes have been used to resolve many contentious issues of Wikipedia policy. Now, if we want

1. More edit wars on official policy and related pages

2. More page protections of official policy and related pages in arbitrarily selected versions

3. More uncertainty as to what the policy actually is (because page protection is not an endorsement of the current version)

4. More intervention by the Arbitration Committee in the policy making process, such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy

then we should absolutely place template:policy on this page, and publicize it as widely as possible, because that's exactly what we're going to get. Alternatively, if we want a functional policy making process which produces ascertainable outcomes, then the anti-voting doctrine expressed in this essay should not be given any official endorsement. John254 04:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to address as much of what you have written as I can. First, I don't think Radiant! or I are calling for this to be policy. Radiant! labeled it as a guideline and that is what I would call it. Guidelines describe current practice along with the best suggestions reached by consensus of those who edit the page. That is what we are trying to do here. There is no official policy about voting, but it is often seen as problematic. Polling is common, but it also has its downside. As for the arbitration committee, I wouldn't mind explaining that they operate by their own rules. It doesn't make much sense to use them as a model for or against voting as their situation is much different from the rest of Wikipedia. There is a limited number of arbitrators so they always know who the other parties are who are involved in the decision making process, unlike every other page at Wikipedia. They also often abstain rather than oppose decisions, and have many discussions before voting. I'm not all that familiar with the arbitrators rules and process, but I believe they could decide to change their procedure and use any means they want to come up with a decision. They have chosen a process that makes it clear by polling what the opinions are. I'd have no problem with describing their process as a vote, as long as it is clear that what the arbitration committee does is very different from what happens in a normal article.

The arbitration committee has said, "Straw polls and voting are used in a number of situations. There is a tradition which discourages excessive voting, but no actual policy. Polls may be used when appropriate to gauge opinion." This is what I'm wanting "Discuss, don't vote" (or whatever it is renamed) to say. The arbitration decision does not define the difference between polling and voting. They don't say in which situations they are used and in which they are not used. They do say that "Polls may be used when appropriate to gauge opinion", which is very different from saying "Votes may be used to used to make decisions", and that is the main thrust of the page we are now writing. There are good reasons why there is a tradition which discourages excessive voting. We are trying to describe why voting is discouraged. When people think that a poll is a vote they start vote-stacking and becoming rigidly fixed in their positions. When they discuss, they can hopefully find creative solutions to address everyone's concerns.

So I have some questions for you. Can you modify the page to describe how voting works for the arbitration committee without giving the impression that this is a model for deciding editorial disputes? What other text do you find disagreeable? Can we fix it? Would this page, with the fixes be acceptable to you as a "guideline"? -- Samuel Wantman 07:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• • John's got a fair point, which is that votes do in fact occur. It's true that they're not pure votes, but since all kinds of official wikipedia pages call them "voting," we shouldn't run away from it. Sam's also identified the larger problem, which is that it's hard to imagine any change to this page that would achieve consensus. Maybe we should identify the existing dissenters (NetScott, John, Jeff), and see if there are any changes that they feel would lead them to stop opposing guideline status. TheronJ 14:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • However, this page does not anywhere say that we do not vote (if people read it that way, it should be reworded). The fact that we sometimes do vote is not in any way a contradiction to a discouragement to voting. >Radiant< 14:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It would need to be fundamentally rewritten, essentially. We do vote, and we also discuss. Sometimes they intersect, sometimes they don't. Promotion to guideline status causes a contradiction in terms where we'll be voting legitimately, but not following the guideline. It needs a rename and a fundamental rewrite before it can even be considered, and there's no way I can make a judgement call on an essay that has yet to be written. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Huh? Guidelines are not iron-clad rules, and neither does this page say that voting is forbidden. It seems you're arguing from a general principle, instead of from what the page actually says. >Radiant< 14:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry that you don't understand my position, then. I can't make it any clearer - we do vote, this page isn't actionable, and needs a complete rewrite to be palatable and in line with current situations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Jeff, would you be willing to rewrite one section of the current proposal to show us what you have in mind? TheronJ 14:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
            • I don't know if it's possible, to be honest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
              • So, in summary, you can't find a specific instance where the guideline fails to identify current practice, but it needs a complete rewrite and you can't even fathom how to start doing that? At some point, obstructionism gets rolled over. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
                • I never said any of that. At some point, you need to be a little more aware of my position. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
                  • Enlighten me. Where does the guideline fail to identify current practice? Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes, we do vote, and engage in various vote-like behaviors, under a variety of circumstances which are carefully enumerated on the page. Outside of those circumstances, voting has been traditionally a) discouraged (by Arbcom, Jimbo, and more long-time contributors than you could shake a stick at), and b) when not nipped in the bud, a source of endless bad feelings and worse behavior. -- Visviva 14:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
            • We may engage in vote-like behaviours, but that is precisely why we need to clarify the fact that those vote-like behaviours are not actually voting and will not be counted as votes. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom

I'd like to address one particular point above since it appears to be a hang-up. ArbCom does not actually vote. ArbCom deliberations shift and change until you get to a point where (usually all) the Arbs agree. It's not voting, even though it's called that as a form of shorthand, it's consensus building. Go and watch some contentious ArbCom cases and see if this is not the case (I have watched and commented on a fair number by now). It's no more voting than SCOTUS "votes" - you get the ruling, with occasionally some dissenting opinions.

And increasingly even were shorthand / laziness / whatever has habitually led to the use of the word "vote", people are prefixing it with the logical Not operator, as !vote. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say that. The ArbComm votes all the time, and they call it voting. I just looked at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, and several randomly selected Workshop and final decision pages, and there is voting going on all over the place. They even refer to "vote counts." They make their decisions by majority vote. And so, by the way, does the SCOTUS. Whether they actually call it a vote, I am not sure. But before they ever get to the stage of writing any opinions in a case, they take a vote, poll, headcount or whatever (which in effect is a preliminary vote, but eventually it becomes binding when they deliver their opinions) to see whether there is a majority to affirm or reverse the decision of the lower court. Those votes then result in the writing of the majority opinion, dissenting opinion and possibly concurring opinions. Sometimes the court is so fragmented on a case that the voting on the decision itself (affirm, reverse, remand) does not entirely match up with the opinions, meaning that there is NO majority opinion -- but there is a majority decision -- and the decision is determined by vote. Sometimes, in the exchange of draft opinions, a justice will be persuaded to change his/her vote, and if the court is decided 5-4, this will result in a different outcome and the changing of labels on the opinions from "opinion of the court" to "dissent" (and occasionally you can spot this from reading between the lines of the footnotes.) Our ArbComm follows a different order of doing things, of course, but it still votes. 6SJ7 18:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, watch it in action some time. A finding or remedy is proposed, by a participant or an arb, it may be amended, refined, some are supported by some arbs, other times there will be several alternatives - what they are doing is exploring the consensus (and showing their working as they do it). Finally, you get a finding on the main page which will usually be endorsed by all the arbs. But it's not a vote process, it's a lengthy debate, typically taking several weeks to reach a conclusion. And remember, we only see a fraction of it, much of what ArbCom debates goes on externally. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, the arbitrators formally express preferences for proposed resolutions of issues. That's voting. —David Levy 19:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two serious problems with the "Arbitrators don't vote" argument

1. The first and most basic is that the Arbitration policy is full of statements such as "Each part will be subject to a simple-majority vote amongst active non-recused Arbitrators"; "Dissenting votes for and opinions on parts that pass will be noted"; or "A grace period of a minimum of twenty-four hours shall be observed between the fourth net vote to close the case and the going into effect of those Remedies passed in the case, unless four or more Arbitrators vote to close the case immediately, or if a majority of Arbitrators active on the case have voted to close the case."
2. The second and more serious problem is that if you define "voting" so narrowly as to exclude what arbitrators do, then the advice "don't vote" is nearly meaningless. My guess is that many of the pro-"voting" editors would be glad to apply procedures similar to ArbComm's !voting to resolve disputes in articles and policy debates. Would we really be comfortable with a system where editors discussed the issues for a while, proposed factual statements, then attached their opinions as "support" or "oppose," with the simple majority "support" items being held as binding, even if the editors agreed not to call it voting?

TheronJ 20:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Guy, I have watched the ArbComm "in action" a number of times, including the one case (thankfully only one) in which I was "accused" of anything, another in which I made several comments, and several other cases that I simply found interesting or important. I can only go by what I read on the "Request for arbitration", "Workshop" and "Proposed Decision" pages of each case, as I obviously have no access to any other discussions that may be going on. You are certainly correct that proposed principles, findings and remedies are discussed and changed during the process -- but in the end there are votes, and there are situations in which a proposed finding is put up for a vote and rejected. Please look at, for example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Proposed decision, and even moreso, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Proposed decision and tell me what you see. I see an active voting process in which things are approved and disapproved by majority vote. 6SJ7 20:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The best way of settling this is by asking the ArbCom. Another way would be to remove that section entirely, since how the ArbCom makes decisions isn't particularly relevant to people that aren't on the ArbCom. >Radiant< 09:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of inquiring about the existence of obvious, clearly documented majority voting?

I don't see any false claims within the section in question, but I also see no need for its inclusion. I say remove it. —David Levy 09:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Asking the ArbCom— well I can't speak for the whole Committee, but I do have some thoughts. First, saying "arbitration is not a community process" makes it's metod irrelevant anyway. In fact, one of the reasons Wikipedia is not a democracy is that it has (unlike governments and real-life) a mission that is non-negotiable, that being the encyclopedia and particularly NPOV, and people who may particpate in the community whe acting in bad faith, or pushing a POV, counter to that mission. It is folly to give those people equal say in a policy discussion. This is one of the reasons counting heads, whether or not a rationale is provided, is usually a bad idea; people who don't have rationales defensible according to the project's missions don't deserve equal weight to the project's detriment. In essence, Wikipedia is radically open, and so it is subjected to idiots and jerks; ArbCom is deemed to not have any, so equal weight makes sense. I couldn't come up with a more subtle way of saying that... Arbitrators are also obligated to review the evidence, and engage in discussion, and give rationales when requested. I also agree with much of what Guy is saying. One of the reasons voting is bad is because it creates a dichotomy where a discussion leads to dialectical decision-making process, where none of the original proposed solutions has to be the final decision. Arbitration is very much a dialectic, because of the dynamic discussion and tweaking throughout, so I'm very hesitant to equate it with standard voting. But this page isn't about such artificially-constructed bodies; it's about community decisions. Arbitration is about as similar in that regard as saying "the US Congress uses voting"; so what? I'd remove the section, as well as the "Feature requests" for similar reasoning. Dmcdevit·t 09:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of the dispute

Just to show which side is the vocal minority here, note that in the past the ideas expressed on this page have been supported by Tony Sidaway, Tjstrf, Centrx, Dmcdevit, Sean Black, Kelly Martin, Mackensen, JYolkowski, Mindspillage, Extreme Unction, Visviva, Kim Bruning, David Levy, Saxifrage, TheronJ, The Land, Doc Glasgow, JzG, JackyR, Samuel Wantman, Rossami, Psyphics, Daniel Bryant, Milo H Minderbinder, Friday, Jdforrester, Hipocrite and Calton, and that's without counting this MFD. That's quite a bit more than the four vocal dissenters.

But of course, counting heads isn't what matters (indeed, that's the whole point of this page), so let's look at the arguments. It should be noted that several people argue from general principle, or from hypothetical consequences, rather than from what the page actually says. That is not helpful; an encyclopedia needs facts, not allegations. Most of the arguments in opposition are combinations of the below:

1. Stating that deletion processes are determined by vote count. Anyone familiar with AFD or DRV should know this is not the case. In a small but significant number of cases, deletion debates are closed in favor of the minority because the minority has better arguments. A recent proposal to change this was strongly rejected.
2. Stating that "we do vote". That is true but irrelevant, since it does not contradict the idea of discouraging voting. The statement is akin to saying that, since we do protect pages, we cannot discourage page protection.
3. Saying that consensus must be determined by polling or voting. It is obviously false that this must be so, because we routinely do it in other ways. It is true that it can be so, and as above, that matches what this page actually says.
4. Asserting that this is a policy to forbid voting. That is a straw man; this page is neither intended as policy, nor does it forbid voting.
5. A belief that guidelines are binding, even though the guideline tag, WP:POL and WP:IAR clearly state they're not.
6. Bureaucratic arguments, such as saying that the page here must have the same tag as the related page on meta (obviously, enwiki has goals, methods and rules different from meta's), or saying that the formal process for writing guidelines wasn't followed (which is vacuous since such a formal process does not exist), or that a page can't be a guideline unless it's merged somewhere (which is incorrect since pages stand on their own).
7. Suggesting that Wikipedia needs more formal methods or procedures to reach a decision. That is a very good point, perhaps it does, although we've worked without them quite well for the past years. But feel free to propose such a method. A proposal for change is not in any way hampered by a description of what happens now, and neither is a desire for change a good argument against documenting the status quo.
8. Finally, some people don't see the need for this. But, on Wikipedia, many people don't see the need for many things. We're all volunteers here, so not seeing the need is not grounds for stopping other people who do see it. The goal of this page is explaining something that many novice users draw wrong conclusions about. Perhaps not necessary, but certainly useful.

• In other words, most arguments against this page are based upon misunderstanding or fallacy. That's not an opinion, anyone can make the same analysis. >Radiant< 16:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  In actual point of fact, mistakenly or not, guidelines are touted as something that should/must be followed. That makes them akin to policy. If guidelines didn't carry some authority to compell action, I doubt the proponents of this would be going through the trouble. That is problematic. We don't need a guideline which will be used to say "You shouldn't vote, you shouldn't poll, it is against the guideline." We should be using polling more, not less. This is exactly the opposite direction we need to be heading as we grow larger. Johntex\^talk 01:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  Really? Why is that? Why does a larger Wikipedia need more polling? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, really. It is impossible to build consensus across bigger and bigger sets of people. That is why, for instance, we have elections. Johntex\^talk 01:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  The other option is to decentralize more things, via wikiprojects and the like, reducing the scope of decisions and hence the scope of group that needs to agree. Which could work great, so long as people were all aware of the varying quirks in the guidelines between different projects and groups and didn't mind inconsistency. --tjstrf talk 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah, scaling issues are real, there's no way to argue against that. Interaction density goes down as the square of the number of people in a discussion, and you can't argue with power laws, or we'd have giant ants running around. I don't mind a little bit of... texture, or inconsistency if you want to call it that, so I like Tjstrf's idea about continuing to decentralize more and more. It's certainly preferable to giving ourselves over to the tyrrany of the majority. No amount of scaling will obviate the problems with polling, or turn it into a preferable way to make decisions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  The biggest potential problem with decentralization is things like the Lost Wikiproject v. the Manaul of Style discussion. Big argument over... what exactly? Oh, right. Whether to put parentheses after the article title or not. Parentheses that have no effect on the article content at all. --tjstrf talk 02:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah, each Wikiproject seems to want its very own MoS and naming conventions. However, with decentralization, and Wikipedians coalescing into medium-sized groups, it becomes easy to identify and address such problems when they arise. Twenty people have have a good discussion, but 400 people can't, but twenty groups of twenty people can interact almost as twenty individuals - and even better when there are people belonging to multiple groups, who can help carry ideas back and forth. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Guidelines are not policy, and to most users the distinction is quite clear. At any rate, I agree that it's worthwhile to look into more formal ways of voting to address scaling issues. We should draft up a proposal for that, and see if we can make it work without becoming like the house of parliament. This page documents how we work now, we can always decide to work differently in the future. >Radiant< 10:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

About the name

People remain hung up over the name. As I have said before, I don't have a problem with this name, but I don't object to renaming either. Netscott suggested "Discuss, refrain from voting". Shall we use that? Do people have better ideas? >Radiant< 16:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Polling and Voting? 6SJ7 16:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer Wikipedia:Every time you vote, Jimbo kills a kitten. But failing that, Netscott's proposal seems just fine. -- Visviva 17:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused as to how "Discuss, refrain from voting" differs in any substantive way. —David Levy 17:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As I've noted before, the two problems with the title are that it contains a misuse the word "vote" (to mean "majority vote") and portrays voting/polling as something that never should be done (instead of something that should be done sparingly, selectively and without directly binding outcomes). A while back, I suggested the titles Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia:Polling does not replace discussion, either of which would eliminate these problems.

As I commented in October, however, my personal preference is to merge the page with the overlapping Wikipedia:Straw polls to form Wikipedia:Polling. This title is concise, entirely neutral (neither condemning nor condoning polling), and would encourage users to actually read the page instead of parroting a catchphrase that they don't fully understand. —David Levy 17:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

For my part, I'd be happy with either of those titles. In truth, I don't see a substantive difference between any of the proposed normative titles, nor do I really understand the objections to the current title. -- Visviva 17:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

One problem with the current title and Netscott's proposed title is that the word "vote," while commonly utilized as shorthand for "majority vote," actually has much broader meaning. Numerous Wikipedia processes (such as RfA and all of the *fDs) involve voting. In fact, whenever people formally express a preference for a proposed resolution of an issue, that's voting.

This issue can easily be resolved by substituting the word "poll." "Discuss, don't poll" and "Discuss, refrain from polling", however, retain the falsehood that polling should never be done for any reason. As many users tend to parrot back pages' titles without actually reading them in their entirety, this is likely to contribute to a harmful misconception. —David Levy 18:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

But in terms of merging, after some thought I think a more appropriate direction would be to rework this into a closer relationship with WP:CON, something like Wikipedia:Reaching consensus (a page that's sorely needed in any case). After all, the whole point here is not really that voting is evil (it is, of course, but that's another matter entirely), nor that we occasionally indulge in it; the point is that consensus is key, and that voting/polling does nothing to contribute to it. And in the long term it's probably far better to explain what to do (instead of voting) than just to tell people not to vote. But it is easier to tell people what not to do, which is why we have this page while Wikipedia:Reaching consensus is just a redirect. -- Visviva 17:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think "Wikipedia:Polling" is great. TheronJ 17:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:David Levy and User:TheronJ here. Neutrality is a much more preferred state. (→Netscott) 22:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I see a much more natural relationship to (and far more overlap with) Wikipedia:Straw polls. It specifically addresses the subject of polling, while Wikipedia:Concensus covers the broader subject of consensus. —David Levy 18:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think expressing part of the context would be helpful, such as "Article Disputes: Dicussion is Preferred to Voting" RazielJaTier 18:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

1. This concept does not merely apply to article disputes (or even disputes in general).

2. Please see above for why the term "voting" is incorrect in this context (and should be replaced with "polling").

3. Per our naming conventions, we "do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized." —David Levy 18:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This article makes several important points, and I hope the title captures them all. First, the word "vote" often gives the false impression that things are decided by a democratic process. Second, we don't do democratic votes, but we sometimes "poll". Third, polls can serve a purpose but have a downside and should be used carefully. Fourth, polling is never a good substitution for discussion. As long as these points are clear, I don't care what you call it. -- Samuel Wantman 11:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, and after reading the debate at Wikipedia talk:Consensus, I'm thinking that consensus should just be a description of what consensus means at Wikipedia and how it is a foundation of how things work. This page could be renamed Wikipedia:Using consensus to resolve disagreements, and the four points mentioned above could be part of it, as well as combining some things from other pages and outlining all the ways that disagreements are resolved. -- Samuel Wantman 20:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, the information does not pertain strictly to disagreements. An accurate title along the same lines would be Wikipedia:Using consensus to reach decisions. —David Levy 20:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. A section could even be called "Discuss, don't vote." --Samuel Wantman 03:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you read my above replies? —David Levy 06:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Of course, it won't have much snap when quoted in a heated discussion, but I can live with that. -- Donald Albury 03:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would it ever have to be "quoted in a heated discussion", when it just describes existing practice? --Sarcasm off-- Of course, you're right, and I have to wonder whether the big push to make this a guideline is for the very reason that it can then be quoted in heated discussions, to pressure people into stopping (or never starting) polls -- perhaps including polls that would be perfectly valid and helpful under the circumstances. As one person already said on this page, if it's just an essay, people can ignore it. 6SJ7 05:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Answering anyway: Because it is precisely in heated discussions that people are most likely to ignore longstanding principles and practices. -- Visviva 06:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It came to me in a half waking moment this morning; Discussion is the path to enlightenment. voting is the path to confusion. -- Donald Albury 22:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

My preference would be something descriptive like Wikipedia:Voting is not indicative of consensus. This is what I consider the thrust of the page. Dmcdevit·t 10:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on those comments it seems the most fitting title would be "Polling is no substitute for discussion" or "Polling does not indicate consensus". Would that be acceptable? Bonus points for someone who can make a funky acronym out of either :) >Radiant< 16:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Polling is no substitute for discussion" is okay, though I would prefer "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" (which seems less informal). "Polling does not indicate consensus" is unacceptable, as polling can sometimes be used to confirm or clarify a pre-existing consensus reached through earlier discussion. —David Levy 16:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Very well, Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. >Radiant< 16:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Big step in the right direction. (→Netscott) 18:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Radiant!'sDavid Levy's suggestion is much better than DDV, and is a fine compromise. (For the record, I think "Polling" would be better, but "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" is fine). Thanks, everyone. TheronJ 18:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Also for the record, I suggested "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" on 1 October. I'm pleased to see that something has finally come of this. —David Levy 19:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks, David. If the name ends up changed, I will be glad to chip in for a barnstar.  ;) TheronJ 19:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not worried about who receives "credit" for the name. I just want it to be known that I haven't been complaining about the current title without suggesting an alternative. —David Levy 20:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This title is fine with me with one caveat. There should be something explicit that says "Don't call it voting". This could be anywhere, a section heading, or part of the initial discussion about voting. We have to discourage the use of the word. We do not vote, we poll. (The exception, the "votes" at RFA come at the end of a long consensus process, by experienced Wikipedians, and are not indicative of the rest of the project.) Everytime someone says "vote" it is going to help enforce the misconception that we use a system of majority or supermajority rule. -- Samuel Wantman 20:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good choice for a subsection, maybe an initial subsection ahead of the "article" discussion. Do you want to write something up? TheronJ 20:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Polling is not a substitute for discussion" sounds fine to me. -- Donald Albury 15:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no further objections to the name change, I'm renaming. I've also added a paragraph called "Don't call it voting". -- Samuel Wantman 06:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

About tags

It's getting a bit foggy what the dispute actually is about. The page appears to be accurate, at the very least; nobody has been able to point out inaccuracies, except that John notes the ArbCom policy uses the term 'voting' so there's no reason not to use it here. Such things are easily fixed. Accuracy is about opinion, it's about fact. If this is accurate, then it's a good idea to say so; since Wikipedia can be confusing, educating novice users is very important.

Now the point here is education, not legislation (indeed, since we can ignore all rules and guidelines have exceptions, Wikipedia cannot be legislated in the first place). Thus, to call this an essay would be misleading, because CAT:E contains many arbitrary opinions, and this page is far more than that. Indeed, those 'pedians in need of education tend to ignore essays for this very reason.

Several people say that this can't be a guideline. The first question is, why not? WP:POL clearly states that writing down the common results of a well-used process is a good approach. People claim it has no consensus, but the lists of editors and arguments above indicate otherwise. More importantly, how can you seriously claim that a long-standing practice on Wikipedia does not have consensus? Nobody has been able to point out discrepancies between actual practice and what the page says.

And the second question is, since of course not everything in Wikispace fits neatly in the pigeonhole, what else would you suggest? >Radiant< 16:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just reading the rewrite for the first time, but I don't really see any inaccuracies, other than some sections that, in my opinion, could do with more explanation. It's an accurate description of current practice and long-established policy. I don't see any reason not to consider it {{policy}} once a title is agreed upon. Dmcdevit·t 10:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Is consensus reached?

I went to move this page to the consensus location and tag it as a guideline, now that all open issues are resolved, only to find it was protected. Is there a lack of consensus on moving this to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and tagging it as a guideline? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• In the absense of specific, addressible criticisms of the page if renamed to "Polling is not a substitute for discussion", I would say that at the very least, consensus-building efforts have reached their limit, and we can decide whether the page has consensus or not. I also tend to say yes, the page has consensus: (1) because as renamed, it accurately reflects current practice, (2) because all criticisms that can be addressed have been, and (3) because, IMHO, the substantial majority of editors with an opinion support designating the page as guideline. Thoughts? TheronJ 16:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • What are your objections? -- Donald Albury 01:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• All issues are not resolved. This proposal is far too anti-voting. Votes are a good thing. We should acknowledge that a community of this size cannot always reach consensus. A majority or super-majority vote is a well established and workable system for ensuring that most people are mostly OK with most policies most of the time. We even use it on Wikipedia already in certain situations. Johntex\^talk 01:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It has been suggested many times that Wikipedia needs more formal ways of adopting policies in the future, for instance using supermajority voting. As such I would be interested in seeing a workable way for doing that. Please do make a draft. Note that the French Wikipedia uses such a system, that may be a good place to start. >Radiant< 10:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Some remaining problems with conferring guideline status upon this essay

(1) Irrespective of its factual accuracy (or lack thereof), this page is still written in the style of an anti-voting essay, and gives undue weight to anti-voting arguments. Any guideline would need to be written in a fair and balanced manner. This would necessarily include an explanation of why votes have been used in the process of enacting and amending some Wikipedia policies, and a description of the circumstances under which votes on policy matters might be advisable in the future. At present, this essay reluctantly acknowledges the existence of such votes, but treats them as a sort of aberration, to be scrupulously avoided in the future.

(2) The argument that "IMHO, the substantial majority of editors with an opinion support designating the page as [a] guideline"[9] is profoundly unpersuasive in this particular context since it directly contradicts the central thesis of WP:DDV: that consensus, or lack thereof, is wholly independent of "vote-counting", or any other quantification of the number of users supporting or opposing a particular position. Quite simply, we cannot enact an anti-voting guideline through vote-counting. If discussion-based consensus cannot be reached for conferring guideline status upon this page, then I would construe such a result as a demonstration of the essential unworkability of purely discussion-based consensus in resolving contentious issues such as this, and, consequently, the need for voting to elucidate consensus under such circumstances. This page may properly suffer from the gridlock produced by following the anti-voting advice it offers.

(3) Consider, now, Dmcdevit's argument as to why voting is good for the Arbitration Committee, but bad when the Wikipedia community employs the same process: "In essence, Wikipedia is radically open, and so it is subjected to idiots and jerks; ArbCom is deemed to not have any, so equal weight makes sense."[10] In essence, Dmcdevit is arguing against counting the votes of established members of the Wikipedia Community due to the putative influence of the "idiots and jerks" whom he posits are so substantial in number as to exert a harmful effect upon the outcome of votes conducted amongst established Wikipedia editors. I respectfully disagree with this assessment, and would suggest that most established editors are intelligent, and act in good faith. John254 05:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• (1) "fair and balanced manner" (aka NPOV) is for articles, not Wikipedia namespace. At any rate this page gives a fair description of how Wikipedia works, and you're welcome to reword the details. The intent of this page is not to be a treatise on Wikipedian history; the comments you suggest would be more fitting for Wikipedia:History_of_Wikipedian_processes_and_people. The "description of the circumstances under which votes on policy matters might be advisable in the future" is clear from WP:POL and WP:HCP, and reiterated here.
• (2) this is a straw man. Apart from the fact that guidelines aren't "enacted" since they're descriptive rather than prescriptive, nobody is using vote counting to resolve issues on this talk page, hence the analysis of arguments earlier this week.
• (3) the ArbCom uses different procedures than Wikipedia as a whole. It does not follow from Dmc's statement that he considers most established editors to be not intelligent or not in good faith. I'm quite sure that he does not.
• >Radiant< 10:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course this essay takes a position against voting, that's the whole point. Guidelines are supposed to take a side, not say that it doesn't matter what people do - if they did, they wouldn't really be guiding, would they? Would you insist that NPA give weight to the notion that personal attacks are OK? The preference of discussion over voting is a long standing one on wikipedia as a whole, and it is already expressed in a number of existing policies. That's simply the way wikipedia is, and the status of this as a guideline or not isn't going to change that. Trying to make voting equal to discussion on wikipedia is a battle you simply can't win.

Beyond the objections to the entire notion of discussion prefered over voting, what "factual inaccuracies" do you feel are in this article? If there are problems with the article, the solution is to fix them, not to keep saying "I object". At this point I'm not sure what the objections are beyond simply disagreeing with existing wikipedia policy. Exceptions are already mentioned about arbcom and RFA (is RFA a vote or not? Could someone point me to a WP policy page clearing that up?), if you feel they are not specific enough, update the page.

For those who don't feel that wikipedia supports the idea of preferring discussion over voting, there's some interesting reading at Wikipedia:Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos/Vote. Specifically, Jimbo Wales himself stepped in and put that vote to as stop, completely deleting it. In particular: "The point is, we do not make policy in Wikipedia by popular vote. We make it by building a consensus of reasonable people over a long period of time." --Milo H Minderbinder 17:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

By "Any guideline would need to be written in a fair and balanced manner", I do not mean that guidelines may not advocate a particular position. Rather, what "fair and balanced" means in the context of a guideline is that it presents all viewpoints which have significant support among the Wikipedia community in a fair and balanced manner. Anything less would not be "generally accepted among editors" nor would it be "considered a standard that all users should follow". (see template:guideline). I certainly do not "insist that WP:NPA give weight to the notion that personal attacks are OK", because "the notion that personal attacks are OK" does not have significant support among the Wikipedia community. However, the edit history of WP:DDV, as well as the contents of this talk page, demonstrate that the use of voting under certain circumstances does have substantial support. Moreover, existing policy does not itself justify conferring guideline status upon this page, since a guideline based entirely on existing policy would be redundant, and would constitute instruction creep. Consequently, to the extent that there is any justification for describing this page as a guideline, such justification must be provided with evidence above and beyond existing policy. The quotation from Jimbo Wales on Wikipedia:Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos/Vote has been taken out of context, since in the very same comment, Jimbo Wales also stated that "Rather than posting a poll which clearly biased the issue in one direction, I propose a process to generate a proper poll... if it proves necessary to do so after a reaosnable period of discussion."[11] John254 00:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo also said "...as a general rule, I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with 'Jimbo said...' is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think."[12] - Johntex\^talk 01:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's comments still support this article. He says that discussion should happen first, and that a poll may not even be necessary. This article doesn't say "never poll", that seems to be a popular strawman in this case. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Re "existing policy does not itself justify conferring guideline status upon this page" and similar comments - that sounds like a very bureaucratic and legalistic way of putting things. Please point out what "existing policy" you refer to that "justifies conferring guideline status" on anything? Also note that m:instruction creep does not say what you appear to think it does. >Radiant< 10:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

John, when you say "most established editors are intelligent, and act in good faith," we are agreeing. Since most established editors are intelligent and acting in good faith, why should their reasoned opinions be given the same weight as, be cancelled out by, any of the other hundreds of thousands of accounts we have that aren't established editors (or yes, by established editors acting in bad faith...) putting their signature next to a number in the correct column? This is why voting is bad for community decisions. Dmcdevit·t 07:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Corollary needed

This document should spend more time talking about the benefits of voting. (You can call it "polling" if you really hate the word voting.) It needs to conclude with:

Discussion is not a substitute for Polling. Sometimes, even endless discussion will not reach unanimous consent, and possibly not even consensus. In those circumstances, a vote should be conducted with a super-majority carrying the day. Remember also that Jimbo Wales can personally over-ride any decision, even one made unanimously.

I look forward to thoughts on how this wording might be improved. For instance, we might want to define a super-majority, but it is absolutely vital that we include something like this. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 01:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would very strongly object to any such statement being part of any Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it contradicts the most fundamental principles of our project. -- Visviva 02:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

(added after edit conflict) See specifically m:Foundation issues, which leaves the (consensus-based) wiki process as the final authority on content. See also Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Conducting a survey. If you believe that we should give more weight to voting/polling as a path to dispute resolution on Wikipedia, I would recommend that you take this issue to Wikipedia talk:Resolving disputes. Cheers, -- Visviva 02:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would object as well. The proposed addition flatly contradicts the important idea that we don't hold binding votes. To hold binding votes would be to open the door to abuse by vote-stacking, not to mention the polarizing effects. If after long discussion, we haven't reached a conclusion, then we keep discussing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

But we do have binding votes, and they are useful. We should have more of them. Johntex\^talk 03:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Which examples are you thinking of? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, I am not aware of any, in fact. Which did you have in mind? Note that contentious issues tend to be aggravated rather than resolved by conducting a vote and having supermajority win (e.g. WP:CHILD, WP:NC-TV). >Radiant< 10:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Nutshell" box

I have removed the "nutshell" box, for several reasons. No offense to Jimbo is intended here, and in fact I think that he himself might object to this use of one of his quotations. It is taken out of context from the situation in which he said this. More importantly, it takes one sentence that he said, and in effect turns it into a policy by featuring it in the nutshell box. If Jimbo wants to make policy by himself, he can do directly, and actually in the case of "how to make policy," it might not be a bad idea if he did. We do not need people taking his statements and deciding on their own to turn them into "policies" or "guidelines". Most importantly, the quotation deals only with policy-making, while much of the page deals specifically with content disputes, and most of the rest of its deal both with policy-making and content disputes. If this nutshell is to be there (which it shouldn't for the other reasons given above), then it should be made clear that the whole page deals only with policy (and not with content issues), because then the nutshell doesn't fit the page. But it's probably better to leave out the nutshell so that the text can stay intact. (Of course then it should be permanently tagged as an essay, but I've said that in the past. At least now it is better than it was, especially with the changes I have made tonight.) 6SJ7 03:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you think it is better. Some of your changes are improvements. However, I now find that the page does not convey the one thing that I think is most important, and that is that we shouldn't use the words "vote" and "voting" to refer to polls and polling. The reality is that if you use the word "vote" people will assume we are using a democratic voting process. This happens all the time. I don't see why saying as much should be removed. --Samuel Wantman 04:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• We should in general avoid quotes by Jimbo, Brion, the ArbCom or anybody else on policy/guideline pages. >Radiant< 10:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this a response to what I said? -- Samuel Wantman 11:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, er, no. Sorry, wrong indent. It was in response to the quote matter. >Radiant< 11:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• The new nutshell is excellent -- good work, 6SJ7, Sam and Radiant! TheronJ 20:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:DDV shortcut

Can someone please explain what purpose this serves (other than to confuse people)? This initialism has absolutely no connection to the current page title, and it isn't as though it's a longstanding abbreviation with widespread recognition throughout the community. Ned Scott cited WP:DENY, and I'm baffled as to what relevance exists. —David Levy 05:34/05:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I got to this page was because I remembered the phrase "Discuss, don't vote" being used elsewhere (at some point). It ins't unprecedented to do this; Wikipedia:Survey notification had SN, VS, and STACK because "vote satcking" had a much greater usage than "survey notification." Hbdragon88 05:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Vote stacking" is a term commonly used within the community. It makes sense to link likely shortcuts (thereby assisting people who are searching for the page). Even then, there's no need to include all of them in the page's shortcut box (the purpose of which is to supply a shortcut to someone who already has found the page).

"Discuss, don't vote" is not a common phrase. It's merely an interim page title selected by Radiant! and used for a few months. The initials "DDV" are utterly meaningless to the vast majority of people who will see this page. No one is proposing that the redirect be deleted (so those who remember it from before can continue to use it), but it makes absolutely no sense to introduce it to new readers (who only will be confused). —David Levy 06:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The citation to WP:DENY was a pun, of sorts, I think... it seemed funny at the time... -- Ned Scott 05:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There's probably something to be said for keeping the WP:VIE shortcut though. It was at that title for quite a long time. --tjstrf talk 06:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

But that's more about the meta essay, which this evolved from. -- Ned Scott 06:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that WP:VIE is a well-known shortcut, but there has been a deliberate effort to distance this page from that essay (which is perceived by many as biased and misleading). I'll also note that the original Meta-Wiki version is now known as Polling is evil (WM:PIE). —David Levy 06:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we distinguish between a current shortcut (which is displayed on the page) and older shortcuts? There is no need to display the old shortcut, but they should not be deleted. When I moved the page, I noticed dozens of discussions that link to this page via the shortcuts. Removing them would break all those links. This page evolved out of the others, so the history of what those links pointed to is in the history of this page. -- Samuel Wantman 07:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget that listing a shortcut on a page and having a redirect for that shortcut are two independent things. I'd suggest not putting DDV on the page as a shortcut, but leaving the redirect from WP:DDV to this page. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Samuel & Milo: I should have specified in my initial post that I was referring strictly to the shortcut's reinsertion into the project page (which occurred minutes earlier). I'm not suggesting that the actual redirect be deleted (which would be a bad idea). —David Levy 17:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A guideline?

Although it is vastly better than its original form, I still do not agree with some of it. But so what if I agree or not? Just one person disagreeing does not mean that it failed to reach concensus does it? or does it? how many people have to agree or disagree for concensus to be achieved> When was it settled that this is a guideline for everyone? By whom? how do we know that is concensus for the whole of wikipedia and not just a few people -- a cabal? And is it really needed as a guideline anyway? --Blue Tie 01:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What in the document do you feel does not describe current practice? What concrete changes do you propose? Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is neither unanimity, nor a numerical cutoff point. Based on your earlier remarks I believe you think Wikipedia needs a more formal way of creating policy/guidelines. I encourage you to draw up a proposal for such a system so that it can be discussed. >Radiant< 11:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that some other more formal system should be employed for guidelines and policy and the like. I happen to agree that for individual pages, the "consensus" approach probably works most of the time (but not always). However, when it comes to policies, guidelines and the like, I do not really know what constitutes consensus. How can 10 or 20 or even 50 people declare what is consensus for the whole body of wikipedians? In particular, there should be some system that at least lets every wikipedian see all the guidelines and policies that are being proposed in some sort of summary form and in a location that is automatically and instantly available when you log on, unless you somehow disable that feature. Then, people who are interested in a particular aspect can be notified and participate more fully. In addition, consensus should be somehow defined. In the meantime, I am somewhat opposed to any new guidelines. This particular one is far better than it used to be, but it still contains nuggest of anti-voting in it, and I do not agree with that. I do happen to agree with the title though, very stongly. ... Voting does not, cannot and should not replace discussion. But it should not be greatly discouraged either. --Blue Tie 06:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Having been instructed to read the entire discussion page, going back for months, regarding the status of this article as a guideline, I have done so. And I see no consensus that this is or should be a guideline. I see objections in a variety of ways, not the least of which is that it is not needed. But there are also issues about whether guidelines are prescriptive or descriptive and there wasn't even consensus on that. --Blue Tie 07:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Many of the discussions on this page have been resolved. Some of them have not, but the people that objected don't seem to be continuing to press the issue. The best measure of whether a page has reached consensus is if it is stable. It seems as though this page is becoming fairly stable. If you find that the page as it is written does not reflect the consensus of the community you can tag it as a challanged guideline. If you decide to go that route, you should be willing to argue your reasons. So perhaps consensus is reached when the handful of dedicated people working on the article have reached a consensus, and everyone who objects either decides that they can live with their objections, don't feel like battling it out, or have given up trying because they find themselves part of a small minority.

As for your objection to discouraging voting: the page tries to make a distinction between democratic voting, which it discourages (Wikipedia is not a democracy) and polling, which it warns about its downsides. In common use on talk pages, "vote" is often used to either mean both straw polling or democratic majority rules voting. The ambiguity of the meaning of "voting" is part of the problem. So I'm wondering, are you are objecting to discouraging straw polling, or that it discouraging democratic majority rule, or both? -- Samuel Wantman 07:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So, since they are not pressing the issue, consensus was achieved? Is it consensus when people have objections that are not answered so they no longer engage in a fruitless discussion? Is that the meaning of consensus... last man standing wins? Think about that really hard in the context of what wikipedia is supposed to be.... the grand vision.

I frankly agree with you that a few people working on an article can reach a temporary consensus. Since articles are limited to verifiable things from reliable sources, there can be a logical path to consensus. But I do not think that applies to guidelines or policies. They do not have such requirements. To read this page, all that is required for something to be a guideline is that someone, somewhere believes that is how people on wikipedia behave generally and everone else gets tired of fighting with him and leaves.

Voting and polling are the same things. It is a difference without a distinction. I object to a guideline that speaks negatively about voting or polling and does not recognize it as a widely recognized and highly legitimate tool for helping to achieve consensus. --Blue Tie 02:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(1)I still don't know what you mean when you say "voting and polling are the same things". (2) Formal consensus decision making often "tests" for consensus, and that procedure, while it may look like a democratic vote, is not. It is very rare occasion at wikipedia where there is a democratic vote, and a binding outcome is based solely on counting votes. When this does happen, it is usually after a long process of trying to reach consensus, and most everyone sees the choices as a matter of personal preference, for instance picking the background color of a page. (3) So exactly how is it that you think voting is a highly legitamate tool for helping to achieve consensus. (4) Point to where that has happened in Wikipedia. Are there cases where a pure vote happened, and the guidelines we have written did not describe the process, or would have helped the process? If you can be concrete about this, and explain your objections, we can either fix the page or convince you of your error. (5) I don't think it is enough for you to say we haven't reached consensus. We need to hear specifics. -- Samuel Wantman 08:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

1.My answer: The definition for polling makes this self evident:

polling

To receive (a given number of votes).

To receive or record the votes of: polling a jury.

To cast (a vote or ballot).

To question in a survey; canvass.

For some peculiar reason, people on wikipedia just do not want to accept the standard definitions for the word used in this matter. It is weird verging on pathological.

2.When you put the word "democratic" into the statement, you are changing the nature of the discussion. I did not use the word "democratic" and have no interest in that. I have not claimed it and it is not an issue.

3.I think that because voting is a validated, successfully demonstrated, common process used to come to consensus in group settings. It is used in Delphi, Nominal group technique and other methods for groups to come together. It has been rigorously studied as a process to do this and many scholarly papers written on it. A good example of how it works is to read the original journals and minutes of the US Constitutional Convention where people with widely divergent opinions would argue over even the inclusion or exclusion of specific words. Yet they came to a successful conclusion. Iterative voting and discussion helped bring that about.

4.I disagree with an assumption in the question: That Guidelines are/should be descriptive. Indeed, the Wikipedia policy indicates otherwise.

5.So you, individually believe that if I disagree that is not sufficient to say that consensus has not been achieved. On the other hand, I, individually believe that if you think consensus has been achieved, that is insufficient to declare it so. What is the standard for consensus? How many people must agree or disagree? One? Two? 400? Remember, this is not a democracy. One person may be right and everyone else wrong, correct? Who decides? --Blue Tie 12:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Once more, you are assuming that the Wikipedia system does not and cannot work, despite clear evidence to the contrary. If you think that (in the future) Wikipedia should resolve such issues through voting, draw up a method for that that works. Edit this page: Wikipedia:Iterative voting to resolve consensus (or whatever you want to name it) and make a serious proposal. Do not curse what you percieve as darkness, but light the proverbial candle. >Radiant< 12:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Basically you're saying that there needs to be a formal way of creating guidelines, and that this page cannot be a guideline because it wasn't created in that formal way, even though such a formal way does not (at the moment) exist on Wikipedia. The point really is, and this has been pointed out several times, that you don't believe Wikipedia can work the way it's currently working. Even though it does. Whether guidelines are descriptive is not a matter of opinion, it is a consequence of how Wikipedia works, based on the fact that we don't want editors to read and memorize The Rules before editing. Most editors are ignorant of most guidelines, and that's why they de facto cannot be prescriptive. As I've said before, I do see the merits of a formal system of policy making, and notifying people, in principle; in practice I have not yet seen such a system that actually works. So please do write one. Don't just say that we need one and use that as an argument against our longstanding informal practice. >Radiant< 09:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did say that but that is not my objection to this page. My objection in this case is that there is no consensus that it is a guideline and it is unnecessary. I also object to some of the content though I really like the title. However, with your arguments above and in other places I think you have pointed out how consensus does not really scale. To me this is an interesting problem given the idea that things are supposedly done by consensus here on wikipedia. --Blue Tie 02:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's not unnecessary as this is something novice users frequently don't understand. Ironically, that includes yourself. Other than that, I'm afraid your argument boils down to either (1) I don't like it so it doesn't have consensus, and/or (2) consensus has to be demonstrated with a quorum or a vote or something similar. Even arbiters and board members are chosen by a few hundred editors, so having several dozen people in a discussion is a pretty good representation, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a better one. If you claim consensus doesn't scale (even though we haven't had any real problems so far, we may get them in the future) do propose an alternative. >Radiant< 10:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a response. You manage to trivialize my objections and proclaim my view as one of "misunderstanding" (which you get to judge). Can you truly be sure that it is not the other way around -- that perhaps it is you who misunderstands? Incidentally, on the issue of consensus scaling, didn't you describe the problem of how wikipedia has thousands of editors but even the vote on the governing board could only garner a few votes? See, to me, that is an example of a problem. I believe you also described it as something of a problem. So, perhaps, between you and me there is consensus on this matter. (Although I bet the problem we each see is a different one). --Blue Tie 03:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I noted the thousands vs few situation but do not perceive it as a problem, since the governing board is far less important than the encyclopedia itself. With respect to misunderstanding, since we both seem to claim the other does not understand how Wikipedia works, an easy way to resolve this would be to take a look at how many policies, guidelines and changes to them authored by the respective two of us were accepted by the community. Sounds like a fair de facto benchmark, no? >Radiant< 13:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie: You're witnessing the actual system in action now. Perhaps we should write a clearer description of how it works. Specifically for your action, you are now following a proceddure called bold revert discuss.

Notice also how guidelines are descriptive? You were likely following BRD without even knowing that there was a page describing the process.

--Kim Bruning 10:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kim. No, I am aware of it, you have shown it to me before. I have tried it a few times and found it did not work. So I do not consider it descriptive. And when you showed it to be before, it was not a guideline. I sure hope it has not become one since it is not descriptive and since it did not go through any process that provided for general seeking of consensus. Incidentally, I also do not consider guidelines to be both descriptive and useful at the same time. They could be useful and proscriptive because they would tell people how to behave, or they could be descriptive and then essentially useless since they only would record behaviors that are already established and there would be no reason to tell people about such things... sort of like reminding people that they are breathing... or like describing water as wet. Its a true statement but so what? --Blue Tie 02:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• So they're educational, that's what. You are welcome to consider guidelines useless and ignore them, for indeed we do not require any editor to learn the policies and guidelines. >Radiant< 10:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If I may make a comment here about Blue Tie's claim that people who have misgivings about a proposal are only being quiet because they are being shouted down, I'd have to say that I disagree. Looking back through the page archives, I previously opposed the initial push for this to be a guideline based on both the unilateral nature of the attempt and my personal opinion that on exceptionally messy issues it is not possible for a discussion to be judged objectively, while a poll/vote can be. The first of these complaints is no longer a problem because enough voices have been heard for me to be satisfied that the promotion will not be unilateral.

I stopped objecting on the second basis after a bit as well, but not because I was being ganged up on. Rather, I spent some time reading more of the discussions that had taken place, and realized that the opposing position (voting is evil) is right most of the time. I still believe that polling can be helpful, and can even be necessary in cases where the discussion has broken down. I would even support a simple majority vote in a case where a final decision had to be made quickly, formally, and decisively, and no consensus could be determined¹. But this is only being made a guideline, not a non-negotiable policy on par with WP:NPOV. In other words, it's not that important and it doesn't have to effect your actions if you believe you have a good reason to go against it. It will not even create any new block-worthy offenses. Guidelines don't have to be perfect, just right most of the time. This one is.

1. I'm thinking of a case where the options are between a massively alienating Deus ex Jimbo declaration or a numeric majority vote to decide. Both are bad things in contentious cases and should be avoided if possible, but I believe the vote would be less harmful to the community because people are used to democratic decisions in real life and can't personalize them the same way as a royal edict. For instance, half the U.S. gets pissed off every time we elect a president but since it's the "fault" of the other half of the country they can't rationally claim it was unfair. Even minor "Jimbo says..." resolutions often spark anger and accusations of tyranny.

--tjstrf talk 09:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has been demonstrated for this by the people who formerly had objections having their objections addressed and agreeing with the new version. Other than BlueTie, I don't see any real objection to this being a guideline. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that has happened, but ignoring your assumption, are you saying that if I raise objections, they do not count and thus consensus has been achieved? (By the way, thank you for labeling my objections as "real"!) I admit I am only one person but I have been told "wikipedia is not a democracy". Are you saying that, in fact, it is? Perhaps you are advocating a position of supermajority voting? Or maybe not. Maybe you are saying that if only one person has objections then consensus has been achieved and one person's views can be ignored. If that is the case, I can certainly understand your view. It is a sort of democratic vote -- a tyranny of the majority. Maybe it feels bad but at least it is a critical standard. But do you feel that it is only valid if just one person objects but it is not valid if it is two? Or how many people have to object for consensus to not be achieved? --Blue Tie 03:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I have not said that people who object were shouted down or even ganged up on. Also, to be clear the former discussion is not my only problem with the matter. Perhaps I should list my problems:

1. Voting or polling is a valuable method for arriving at consensus and also for confirming or memorializing consensus. As a process, this should be recognized and not discouraged.
2. Consensus is not defined
3. Treatment of article creation and policy or guideline creation as equivalent is a bad idea.
4. A guideline on this is not needed if it is only descriptive in nature. And, if it is not simply descriptive, it should have a wider audience for approval, since it becomes widely binding. But as others have pointed out in a variety of ways "consensus does not scale". Catch-22.
5. I think that even if it is not descriptive, it does not need to be a guideline. What problem does it solve? I think it adds problems.
6. Others have objected, their objections were not fully handled or at least they have not recognized them as handled. This is not consensus to my eye. Indeed, I do not see any evidence of consensus on this talk page by the way I view consensus.

That probably sums it up, though because I am in a rush, I may not have addressed everything. --Blue Tie 12:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Once more, you are assuming that the Wikipedia system does not and cannot work, despite clear evidence to the contrary. If you think that (in the future) Wikipedia should resolve such issues through voting, draw up a method for that that works. Edit this page: Wikipedia:Iterative voting to resolve consensus (or whatever you want to name it) and make a serious proposal. Do not curse what you percieve as darkness, but light the proverbial candle. >Radiant< 12:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you have made a number of false assumptions there. For example, where did I give any sense that the wikipedia system does not and cannot work? Perhaps you have the sense that the wikipedia system is how you see things but not how I see things. Is that a sort of blindness or assumption on your part as to what constitutes the wikipedia system? Maybe I think the wikipedia system does and can work but I see it differently than you do. One area where we might disagree would be on how criticism of this page is handled. Some people might feel that the wikipedia system one where consensus on a page is achieved by just asserting it and then instructing other wikipedians who do not agree to go away and start their own page and not criticize the content here. Others might feel that is not really the wikipedia system. But everyone is different. --Blue Tie 02:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, you were the one who claimed WP:DAV matched actual practice, so that should give an indication of how well you understand the Wikipedia system. Other than that this reasoning is a straw man, in that it entirely mischaracterizes the situation and then implies that I agree with the mischaracterization. >Radiant< 08:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhh... no. I did not claim that "WP:DAV matched actual practice". Can you cite an instance? (But, let's suppose I did. Perhaps it really DOES show that I understand wikipedia better than you. Who is to say? Certainly it cannot be a "majority vote" can it?) I also do not understand how my reasoning is a strawman. Are you saying that you do not want me to go off, start another page and stop criticising this one, because that seemed to be the message. And you said it not just once, but twice, so I think you really mean it. --Blue Tie 13:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your words, "I think that what [DAV does] is describe things that are for the most part already happening." Of course it's possible that I'm wrong, but this thread is indicative of the contrary. The point is that you want to prescribe voting, yet this is a descriptive page. It's not helpful to say "the community should vote more often but I'm not going to think about how this should work", so I'm asking you to think about how it could work, draft a proposal for that, and show it to the community for feedback. >Radiant< 13:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe to you that looks like I said it matched actual practice. But to me it says that "for the most part" that is what is aleady happening ... to me, that is not the same thing as saying that they match. And yes, I do think that for the MOST part it is what is happening.

The thread you linked to does not seem to have any comments by me from what I can tell.

And, once more, I do not want to particularly prescribe voting. However, I am opposed to a rejection of voting, which may seem like the same thing but it is not. I have said this many times. I also do not agree that guidelines are simply descriptive. I read the policy on guideline creation and it does not say that. It tends to see them as being directive though not with absolute authority. --Blue Tie 14:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's my point. You think that (for the most part) that is what is happening, and on that account, you are dead wrong. The other thread contains no comments by you, but contains over a dozen editors reaffirming the fact that you are dead wrong. Other than that, it is a perennial straw man that this page would be a policy to forbid voting - and to believe that it is possible for guidelines to be binding in the first place is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. >Radiant< 14:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that for the most part, that is what is happening. And on that account I am dead right, even though you insist otherwise.

I have not said that this is a page to forbid voting. I have said that it discourages the use of an important tool to develop, achieve and memorialize consensus. And I have said that I think that is a bad idea.

As for the other thread, I am pretty sure that what they were saying I am "dead wrong" about as you put it was not the "most part" but the "lesser part" which was different from their views. There was no discussion about most of that document... only a vote where the talk was about a few parts of it -- the "lesser" part. And -- people went to vote on a delete instead of to work to improve it. ::Shrug:: I did not mind. I do not particularly hate votes; it was not an emotional thing for me. But I did take note of what happened -- actual practice. Instead of discussing and working to improve it, it was almost immediately PUT TO AN UP OR DOWN VOTE without any discussion of how it might be improved! Perhaps I could have motivated a greater discussion by putting up at least some defense and describing some intention, but I did not want to. I was sort of interested in watching, but actually I got busy and had to stop being on wikipedia for a while. --Blue Tie 15:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• It was never put to an "up or down vote"; such misconceptions are precisely what we're trying to prevent here. Also, proof by assertion doesn't cut it. We both claim that we're right, except that I have threads such as that MFD, as well as several policies/guidelines to back up my point of view, and you have just your assertion. >Radiant< 15:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I would add that my observation (original research, of course) is that the vast majority of Wikipedians who actively contribute to the project for any length of time accept that consensus-seeking, as practiced on Wikipedia, works, and is the best way of pursuing the settling of questions about content and form. I think that it is quite clear that voting does not settle disputes, and often exacerbates them. Almost all of the process in Wikipedia evolves organically, and is then written down in policies and guidelines after it has become clear that a process has become widely accepted. One or a few editors acting boldly may try to precipitate a wider acceptance of a standard/process, and their actions may be later 'ratified' or rejected, not by voting, but by the actions of other editors. Calling for a vote/poll of a perceived change in policy/guidelines often seems to be brought up by editors who do not accept a growing consensus. I know it took me a while to see how well the current system works, but it does work. -- Donald Albury 18:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a questionable proposition you put forward: That the "vast majority" of wikipedians who "actively contribute" to the project for "any length of time" accept that consensus-seeking as practiced on Wikipedia, works and is the best way of pursuing the settling of questions about content and form. When I say "questionable" I should be specific. When you say "vast majority", you do not seem to mean "since the start", because many many many have left in sadness or disgust. But you said it in the present tense, so perhaps you mean only the ones who are presently on the system. If so, it is a highly self selected group: People who are here trying to work with the system. Seems that they almost have to believe in it to work with it. But even that might not be true. How many of them retire to work on smaller articles with few contributors to avoid the problems? Does that still count as "active contribution"? Maybe it is what "any length of time" means. If it means years and years that would be a very select group. If it means a week, perhaps the vast majority do not even have an opinion on the issue. When you say that things work, do you mean that they "work for me" or do you also include the notion that the system works for all the people who got fed up and left? Reading what you said it would be possible to read it harshly: You are using the technique of bandwagoning, claiming that you and the majority share heart and mind -- and that further, you are enlighted. Thus, anyone who does not agree is (covertly) an unenlightened luddite who cannot stand that the tide is against him. But as an enlighted wikipedian seeking consensus, you would never treat another person who was, in good faith. raising objections. You would instead, directly address the issues, and not indirectly attack the messenger, wouldn't you?

As an aside, counting time as an anon, I have been contributing both in content and financially since (I think my first entry was in) 2004. But perhaps that is not a long enough time. --Blue Tie 02:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• This reasoning strikes me as spurious, in that you assume that those people who got fed up and left did so because our decision making mechanism does not correspond with what you'd like it to be - yet you cite absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that line of reasoning. And why exactly is it relevant that you contribute financially? Do you imply that the opinion of people who donatre to Wikipedia should be given greater weight? >Radiant< 08:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not assumed that the people who got fed up and left did so because (y)our decision making mechanism does not correspond with what "I would like it to be". And with regard to the financial contribution: the original correspondant was making a claim that there was a relationship between commitment to the project and acceptance of this proposal. So, I offer that "my commitment has been mult-dimensional and yet I do not think this is either a good or necessary proposal" as a contra-indicator of the original proposition. Thanks for asking. --Blue Tie

I believe people would be more willing to discuss whatever your suggestions are if you both stated your suggestions clearly and succinctly and stopped edit warring on the guideline. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on that. Regretably, the evidence (here on this page) does not support your belief. Look it over carefully and see.--Blue Tie 13:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have. It does. You have proposed no concrete change to the guideline except for a general distaste. This is not actionable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you missed this:

1. Voting or polling is a valuable method for arriving at consensus and also for confirming or memorializing consensus. As a process, this should be recognized and not discouraged.
2. Consensus is not defined
3. Treatment of article creation and policy or guideline creation as equivalent is a bad idea.
4. A guideline on this is not needed if it is only descriptive in nature. And, if it is not simply descriptive, it should have a wider audience for approval, since it becomes widely binding. But as others have pointed out in a variety of ways "consensus does not scale". Catch-22.
5. I think that even if it is not descriptive, it does not need to be a guideline. What problem does it solve? I think it adds problems.
6. Others have objected, their objections were not fully handled or at least they have not recognized them as handled. This is not consensus to my eye. Indeed, I do not see any evidence of consensus on this talk page by the way I view consensus.

--Blue Tie 14:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't. From the top -> 1 is not how things work here. If you would like to change how things work here, get consensus for that change. 2 - WP:CON. 3 - why? Propose a concrete change. 4 Guidelines describe how things are to be done. That's what they do. 5 It solves the problem of people treating polls like simple majority contests and not seeking consensus and 6 All objections other than yours have been fully handled. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but you said that I had not provided any specific objections that were actionable. But I had. You see, the fact that you do not like my objections is not the same thing as me not providing any. And most of these are actionable. Let me review.

1)Sure it is how things work, quite a bit. It is simply not true to say it is not.

2)WP:CON does not answer the question.

3)As for why, I mention the "why". If it is only descriptive of what is already happening, then it is not needed. If it is, on the other hand, more than just descriptive and binding on a wider audience, the wider audience should at least be made aware and given a chance to express their views. I have proposed a concrete change. New guidelines and policies can be announced (and dismissed) just like the plea for money can be. I consider that beyond the scope of this discussion, but it is part of my objection to this becoming a guideline.

4)I agree that guidelines describe how things ought to be done. That is more than descriptive. I do not think that this guideline works because it discourages the use of an important tool for arriving at and memorializing consensus. Instead, it should recognize this value. It does not.

5)I do not know of any case where people treat polls like simple majority contests. I also do not know of any case where voting was used, where the minority had consensus without a mediation (which I believe is a key that is missing).

6)No, not all objections other than mine have been fully handled. Some people raised objections, they were not handled and they have just left, from what I can see. That is how many people do it here. They drop in, they present their position and their views and then they move on, hoping that they words will still have some validity even if they have gone to other areas. Of course that is probably a vain hope, but it is "what is happening" (descriptive). --Blue Tie 15:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding #5, you must not have read this talk page archive very well, but to reiterate - polls are treated like majority contests in such places as WP:CHILD and WP:NC-TV, with rather disastrous results both, and the minority gets their way with some regularity on AFD and DRV. I'm quite sure having told you this before personally, as well. >Radiant< 15:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding #5, ArbCom elections and RfAs are treated as, essentially, majority contests with rather simple and uncontroversial results. In fact, the one recent time that RfA went the route of consensus rather than a vote percentage, it caused one of the larger shitfests I've ever witnessed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually this became a shitfest specifically because there was no consensus for the promotion, and yet a 'crat promoted him anyway. >Radiant< 15:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And I would argue that there definitely was consensus and the fight was related to a set of expectations about what consensus is, even though there is no reason to have any such expectations. If I recall this case, it was not even that a minority of the people were successful... it was simply that they felt the majority was not large enough. So, that gets to a question I ask alot and have NEVER seen an answer to: What is consensus? Is it unanimity? Is it unanimity -1? Is it unanimity -2? Is it half plus 1? There are actually answers to the question that can often avoid numbers, but we do not even have those answers, in really clear language. And sometimes, there is a need to refer to numbers as well. That this is ignored by this guideline is a problem for me. I admit though, this specific problem is not one that can be solved here, alone. But because this guideline rests so heavily upon that jelly-legged definition of consensus, it is weak and I think it is wrong. --Blue Tie 16:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• However, the Arbitration Committee, the penultimate authority on such matters, decided that there was no consensus (here). If you dissent, you can try appealing to Jimbo. Like I said several times before, if you do have suggestions for a system you consider more workable, do propose them. What you're doing now is only vaguely alluding that the Wikipedia idea of consensus is not workable, even though that's precisely what we've been using all these years. >Radiant< 16:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, those aren't recommendations on how to change the article. If you don't feel that consensus is defined, suggest a definition to add. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Okie dokey. Perhaps this weekend.--Blue Tie 15:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't recommend defining consensus in this guideline. We link to WP:CONSENSUS, which is where consensus should be defined. If we also define that term here, we risk confusion. TheronJ 15:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% that we should not define it here. However, this page relies upon that page. And that page is not well designed/defined. The concept on wikipedia is like the concept of God around the world. Its like the story of the blind men who met with an elephant -- each one of them would know it when they "saw" it again, yet each one would be wrong. Note that Radiant thinks that a decision which by my view, had consensus, did not.

Because Concensus -- even on WP:CON is ill defined, and this page relies upon that confusing concept, I continue to have an objection to this page. That is not something that can be fixed here, but is part of my problem with this page. I do not think it should be a guideline because it relies and by doing so, reconfirms confusion. That is just one of my concerns. But I also have others, specific to this page, that I am willing to address. --Blue Tie 16:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And also, please note that by design, Wikipedia does not have firm rules; in other words, guidelines aren't supposed to be binding, an important point repeated in WP:POL. >Radiant< 14:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that wikipedia does not have firm rules. It has 5 pillars. Those are somewhat immutable and cast in iron. Then it has Policies, those are pretty firm. And it has guidelines, which, along with essays, are used as bludgeons on people to bring them into line. By the way, that might be entirely appropriate, but it would be somewhat misleading to dismiss guidelines as light and so -- just pass them and don't worry. If that were really the case, I would say to you: Don't worry about it -- guidelines mean nothing... so stop worrying about whether it is a guideline. But you know it is not that trivial. That is why you are fighting so hard for it. --Blue Tie 15:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is getting silly. You're using the Five Pillars to claim that Wikipedia has firm rules, even though one of those pillars explicitly states that it does not, and that rules may be ignored. I am unaware of people using guidelines or essays as bludgeons (please do cite evidence rather than handwaving). I am, however, aware of the usefulness of educating people on how Wikipedia actually works. >Radiant< 15:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is silly but I am responding to your comments. As for using guidelines as essays and guidelines as bludgeons, I could do a lookup, but fairly often I have seen people told to refer to guidelines. Specifically on this topic I have seen people referred to "voting is evil" and then being castigated when they suggested a vote on a matter. I'm not sure it has ever happened to me, but I have seen it happen to others. I am not particularly interested in finding an example of a fairly frequent activity that I believe you have engaged in a time or two. Or would you say that you have never actively and aggressively discouraged a vote by referring to a guideline or an essay?

If you want to have a guideline about the way wikipedia really works, one could say something like: "There are secret and open alliances on wikipedia. You can be more successful in getting support for things if you get political and carefully use discussion (and vote squelching where practical) to get results. Remember, the more vague things are the more power can be held by a few people who have been around longer. This can be particularly helpful in adminstrative areas. However, in the article section if you do not have alliances you can often be successful if the other side is just one person and you are a bully." Now, I would argue that this is a practical description of how things actually work "a great deal". But I would not really want to see that as policy, guideline or even essay in order to "educate" people. To me, it might even be useful, but it would not be right. And so it is with this guideline as well. Maybe it is useful to some people, but it is not a good thing. --Blue Tie 15:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• TINC. >Radiant< 15:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not recognize the acronym. --Blue Tie 16:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"TINC" means There is no cabal. (But see Wikipedia:Words of wisdom#There is a cabal and Wikipedia:Words of wisdom#There is only a cabal if you want there to be one. "There is no cabal" is a much-overused phrase on Wikipedia (and on the Internet generally) that is trotted out by someone every time someone else suggests (as you did, though only as an example) that there might be some secret or semi-secret alliances, groups etc. that control or influence the course of events on Wikipedia. It is just a subset of the larger subject of "conspiracy theories." The fact is that there may or may not be such alliances on Wikipedia (I have my own opinion but will keep it to myself) but it usually makes little sense to deny they exist because, after all, if you are part of a conspiracy, part of the way you keep the conspiracy operating is to deny it exists. Or, if you deny there is a conspiracy, it means you are part of the conspiracy... which of course runs into the problem that even if there is sometimes a conspiracy, there isn't always a conspiracy. This is the kind of thing that is more usefully discussed over a beer or three, after the work day is done. 6SJ7 17:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a mystery. Guidelines aren't binding, but they are "actionable." (Although I see Radiant! clarified this mystery somewhat last month,[13] and that his/her change seems to have stuck). It certainly is easier to convince someone to do something if you can cite a guideline, although I don't know if I would call that "bludgeoning." TheronJ 15:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is why this doesn't really fit the guideline rationale. It's not "actionable," it's simply a series of opinions that may or may not be held by some editors. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

On the main question -- whether there is consensus for the use of a guideline tag -- I think there is. There has been a lot of work to respond to specific objections (including mine), and although the opinion isn't unanimous, I think a consensus has formed around the current guideline. Of course, consensus can change, so I am happy to consider and respond to any new objections. TheronJ 15:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentals

Consensus is fairly fundamental to how a wiki works. That is what makes things like Bold revert discuss work.

Are you seriously removing that statement, just because other wikis also happen to work that way?

Wow, I can leave my argument about learning from the mistakes of others at home then.

Might I meatball:NameTheConflict? I'm thinking a rather extreme case of NIH syndrome. Would that cover it?

So what can we do to have some kind of description of why wikis work this way in the article?

--Kim Bruning 04:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kim, I was hoping to discuss content on the actual page this weekend, but I only had 24 hours at home and had to get new glasses, trade in a TV I bought at Christmas and so on. However, I looked in and saw your post. It does not seem to make any sense. You appear to be responding to some comments but it is not clear what they were. Your comment about NIH is interesting. It is one of my concerns about this article and methods of achieving consensus on wikipedia. --Blue Tie 20:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[14] (got reverted) --Kim Bruning 22:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

On consensus

There is no consensus for this to be a guideline right now. This is obvious from the discussion. Now, some might like to silence the discussion because they don't like the discussion, can we put the kibosh on this and figure out how to find cosnensus instead of certain types simply forcing the issue and saying "this is how it goes, deal?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that something is under discussion does not debunk it. We've tried to reasonably explain it, and that isn't working out. We can't waste time re-explaining it to you just because you don't get it. -- Ned Scott 22:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

no, I get it fine. There's no consensus, yet a few people want to force it anyway. It's not a waste of time to explain 1) where the consensus is or 2) why the valid and numerous protests are invalid. Or perhaps I should invoke the arbcom ruling you mentioned as a "responsible party" and close the discussion with a {{rejected}}? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus on whether or not wikipedia is run by consensus? What are you going to do, hold a poll on that? --Kim Bruning 22:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. There's no consensus that this essay is a guideline, is actionable, or deals in current practice. No one's been able to dispute that. Care to try? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. You are just wasting our time now. -- Ned Scott 22:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not kidding. Maybe you can actually point this out instead of just saying it's so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

*Sigh* This page is a corollary of Wikipedia:Consensus, which is also a guideline, oddly (why isn't it marked policy? But that's a discussion we're holding elsewhere). --Kim Bruning 22:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it may be a corollary doesn't make it true, though. This page, as noted numerous times, is simply a page of non-actionable, not-consensually-shared opinions of some editors regarding an opinion on voting. It still makes no mention that we do many things via voting here, for example. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

List the things that are done by voting then, and list the things that *should* be done by voting then? --Kim Bruning 22:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been done above already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If the corollary falls, doesn't logic dictate that Wikipedia:Consensus is no longer valid as well? --Kim Bruning 22:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. Wikipedia:Consensus is certainly a guideline, maybe a policy. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, as it stands, is not. It doesn't really act as a corrallary, because the basic premise is false - often, polling is a substitute. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In the same way dictatorship is a substitute for democracy? I guess so. But is it a *desirable* substitute? --Kim Bruning 22:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, apparently, it is. We're inconsistent on that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is sheer, unmitigated nonsense. On Wikipedia, polling is never a substitute for discussion. There certainly are situations in which it's appropriate to conduct a formal poll in addition to broader discussion, but not instead of said discussion.
Numerous editors (including me) raised a variety of substantive objections, all of which have been adequately addressed. The remaining objection pertains to the core principle that the page documents—something so fundamental that this is analogous to someone slapping a dispute tag on Wikipedia:No original research, claiming that original research is okay.
Furthermore, this page's advice is actionable. When someone attempts to use polling in place of discussion, this is the page to point him/her to when shutting down the poll.
Lastly, while I'm assuming good faith, the comment above by Badlydrawnjeff that "maybe" we should hold a poll to determine whether or not Wikipedia is run by consensus is making it very difficult. —David Levy 04:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Maybe" was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But what I'm stating is not nonsense - we do use polls in some situations instead of discussion to come to conclusions - it happens and this fails to note that. Maybe your objections were dealt with - others were not, and your poo-poohing of the valid discussion and dissent is unhelpful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please cite the situations in which we use polls instead of (not in conjunction with) discussion to come to conclusions. —David Levy 05:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom elections, without question. RfA claims to use discussion, but a certain threshold of votes has been noted to have any chance at passing, and an attempt at "consensus" started a major shitstorm. DRV was a vote until semi-recently. Need more? --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the first valid example. You just named three processes that incorporate both discussion and polling. You're supposed to cite situations in which we use polls instead of (not in conjunction with) discussion. —David Levy 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

On the first, the discussion has nothing to do with the results. On the second, the discussion has little to do with the results, as there's still a vote count that must be reached. Certainly, you understand the processes I've listed, correct? --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand them perfectly. I'm sorry that you don't. —David Levy 05:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I've clearly shown why you're incorrect in that assertion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you haven't. Discussion plays a major role in ArbCom elections and RfAs. Many, many people's votes are influenced (or even determined) via said discussion. Candidates succeed and fail as a result. I've even seen instances in which adminship nominations that initially appeared destined for success have failed because of issues raised on the RfA pages.

We do not conduct polls instead of discussing matters. —David Levy 05:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is irrelevant in ArbCom elections. They do not affect the outcome, the vote count does. RfAs, the discussion only matters somewhat. The end result, again, still needs to fall within an arbitrary vote count. We do conduct polls to come to conclusions rather than use discussion, it happens very often. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is not irrelevant in ArbCom elections; it directly affects the voting.

And no, an RfA vote count is not the outcome's sole determining factor. While it often is obvious when a candidate's "support" percentage is high or low, borderline cases come down to discussion.

If, in either scenario, we lined up and cast ballots without asking any questions or commenting on the candidates' positions, that would be a situation in which we use polls instead of (not in conjunction with) discussion. That isn't what we do. —David Levy 05:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've shifted outcomes of Requests for adminship, * for deletion, deletion reviews and yes also arbcom elections by huge margins by discussing issues in a clear and calm way. That's the way it works. :-) --Kim Bruning 06:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We disagree. no point in playing the "yes it does"/"no it doesn't" thing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your disagreement stems from misunderstanding. This is analogous to someone "disputing" Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not because they believe that Wikipedia is a webspace provider. ("We do host personal content instead of building an encyclopedia, it happens very often.") —David Levy 13:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that some people think that "we do vote at times" is a good argument against discouraging voting. Actually, the converse is true, in that there's hardly any point in discouraging something that doesn't happen to begin with. Similarly, we do protect pages at times, and yet we still discourage page protection. Also, the people who claim this page isn't wikt:actionable appear to be arguing from the legal sense of the word (i.e. can people be sanctioned for a violation) rather than the business sense of the word (i.e. does it recommend an action). WP:POL uses the latter definition, because Wikipedia is not a system of law. >Radiant< 10:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the point. To "discourage" voting is simply an opinion. It's not actionable, you can't do anything with this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but maybe you don't understand what a wikt:guideline is. -- Ned Scott 12:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. The page is being held hostage by well-meaning individuals who misunderstand how Wikipedia works. —David Levy 13:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's something I said a while back on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. It was in response to a user who claimed that Wikipedia was a democracy because he found examples of democratic-like process:

While it is correct to say "Wikipedia is not a democracy", that shouldn't be confused with "Wikipedia is never a democracy". Yes, we will find examples of votes and democratic-like process, but it is never binding and is something we try to avoid to prevent things like group-think and "us vs them", etc. So yes, there is some democracy in Wikipedia, and that is ok, but the point is that we are not bound by democratic process and there are other means of consensus that is more often desirable.

That being said, if someone wanted to start a poll on what color to use in a template, and no one discussed it, I doubt anyone would care. However, even there someone is free to start a discussion if they wish.

We want to encourage discussion over polls and show that polls are not binding. In a perfect world the judgement of most users would be that they would know when it was good to use a poll and when it wasn't. This guideline is so harsh because it's not a perfect world. I hope we can tone it down sometime in the future, but the idea would still be the same. Remember, as a guideline it won't apply to every single situation, and is subject to reasonable exemption, so if there really is a time where polling is a better idea than discussion, then that can still happen. Guidelines don't have to be perfect, they just gotta be right most of the time. -- Ned Scott 10:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As of now, this page reflects only one of several opinions on the matter, and therefore I have re-tagged it as an Essay. I have no doubt about what will happen next, because it is obvious that some peoples' views of what "consensus" is is determined by what "side" they are on. 6SJ7 14:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That is nonsense. As indicated several threads up, as well as on WP:POL, you make a guideline by writing down what happens, looking at arguments, and addressing objections. That's precisely what happened here. See #Analysis of the dispute up there. Note that consensus is not unanimity, and note that nearly all of the counter-arguments are based on misunderstandings, fallacies, or a dislike of what actually happens. >Radiant< 14:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Naming conventions

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions explains that It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in, such as this dispute. Closing consists of announcing the decision at the locations of the discussion and briefly explaining the basis for closing it in the way it is being closed; further, to change any policy pages, guidelines or naming conventions to conform with the decision; and finally, to enforce the decision with respect to recalcitrant users who violate the decision, after reminding them and warning them." >Radiant< 11:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that this is in reference to one or two users... which isn't the case here. (→Netscott) 12:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken all of the following folks have expressed disagreeance with the tagging of this page as a guideline:

• User:Blue Tie
• User:John254
• User:Badlydrawnjeff
• User:JJay
• User:6SJ7
• User:DavidHOzAu
• User:Bidabadi

(→Netscott) 12:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I (of course) always assume good faith in these discussions, but to me your comment sounds an awful lot like a threat. Regardless of whether it is or not, I am wondering if you could explain how the quoted passage applies to this page. For example, when and by whom was this discussion "closed"? As another example, do you think anyone here is being "recalcitrant", and if so, who and on what basis? Have you warned anyone yet, or is that the next step? Or are you going to have one of your admin friends do it, rather than doing it yourself? As a final question, how is your quotation from an ArbComm case consistent with your earlier statement (which I can find if necessary) that ArbComm decisions are not "precedential", or words to that effect? 6SJ7 12:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you insist on bringing numbers in, note that in the past the ideas expressed on this page have been supported by Tony Sidaway, Tjstrf, Centrx, Dmcdevit, Sean Black, Kelly Martin, Mackensen, JYolkowski, Mindspillage, Extreme Unction, Visviva, Kim Bruning, David Levy, Saxifrage, TheronJ, The Land, Doc Glasgow, JzG, JackyR, Samuel Wantman, Rossami, Psyphics, Daniel Bryant, Milo H Minderbinder, Friday, Jdforrester, Hipocrite and Calton, and that's without counting this MFD. More importantly, note that several of the objections are based on misconceptions, e.g. Blue Tie who is working from a definition of "consensus" different from the one in WP:CON, and Jeff who is working from a definition of "actionable" different from the one in WP:POL. >Radiant< 13:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to try and determine my position, at least make an effort to get it right. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

But I did. You say "To "discourage" voting is simply an opinion. It's not actionable" and WP:POL says "A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable (i.e. it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors)". So yes, you are working from a different definition. >Radiant< 13:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. So this page, as it is not actionable, is not a guideline. Thank you, we're now in agreement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a non sequitur. This page recommends an action, and that's the definition of actionable per WP:POL. >Radiant< 14:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm reading this yet again, and I see no action recommended. I see a lot of opinions, and restatements from other pages, but no actionable information. Ergo, if guidelines are actionable, and this is not actionable...--badlydrawnjeff talk 15:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You "see no action recommended"? How can I respond to that without violating WP:AGF or WP:NPA? —David Levy 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's stunningly easy. You just politely point out what specific action is recommended. If you're too frustrated to do that, you go take a walk and try again later. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd already politely pointed out what specific action is recommended, so yeah, I just moved on. —David Levy 04:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I try to just get used to the fact that working on a wiki means repeating myself frequently. It seems I was just saying so to someone else the other day... ;-) -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie and Badlydrawnjeff have been asked numerous times what they would like changed in the text to make it reflect current practice. They have repeatedly declined to respond. A dispute only exists if there are two sides. One side is saying "What text do you want changed?" The other side is saying "There's a dispute! There's a dispute!" This is not a dispute. If a dispute is insisted on, could the people who don't like the page please propose a concrete change? Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a false statement. I have also asked for clarification on the ArbCom ruling, so stay tuned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Which of my statements are false "Blue Tie and Badlydrawnjeff have been asked numerous times what they would like changed in the text to make it reflect current practice." - check. "They have repeatedly declined to respond." - like you did right here - check. Why won't you tell us what you want changed? Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he believes that the page should claim that polling is a substitute for discussion. This, of course, is analogous to adding a dispute tag to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, demanding that it encourage users to assume bad faith. —David Levy 13:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you're not reading what I have to say. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"We do conduct polls to come to conclusions rather than use discussion, it happens very often."

—David Levy 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a threat to me also. Whilst I can sympathise with Radiant in that he clearly has devoted some time to ths issue and has a lot invested in it, I'm not sure what his over-aggressive attitude is actually designed to achieve. Badgerpatrol 16:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame...

...that this has broken down into a battle to gather the most bodies (thereby determining whose version of the page will be left standing when everyone has reached three reversions). How many users are reverting without even commenting here (noting only that other people have reverted, so there must be a valid dispute)?
I'm still waiting for someone to cite situations in which we reach decisions by conducting polls instead of (not in conjunction with) discussion. —David Levy 14:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you haven't. You've cited situations in which we reach decisions by conducting polls in conjunction with discussion. Even if you were correct in stating that the discussion is irrelevant (which you aren't), it wouldn't change the fact that discussion occurs. —David Levy 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I've cited situations where the discussion is not relevant to the outcome. No amount of discussion will change how an ArbCom election result is announced, or whether someone with 60% support is promoted to administrator. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do users receive "oppose" votes? In many cases, it's because of discussion that has occurred. —David Levy 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you have given your opinion that discussion is irrelevant in RFA and the ArbCom elections. Judged by the amount of discussion that actually goes on in those processes, it is obvious that many people disagree with you. >Radiant< 15:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make them right, actually. The amount of discussion is irrelevant to the results, thus my point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you should ask Jimbo and the bureaucrats whether they do consider points made in the discussion, as opposed to only looking at the amount of votes. Precedent indicates that they do; it appears that you believe the discussion to be irrelevant in RFA and ArbComElect, but the participants do not consider it irrelevant, and the closers do not consider it irrelevant either. >Radiant< 15:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"The closers certainly do. RfAs simply won't pass if it doesn't reach at least 70%, especially after the Carnildo debacle, and Jimbo came right out and said that 50% was his cutoff - no amount of discussion about someone who gets 40% would have mattered. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That is an obvious straw man. >Radiant< 15:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's more than you're offering at this point. *shrug* --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there should be some possible accomodation of Jeff's concern -- I think that everyone agrees that although ArbComm decisions and elections look a lot like voting, and RFA (to a lesser extent) looks somewhat like voting), we don't have binding votes in article or policy discussions. I will try to take a look at Jeff's changes. TheronJ 16:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Jeff's claims? He believes that ArbCom/RfA discussion is irrelevant, and he's added this to the guideline!

ArbCom elections and RfAs are votes, but they are not discussion-free votes. —David Levy 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is not relevant to the final result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No matter how many times you type that, it still won't be true. —David Levy 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You're ignoring the fact that discussion plays a major role in a candidate's failure to receive 70% or 50% support. The polling wouldn't work if it weren't accompanied by discussion. —David Levy 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

no, I'm not ignoring it. The discussion doesn't matter in the final result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that bureaucrats look specifically to discussion in borderline RfAs, the discussion is the basis for many of the votes that are cast. Do you honestly not understand this? —David Levy 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys realize you're talking right past each other, right? I mean, the discussion influences the votes, and the votes determine the outcome, therefore the discussion indirectly influences the outcome. We don't tend to have votes without accompanying discussion, ergo, polling is not used as a "substitute" for discussion, but more as a gauge for what people perceive the outcome of the discussion to be.

That said, the more people forgo discussion and just participate in the poll by "casting a vote", the less influence the discussion has. Many people find it very natural to participate as if the vote were held without discussion, which is why we are constantly repeating "X is not a vote" and "WP:NOT a democracy" and all the rest. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What was carnildos score? 69%? :-)

But even excluding that...

Please give your opinion in detail: by which mecahnism, does one get 70%+ support on an RFA?

This is interesting to me, because I am actually planning to tweak that mechanism in the near future. :-) --Kim Bruning 17:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You know the right people, you avoid conflict with the wrong ones, and don't piss anyone off. d:-) This discussion is a bit outside the realm of this, however, and I'd be glad to discuss this specific subject with you further elsewhere, seriously, because I've been shuffling an idea around in my head... --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a good start, and I'd love to hear your ideas. Next to the good start, you can often shift peoples opinions by discussing with them, meeting their problems, and maybe mediating some disagreements. (I know an RFA is late in the game for mediation, but hey, whatever works. ;-) ). It's unsurprising that oppose opinions get more attention than support opinions too, from this point of view. Of course, sometimes supports get comments too. It's quite interesting to see all the conversations going on in the background. The end result looks like a poll, but in the mean time there might have been many (sometimes even 100s of) interactions: all attempts at building consensus. :-) --Kim Bruning 07:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My changes

I think my changes reflect the current situation on the Wiki better than what was there before. If this is not problematic for the pro-guideline people, I will retract my opposition to this as a guideline if this change stays. I still don't consider it actionable, but in the spirit of compromise, an accurate telling of what goes on here is something I'll live with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of your changes are acceptable. Others are not. You've inserted flagrantly false information that I'm powerless to excise (because of the 3RR). Ordinarily, such edits would qualify as vandalism, but you actually seem to believe the nonsense that you've added to the page. —David Levy 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What parts were nonsense, exactly? Everything I added was accurate and demonstrated how we've done things (including one part that Theron changed back that does not appear to be true, but I'll wait for his comments since he's actually trying, unlike others). --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• "although the discussion often does not factor into the final counts"
• "...straw polling often cannot create consensus..."
• "the end result is typically achieved via the vote counts rather than any discussion preceding or during the process"

—David Levy 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Jeff, let me know what you think about this change[15] that I made to your changes. I think I understand your change, but wasn't sure that it was exactly right.

1. In RFA, is there a clear statement someplace of what decision process the bureaucrats use? I agree that in most cases, the !vote is sufficiently lopsided so as to render discussion irrelevant, but is there a clear statement of what the floor and ceiling are where the crats consider discussion and argument? I'm nervous about writing down specific numbers, but am open to being convinced.
2. I hate making any kind of specific statement about ArbComm elections, because Jimbo's procedures towards them are very flexible. (I agree that he and the arbcomm election pages themselves refer to the process as "voting," however). What did Jimbo end up doing in 2006 and 2005?

Thanks, TheronJ 16:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding RfA, there is almost certainly one in the archives that I can dig up later if someone doesn't beat me to it. The Giano RfAr sheds some light on the process, too. I can also point to my own experience at RfA in terms of vote counting, and I wish I had saved the discussion with the bureaucrat following the close in my case. Generally speaking, though, you're SOL no matter what the discussion is if you only get 60% support. That's a fact, and it simply means that the vote count is what matters, not the discussion. The 'crats can claim otherwise, but the actions are archived for all to see.

Regarding ArbCom, we can only point to, again, what has occurred. They are votes, and Jimbo has, unilaterally, said (paraphrasing) "50% is the threshold" in December 2006. The common situation that was expressed in my mind was that it was tpyical - I can, again, check the archives when I get home tonight to figure out how they ran in the past. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, yes, "See below" referred to ArbCom/RfA. I planned to add a link but got distracted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to get into too much detail on black box procedures on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure we disagree. I suspect that in practice, any RFA candidate who got 10% supports, 90% opposes would not be made an admin, no matter how cogent the support arguments and how incoherent the oppose arguments. Similarly, I suspect that any candidate who got 99% support, 1% oppose would be made an admin, even if the 198 supports only said "TheronJ r000lz! Zomg, his excessively long plot summaries totally pwn Wikipedia!" (plus 197 "per that first guy") and the two opposes were cogent descriptions of my many faults. (Actually, that second example would be close. If it actually happened, I don't know if the crats would confirm). So RFA is probably a mix of raw numbers and analysis of the arguments, but I hate to state a specific floor number or a specific analytical procedure if I don't know it.

As for ArbComm elections, that's even more of a black box, since AFAIK, people still aren't 100% sure what method Jimbo used to pick the winners. In practice, Jimbo seems to have appointed the top 5 vote getters in order to the longest term available, and the next two vote getters to the fill-in spots, but he never promised to do that, and he might not next time. In theory, the ArbCom election is "advisory" only, and Jimbo can do whatever he wants. I don't mind stating that arb comm elections are much more like a vote than article straw polls, but I am uncomfortable with putting too much detail here. TheronJ 16:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections and RfAs are votes, but not discussion-free votes. Discussion plays an important role in the votes that are cast, and it sometimes plays a direct role in the closing of RfAs. —David Levy 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No one is disputing the fact that voting occurs. Again, many people's votes stem from discussion. The decision to support or oppose a candidate often is based upon information obtained via discussion. Discussion is not irrelevant. —David Levy 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So perhaps you can point out ArbCom/RfA instances where the vote count was ignored in favor of the discussion? I can think of one, Carnildo, and that was one massive horrid situation that came of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You've ignored my reply and continued your straw man argument. —David Levy 17:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And you've accused me of making things up. At least I'm trying, here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't accused you of acting in bad faith (though some of your remarks have made it difficult to assume otherwise). I believe that you honestly misunderstand how Wikipedia works. —David Levy 17:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So this never happened? I assure you - I understand full well how things work here, I haven't been editing from under a rock for the last two years. If you can stop accusing me of propping up straw men and claiming my edits could be vandalism, maybe we might get somewhere. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Huh?! I plainly stated that your edits weren't vandalism (because you believed them to be accurate).

2. I'm not a newbie either. Obviously, one of us misunderstands how Wikipedia works.

3. You did prop up a straw man by ignoring what I actually wrote and refuting a nonexistent argument (that there are frequent "instances where the vote count was ignored in favor of the discussion"). —David Levy 18:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom elections are outside of wikipedia, arguably. Requests for adminship should not be a majority_{inserted resp to comment below} vote. If no one disputes it to be a vote, then it's time for folks to roll up some sleeves and step in. --Kim Bruning 17:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the crux of what you've written, but you've once again used the word "vote" as shorthand for "majority vote." Please try to avoid doing this, as it tends to result in confusion.  :-) —David Levy 17:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Argh. Old habits die hard. --Kim Bruning 18:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree with bdj's arguments and edits, and I feel sorry for him that he's not being understood. Yes, we'd prefer that polls are never a substitute for discussion, but unfortunately they sometimes are—for example, here: Talk:Jogaila/Archive 7#Poll result qp10qp 17:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You've cited a poll accompanied by discussion. —David Levy 18:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you misunderstand me as much as you misunderstand Jeff. I presume from your reply that only a poll unaccompanied by discussion would count in your book as a poll used as a substitute for discussion. But very few polls, even in the real world—for example, general elections—are unaccompanied by discussion: nevertheless, the result substitutes for the discussion because it counts.

The Jogaila poll was used as a substitute for discussion after the discussion failed to produce a result and became disruptive and counter-productive. A sorry state of affairs: no one likes to see a poll used as a substitute for discussion. The point Jeff makes, and which for some reason you cannot see from his point of view, is that the result of certain polls trumps the content of the discussions; he isn't saying that discussion doesn't take place but that the polls are used instead of the discussion to produce a result. It happens. qp10qp 07:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. In the example that you cited, a poll was used in conjunction with discussion after discussion alone failed to produce a satisfactory outcome. This is not an example of polling instead of discussing.

A valid example is when a user proposes a new policy or guideline and immediately sets up a majority vote without any attempt at discussion. Another example is when a user impatiently attempts to stifle productive discussion in favor of such a poll. ("Come on, we've talked enough! Let's just vote already so we can make this a policy right now!")

That's the type of behavior that this page seeks to discourage. When people decide via discussion that a poll is an appropriate tool, that's an entirely different matter. —David Levy 07:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no major objections to the recent changes [16] (or with this one). -- Ned Scott 05:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The true reason

Note that nowhere on this page do I find the true reason for discouraging majority votes. The problem is that we've found that once you allow majority voting, it leaks into the encyclopedia namespace, and we have found newbies holding majority votes on whether 1+1=3 or whether the sky is green. (Ok ok, those are obvious, so we didn't, but very similar polls were once held that were about more subtle topics where you might miss it if you're not keeping your eyes open.)
Now I know it's kinda annoying to some folks to not be able to use direct majority voting anywhere at all. But consensus works just fine even in situations where it's not prefectly optimal, and that way there's no chance of accidental leaks into the main namespace. --Kim Bruning 17:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I gave it a shot. >Radiant< 16:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• The "true reason" probably varies from person to person. If I understand him/her correctly, Radiant! opposes voting during policy development primarily because he/she think's its a terrible idea, and only secondarily, if at all, because of concerns that if people voted on whether "Foo" was a good policy, they might then be encouraged to vote about whether article "Baz" should say "George Bush is a war criminal." (Also, the whole voting about whether facts are true is not directly on point, IMHO. If people are voting about whether facts are true, then they have misunderstood WP:V - they shouldn't even be having consensus discussions about whether facts are true, because that issue isn't relevant. The guideline and existing practice do forbid binding votes about whether a particular factual assertion is supported by a reliable source, is unduly POV, or whatever, but permits straw polls on those issues, subject to appropriate cautions.) Thanks, TheronJ 16:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a lot easier to form a consensus on how to formulate NPOV though (in fact, it probably doesn't surprise you that NPOV and (wiki-style) consensus and wikis are sort of designed/evolved to operate together.)

All I can say is that in real life, "people are stupid sometimes". Or perhaps -thanks to wikipedia's large turnover in editors- people just take time to pick things up and catch a clue.

Well, really I'm just making stabs in the dark at an explanation for an observed phenomenon, and why the proposed solution works. Make up your own theory if you don't like mine.

All we really know is that empirical observation finds that reducing the appearance of majority voting reduces attempts at forming binding majority votes over facts (an obvious pathological situation, we both agree)

This is also why we try to avoid straw polls. People tend to mistake them for majority votes. (There's even a template for when we suspect large numbers of new people are dropping by... now where did that go?)

--Kim Bruning 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Aha: Template:AfdAnons --Kim Bruning 16:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Style problem with the guideline

“nowhere on this page do I find the true reason”

It’s pretty hard trying to understand the arguments here. I think a problem is that the issues in dispute are not well defined. The vagary begins at the top of the guideline. There is too much assertion in the passive tense. There are statements that read like attempts at metaphysical truth. The first sentence, for example:

“It is preferred that decisions on Wikipedia are generally made by consensus.”

Who prefers this? Why is it preferred? Is this statement axiomatic? Should it be referenced to an external study, or to a logical argument?

To attempt to get to the crux of the disputes, I suggest changing general passive statements to crystal-clear cited or logically based statements. SmokeyJoe 05:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You've cited wording inserted by Badlydrawnjeff in his attempt to fix the guideline by modifying various statements to make them less definitive. —David Levy 05:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Groupthink, closed options, us-vs-them, to name a few. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted a rewording. The very beginning is now a restatement from Wikipedia:Consensus. --Samuel Wantman 19:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom voting statement

I think the sentence "Nevertheless, Arbcom decisions are subject to simple-majority vote." should come out, as it vastly over-simplifies and misrepresents how arbcom decisions are developed. All arbcom decisions are subject to negotiation and modification until a consensus is reached. The so-called 'votes' signifiy which arbitrators support the current version of a proposed statement or remedy. Note also that an arbitation case is not closed until a form of super-majority (number supporting minus number opposing equals four or more) agrees to closure. -- Donald Albury 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• There is no misrepresentation. Arbitration Policy is clear. The cases heard and decisions are subject to majority voting. Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, which itself was subject to a vote [17], reads: An Injunction is considered to have passed when four or more Arbitrators have voted in favour of it, where a vote in opposition negates a vote in support. Furthermore, the section concerning the Final Decision includes: Each part will be subject to a simple-majority vote amongst active non-recused Arbitrators...Hence, no matter how people want to spin this, there is no decision and no consensus without a vote that manifests that consensus. --JJay 01:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for this argument, the arbcom is actually delegated from jimbo, and therefore is not directly controlled by the wikipedia community (nor would that be a good idea). Right tool for right job. --Kim Bruning 09:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Also unfortunately for this argument, there is a lot more discussion, compromising and rewording going on in the arbitration proceedings, including on their private mailing list. The statement, while not technically false, is indeed misleading in that it oversimplifies a delicate process. >Radiant< 09:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits

• I recently made some minimal chnages in the guidleine statement to reflect Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles/poll, which was adopted following the straw poll in August. Also one of the opening lines had read: Polling, while not forbidden, should be used with care, if at all, and alternatives should be considered. The "if at all" portion of that sentence is superfluous. If polling should be "used with care", then we can't immediately imply that it shouldn't be used "at all". The fact is polling is used and this guideline needs to reflect actual practice on the wiki. It can't proscribe acceptable behaviour. It can present guidelines for when to use straw polls--JJay 12:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sort of true... but if we don't prescribe against the usage of polls to prescribe things, we're sort of stuck. I'm divided on that <scratches head>. The logical (nomic) outcome of your statement is that we should not prescribe against polls, after which we have a poll, which then prescribes the having of polls. Exeunt consensus. Tricky! :-/ --Kim Bruning 12:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• (edconf) That's a straw man. "Polling should be used with care" means that it should always be used. "Should be used with care, if at all" means that it should not always be used. >Radiant< 12:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  A middle ground might be "If used, polls should be designed and conducted with care." TheronJ 14:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

TheronJ makes a good suggestion that would certainly improve the sentence. I would have to disagree with User:Radiant's comment: "Polling should be used with care" means that it should always be used. That is false. The "use with care" modifier means to use carefully, modestly, sparingly, etc. It in no way means "it should always be used". I can't imagine that anyone could interpret its meaning that way. I have to assume the second part of Kim Bruning's comment is an attempt at levity. I would ask him to elaborate on his thinking, for there is nothing in my statement that logically would result in a poll on anything. I will say that the palpable fear of polls displayed on this page at times borders on the pathological. --JJay 20:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the last part is me somehow trying to dance around saying what I'm trying to say, without trying to make it sound like an accusation (because I know people probably aren't doing it on purpose... I hope). Basically, if you view wikipedia guidelines as a nomic, you can use the "descriptive, not prescriptive" concept as a ratchet to force polling into being the default mode of running wikipedia. In combination with the constant influx of new people who have not yet been encultured, this becomes a recurring problem. No good counter has yet been found, short of constantly re-iterating the no polling guideline, each time it gets ratcheted out.

Unfortunately, polling tends to turn pathological very often indeed on wikipedia, so it remains important to discourage it. --Kim Bruning 08:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• As Kim says. You have to look not just at what you think the page means, but also at how other people may interpret it. People generally think of themselves that they're acting with care, so a statement to "only use polls if you're careful" is all-too-easily read as "use polls since you're careful". >Radiant< 12:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Issue of the day

Okay, the issue of the day is that someone found a guideline that had a poll on it, and concludes that this guideline was therefore enacted through a vote. That's a non sequitur; first, guidelines are not enacted period; second, the poll was not said to be a vote for enactment (or indeed for anything); third, the numerical outcome of the poll (62%) was rather low; and fourth, the person closing the poll noted that many of the opinions given in it didn't actually address the proposal itself. As a result, that proposal is now a guideline because of a weighing of arguments, not because it was enacted through a vote. >Radiant< 12:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This calls for a numbered list:  ;-)

1. I guess the first step is to agree on terminology. The current page states that "policies and guidelines are not ratified through a vote." In your opinion, Radiant!, are guidelines "ratified," or is the current language incorrect too?
2. On the more central issue, assuming that the guideline poll reflects current practice, do we want to write the policy section to (1) explain to editors how to conduct more such guideline polls; (2) to discourage editors from conducting similar guideline polls in the future; or (3) simply to report that the poll was used during the course of discussions regarding the guideline?

Thanks, TheronJ 14:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, guidelines aren't ratified, but there are people that think that they are, so it's useful to point out to them that they're not. On the more central issue, I don't believe it reflects current practice (look over CAT:PRO and CAT:G and you'll see it's an exception rather than the rule). We should generally discourage such polls because they tend to (1) give the impression that it is a vote-to-enact even if it's not, (2) create an us-vs-them mentality and discourage compromise, and (3) tend to lead to meta-arguments over whether the process was followed accurately. Recent examples of such include WP:CHILD, WP:NC-TV and RefDesk. >Radiant< 12:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)