Misplaced Pages

talk:Polling is not a substitute for discussion: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:04, 21 September 2006 editCentrx (talk | contribs)37,287 edits →Consensus doesn't scale.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:12, 20 August 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,418,815 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- auto-archiving for sporadic discussions: archive 5 threads when 15 threads are reached -->
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|-
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|<center> <font size="+1">Welcome to the discussion</center></font>
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|}
|counter = 5
----
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(180d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Polling is not a substitute for discussion/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Essays}}
}}
{{archives|auto=no|search=yes|editbox=no|
* ] (through September 2006)
* ] (through November 10, 2006)
* ] (through February 20, 2007)
* ]
}}


== Guideline status ==
==Early comments==
{{archivetop|See box. ] (]) 18:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)}}
{{quotation|Result: '''Demote to essay status'''.


3 editors supported the status of this page as a guideline, 8 opposed it and 1 was neutral. Surely that's all anyone needs to know? However, just in case...
Also, has wikipedia decided to change the process? Voting on content, or positions, is kinda different than voting on whether to merge or not. Some things do come down to a yea/nay. Move or don't move. Merge or not. Disambig page, or mentions at the top of the page.<br>
I've also used voting as a way to clarify positions, and I've (nor other people I've seen) never felt bound by the positions put out. Many times I've seen voting break down into, "Yes, but..." And some great clarifications have taken place. I'm thinking about the voting on banning US House IP addresses from editting pages about themselves.<br>
~ender 2006-03-26 19:59:PM MST
:There has been a de facto shift toward voting, which is unfortunate but may not be preventable. This page should probably be updated to reflect this trend.
:I think you are right that many votes generate useful discussions and deeper understanding -- but that is only insofar as they are not really votes, or insofar as the members choose to subvert the voting process. But when we go ''into'' a discussion expecting to vote rather than talk, or when a trial-balloon proposal is greeted with a chorus of automatic "Oppose" votes, real violence is done to the wikiprocess.
:Idea: Saying "X is evil" is not really a very helpful guideline. Could this page be redefined as something like ], a how-to guide on facilitating thoughtful dialogue in the face of the "let's-vote-on-it" mentality? -- ] 12:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Demoting a guideline is not a minor step, particularly if the guideline has been in place for a long time. So, it should require a very clear consensus. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that this guideline was created without consensus and has been persistently controversial. That doesn't erase its legitimacy, but might mean that a less cautious approach can be taken with regard to altering its status.
==Mathematics of voting: all systems are broken.==
* Mathematics of voting: all systems are broken. see ].
I removed the above because it is false. A yes/no vote on a single question is not mathematically broken. I guess that the author of the statement was thinking of multicandidate elections and ].--] 04:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
==When was this page authorized by consensus?==
I looked at the history of the page. It seems that the page is a copy of an essay from Meta-Wiki. When was this page authorized by consensus? How can it be a guideline without any consensus? ] 19:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


One support vote simply stated that it was a legitimate guideline and the user was comfortable with that. This is not an invalid viewpoint, but it also doesn't offer a very strong argument. The second support vote was made on the basis that "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" reflects consensus on en.wp. That's very arguable, but other editors in the discussion seem to wish to add caveats to that statement, and it is not self-evident that they are wrong. I'm also not sure that we should take a position that a guideline should be preserved merely on the basis that ''the page title'' rings true, without considering the contents of the page. A third support was made on the basis that removing the guideline would mean we wanted everything to be decided based purely on numbers. That seems to me like a false premise, because ] is policy. Moreover, it seems completely obvious that this is not the view of the community and that removing the guideline would not make it so. No-one in this discussion, for example, appears to take such a view.
==Ballots are the devil's work?==
This has got to be one of the oddest-titled policy-related pages I have seen. The title of this article, if taken seriously, is not suitable for a policy-related document (and if not to be taken seriously, is not suitable for a policy-related document). The article is also fundamentally self-contradictory, as verifying consensus requires some sort of majority vote for an option. It is a useful rule (expressed by ], for one) that if you ever wish to state something in a negative way, attempt to turn it into a positive before you say it. Following this principle, I come up with the following statements: '''"Reasoned discussion is good"''' and '''"Consensus is good"'''.


Overall, the supports, as well as being inferior in number, do not offer compelling arguments.
On reflection it might be useful to have a procedure for decision making which has two distinct phases. In the first stage, participants are prohibited from indicating their preferred option, but are allowed to state relevant facts and inferences and discuss them with each other. When discussion has died down the second phase, a vote on the alternatives, can take place. ] 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Opposes suggested that the page is written like an essay. This is a fair point. It is much longer and more detailed than we usually expect a guideline to be, offers more in the way of observation and, quite possibly, more that might be contentious. It is also argued that polling actually plays a significant role in the development of the project, so it is not desirable to be very prescriptive about its use. On the one hand, this may not be entirely fair on the guideline, which does make clear that there is a place for polling. On the other, a number of users in the discussion express a desire for flexibility where prescription is not needed. From this perspective, it can again be observed that the guideline contains greater detail than guidelines normally have. It is more in line, perhaps, with what the community expects from an essay. Some participants to the discussion indicate a feeling that the guideline strikes a tone which is too cautious about voting and fails to reflect the reality that voting (with or without a !) is something many Wikipedians value. This also seems to me to be an opinion with validity.
== Doesn't this "Essay" violate "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox" and "NPOV"? ==


Please note that this RfC close is not a funeral rite. Content from the guideline may be suitable for canibalisation or adaption for other policy and guideline pages, which is something that editors who might be unhappy about this close can pursue if they wish.}}
I'm a little confused by this "essay" about polls and voting. Doesn't this very article violate some of the central tenants of Misplaced Pages? First, it's just a soapbox for people who don't like polls and/or voting on content. Second, it only presents one point of view--that polls/voting are satanic.


I just read this page, and was surprised to find such a guideline. I then wondered how this could get a guideline status and proceeded to spend an hour reading discussions. I haven't read all discussions, but skimmed over them and am trying to give a summary of the situation.
I've seen in many places that simply categorizing discussion into "yea" and "nea" camps helps editors come to a consensus... the neatness makes the discussion easy to follow instead of being a jumbled mess. I'm not saying that voting should be binding; I'm saying that it simply helps move a discussion forward and makes it easy to contribute.


This page's status has been discussed over and over again, as soon as ]. As I write this, it is presented as a guideline. The issue is complexified by renames and numerous proposals to merge with similar pages. There are many discussions that followed, but here are the main (feel free to add those I missed):
I vote to remove this one-sided essay. (Just kidding).
* ]
--] 02:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
* ]
:Misplaced Pages's articlespace is not a soap box, but the metapedia portions such as out userspaces, here, and the Vote for Deletion areas are under no such restriction. The concept of essays is that they are POV, but since they exist in order to provoke thought, it's all right. Essays are not encyclopedic material, they are opinions of certain users on how we should run the Wiki. (Additionally, you are quite capable of adding a dissenting opinion if you so desire.) Also, I think you misunderstand the point of the essay, which isn't that voting has no place whatsoever, it's that it is overused. The whole "evil" thing is a joke. --] 03:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


2 general issues were pointed out. This page was created by copying the Meta essay ().
== Misunderstanding the word "vote" ==
First, this was tagged as a guideline from its creation, without following the proper guidelines life cycle. Therefore, this is not officially a guideline. However, as far as I can see, the last time the guideline tag was removed or marked as disputed was 5 years ago (last dispute ended with , although the page was then protected). Therefore, this could be considered as a de facto guideline.
Second, Polls are evil is and has always been an essay written as an essay. This page was originally titled "Discuss, don't vote". This was further enhanced to the current "Polling is not a substitute for discussion", which I consider perfectly neutral. Nevertheless, the content still reflects the personal tone of the original essay, although the tone is much more moderate now. The current content still looks more like a demonization of polls than praise for discussion. As I write this, the page's first sentence is "Polls lead to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to... suffering.", presented as a quote.


To go forward, we would need to decide whether this should keep the personal and living tone of an essay or if we should continue to turn it into a neutral piece. If there is consensus to make it an essay, the status could be changed. If there is consensus to make it a guideline, an RFC could be opened. If there is no consensus, perhaps this needs to become 2 pages.
According to my dictionary:
I am personally not familiar enough with the other pages with which a merge is proposed to say what would be best in the long term. Meanwhile, I have simply restored the disputed tag. --] (]) 05:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


:Disputes that haven't been touched in a year or more may be fairly said to be inactive. You may not like this being a guideline, and you are welcome to start a new discussion on its status, but I'm comfortable with it being a guideline. -- ] 14:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
:''vote. (1)(a) A formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue. (b) A means by which such a preference is made known, such as a raised hand or a marked ballot.''


::To clarify, I didn't mean to say that the dispute is active, nor that this shouldn't become a guideline. As I said, I did not check related pages enough to give an informed opinion on the best course in the long term. I just quickly checked ]. It could be decided that this page addresses a subtopic of polls and that some content from Straw polls should be moved here. I believe Straw polls would then become an informative page without normative content. In this case, the question of whether this page should become an essay or a guideline remains.
Or in other words, many WP procedures (such as AfDs) are what is known as "votes", and the people who participate in them are what is known as "voters". There is an odd canard that floats around Misplaced Pages where people mutter the mantra "(Something) is not a vote", with an apparent ignorance of the meaning of the word "vote".
::Then, it was also suggested to merge with ]. I don't have an opinion on this at this time. --] (]) 03:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


]... well, the closer said that "keep" arguments are strong but not strong enough to deal with blurry intersection, and even superior amount of "delete" votes does not overcome the "keep". Even I, myself, voted "delete". Moreover, another closer said that failure to meet one guideline is not a strong reason to delete. I wonder if NOTVOTE guideline (or disputed guideline) applies to this discussion. Nevertheless, this guideline is conflicted by stronger points in renaming discussions. ] because of readers' interests and intentions to read one article or another. See ]. --] (]) 18:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I suspect a lot of these editors have a particularly constricted experience with decision processes in the world, and were taught rather narrow civics classes (or just picked it up from poor newspaper writers). I think what they have in mind is something like the incorrect notion that "vote" means "decision by simple majority", or at least "decision by exact pre-specified super-majority (or plurality)". Obviously, not much on Misplaced Pages is those things. At the same time, an admin who claims not to count votes on an AfD or other procedural process is either being daft in misrepresenting what they do... or they're being something much worse than daft if they actually ''do not'' count the votes. Sure, votes should be contextualized in various ways: are they new editors? are they sockpuppets? do they make useful comments? is there a trend in the voting pattern? did outside events (such as page improvements) occur between one vote and another vote? But to claim innumeracy as some sort of inherent virtue is extremely harmful to process, to fairness, and to consensus.


:::I just looked here because I was pointing to it in another discussion, and I was very surprised to see the "under discussion" tag. Although I do realize that a certain amount of discussions are essentially closed by vote-counting, particularly when the responses are clearly one-sided, I really think that there is strong community consensus that Misplaced Pages reaches consensus through discussion and not through voting. If there ends up being any serious interest in changing the status here, I would strongly urge a community-wide RfC in order to get, um, discussion, from more than just a few editors. --] (]) 19:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
In defense of this essay, however, it is not principally concerned with those procedures that need be votes. An AfD or an RfA really cannot ever be anything else. However, things like quick polls on article talk pages exist only at the discretion of the editors of those articles. A quick poll may be, and often is, a useful way to gauge sentiment about some editorial issue, but it ''need not occur''; other mechanisms for discussion and agreement exist, notably simple threaded discussion. Inasmuch as this essay recommends that a quick poll should not the automatic, the default, nor the most definitive mechanism for reaching decisions and consensus, it is entirely right. Editors have an collection of tools to use in discussion, and polls are just one among many, and are only the right tool for some jobs. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 20:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


*'''Support''' formal adoption of this principle as a guideline (no, I've not fully read the entire page recently). The demonstrated consensus (e.g. in determining AfD outcomes) is indeed that {{tq|polling is not a substitute for discussion}}. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- ]</span> (]) 12:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
==I would like to propose this for inclusion==
*'''Oppose:''' Not that with the message traffic here people seem to care all that much, but it's plain that there are many areas of Misplaced Pages which DO use polls. Aside from those AfDs which are flooded by anon IPs, it is seldom the case where a closing admin will dare to rule for policy over consensus, and most of those cases go straight to DRV. RfA is absolutely a head count, pure and simple; as I documented a couple years ago, almost no admin candidate who hits the 75% threshold and fails to withdraw is ever denied admin status, and almost no candidate who fails to hit 70% is ever promoted. Unless people are willing to truly apply this principle, ''across Misplaced Pages,'' there is no sense in enacting it. ] 20:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
*'''Polls are evil''' - I love that there is a poll about a page on polling. - Anyway, This should be an '''Essay'''. It's how it's written. ] exists for those who want a project guideline. If anything, '''reverse-merge''' to ]. - <b>]</b> 20:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
*:'''Note:'''This user actually means '''Demote to essay'''.] (]) 14:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
*::This user actually meant what this user wrote : )
*::Comments in an RfC need not be emboldened text : )
*::(and yes, the irony here doesn't escape me : ) - <b>]</b> 22:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
*<s>'''Demote to essay'''</s> - Weighing on consensus is very hard, especially for those not familiar with policies and essays. With recent events, such as ], maybe majority vote is becoming more important than article quality and rules, as some deletion-ists have good arguments. Also, move requests rely more on vote counts, as rules may change. --] (]) 20:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
*'''Demote''' ] is an adequate explanation of the subject at hand. Yes, it's a bit vague, but so is the (US) Constitution; wiggle room is desirable. Admins are free to give as much or as little weight to poll results as desired, and I certainly wouldn't want this page to discourage anyone from voting because he or she doesn't think it matters. --] (]) 15:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
'''Support as a guideline''' Logic and reason have ''got'' to be worth more than how many people sign their name to something. The only reason to demote this would be if we don't believe in that anymore and we want AFDs, RFCs, etc to be closed based solely on majority rule. Does that sound like a good idea to anyone? ] (]) 18:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
* If you want this guideline to stay as a guideline, must requested moves be exempted from this guideline? --] (]) 18:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
* It doesn't sound like a good idea ... but it does seem to reflect current Misplaced Pages practice. There are many areas where headcounts are what carries the day, and there are some areas - like RfA - where majority vote is the tacit rule. If this guideline is enforced, then it should remain one. If it isn't, then it should be demoted. And it isn't. ] 20:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' - While common sense is used to ignore this guideline, I have never seen such demeaning mentality over one simple thing, title X vs. title Y, in ]. Therefore, I've crossed out my vote, so I'll be '''neutral''' for now. --] (]) 15:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
* '''Demote''' We can't have a guideline contradicting ]. ]<sup>]. ]</sup> 16:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
* '''Demote''' We have voting system''s'' in Misplaced Pages. Even FA elections are somewhat more like polling than consensus. Meanwhile, this guideline demeans the benefits of voting, such as efficiency and reflection of group intelligence. Per users above, common sense has been used for billions of times to ignore this. It does looks like copied from an essay as well. By the way, should some admins come and close this? This discussion is sooo inactive. P.S. If we use vote-counting here, the result is a perfect tie.] (]) 13:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
* '''Demote to essay''' We need fewer guidelines not more. ] (]) 00:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
::], I'd suggesst using stronger arguments, as consensus concerns about the quality of argument more.] (]) 14:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Are you saying that a desire for a small set of consistent rules rather than the current rambling musings of the community is not a strong argument, then you have misunderstood the last 300 years of scientific reductionism. ] (]) 08:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:::I thought you could explain more on why there should be fewer guidelines, not really saying it is not a good reason.] (]) 09:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
* '''Demote'''. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Discussion is not a substitute for polling. This is trivially true: the two do different things and get used in different ways in Misplaced Pages. Right now Misplaced Pages works remarkably well by being flexible about everything (sometimes excruciatingly so!). Anything that acts against this is probably unwise, particularly if it encourages category errors of the kind implicit in the wording of this discussion. (You'll note that my response is a weird hybrid of both a poll response and a discussion response. A pure poll or a pure discussion wouldn't allow this sort of mixed response, but by having both a great deal of flexibility is obtained.) ] (]) 06:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}


== RfC: Guideline status ==
The following statement was placed in this article to avoid NPOV and create balance. It was removed by ], who feels that balanced here is not appropriate. I would appriciate commentary.
{{Archive top|result= This RfC was closed because no one leaves comment at all. ] (]) 06:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC) }}
As there is a tied and inactive discussion on whether to retain ] as a guideline. I would like to have outsiders' opinion here. Thanks!] (]) 14:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


:Update: It looks like a consensus on demoting this guideline is forming. Before requesting for closure, I hope some more people can give their opinion here.] (]) 08:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The Statement
{{archive bottom}}
:Consensus method is seen by many as inherently unfair, as there is no proper adjudication of the issue at hand. After much (or little) discussion, one or more parties may simply declare "Now that we've discussed things, it is clear everyone agrees with me, we have consensus." Only in cases where two or more strong personalities exist within the group will this be challenged. Even if challenged, the result is usually the declarer or challenger being expunged from the group. This is Alpha Male politics at it's worst.
:In it's original form, consensus method has some viablity as it requires that there is no consensus unless there are no objectors, hence the parlamentary term "Consent Agenda". If even one member of a group is opposed, consensus does not exist, and deliberations must continue. However, this version is rarely practiced.
:Using voting and polls, the support among the group is clearly measured, and defined in a mathematical way. While politics, preference and bias may factor in voting, that is no less true in concensus method


== Voting is evil! ==
{{unsigned|72.92.152.161}}


If this is true, then what is Misplaced Pages? A monarchy?! --]] 16:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
=== Support inclusion ===
:It is a problematic policy. Who decides if an argument is "good"? Misplaced Pages is a self-perpetuating oligarchy.--] (]) 01:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
#
#


== Explanatory supplement ==
=== Oppose inclusion ===
# <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 19:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC). To my mind, this editorial statement is more-or-less diametrically opposite the sentiment advanced in the essay. Well, maybe not quite "diametric", but definitely a very different position. This type of material would be better fleshed out in another essay such as ].
#'''Oppose''' as it has practically no bearing on the essay at hand. It's also wrong, but that's beside the point. --] 21:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' as the reasoning is insufficiently rigorous and the writing not tight enough. The sentiment itself validly has some place in the article as a minority opinion, I think. ] 08:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


This should be an ]. Several policies and guidelines link to the essay to supplement and clarify their meaning.--] (]) 20:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
===Discussion===


== Usage of !vote ==
JA: I need more clarification of what exactly is being proposed here. Is it the inclusion of the quoted statement on the main page ], or something more than that? Thanks, ] 13:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


According to ] which links to a section of this article, {{tq|Wikipedians often use the expression "!vote" (read as "not-vote"). The "!" symbol is used in various fields as a symbol for logical negation and was introduced in this way on English Misplaced Pages in 2006. So a reference to a "!vote" or "!voting" is a reminder and affirmation that the writer's comments in a poll, and the comments by others, are not voting, but are just offering individual views in a consensus-building discussion.}} However, in practice, I feel like it is much more common to see people use the phrase "!vote" to refer to their actual votes. Perhaps the text on this page should also include a comment that this phrase is often used in a way at odds with the original intent of the term? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 00:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
:The quick poll is on the inclusion of the quoted statement in the essay. That's it. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 16:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

===Removal of Support and Oppose sections===

Wikpedia Policy sates:

<blockquote>
'''Responding to RfCs'''
<p>
Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and keep calm.
'''''Specifically, do not create "disendorsement" sections on RfCs.''''' If you disagree with something someone else has said, you may add your own separate statement discussing how you disagree. Do not create a "Users who do not agree with this summary" section, or the equivalent. This tends be a confrontational act and usually creates more heat than light.
Mediate where possible - identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart.
If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Misplaced Pages policies. {{unsigned|72.92.152.161}}
</blockquote>

== Guideline ==

This was common practice back when it was a page on META rather than EnWiki. It describes the common outcome of a common process, which by definition equates to consensus. ''Therefore'' it is a guideline. --] 16:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
:Whether we want to say that consensus is determined by discussion or by voting of established users, it is clear that consensus is not determined unilaterally. A claim by one editor that something is an accepted or common practice does not constitute consensus. In fact, there is precedent for the use of voting of established users to adopt policies. For instance, the ] was enacted as a result of the ]. Since this is a contentious issue, it might be advisable to discuss the conversion of ] into a guideline before decreeing it to be so. ] 16:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*You are, I hope, aware that that vote was two and a half years ago? Also, this guideline does not ''forbid'' voting, it strongly argues against it. This ''is'' accepted and common practice; for reference, you can watch the categories for proposals and guidelines. It seems to me that your argument boils down to "we have voted at some point in the past and therefore we may not recommend against it". --] 17:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, we have voted on two major policies in the past -- see ] as well. In any case, my argument is ''not'' "we have voted at some point in the past and therefore we may not recommend against it". My argument is that, given the fact that two major policies have been created as a result of votes, if we want to recommend against voting now, we should have a discussion about adopting ] as a guideline, rather than simply stating that ] has long been a common practice. Furthermore, a discussion to determine consensus to adopt a guideline would require participation by many editors, not merely two. ] 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*You are being overly ] over the issue. A statement that describes common practice is a ''de facto'' guideline; see ] for how the process works, or as Kim Bruning. We have voted on some policies in the past, and more recently ''not'' voted on a larger number of policies. And WhatLinksHere for this guideline shows that it is heavily in use. So yes, it is consensual. --] 17:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Radiant that the non-bureaucratic nature of Misplaced Pages is at the heart of this. To say that something is a guideline is merely to describe its function on Misplaced Pages. Sticking the tag on it is merely a recognition of a ''de facto'' state of affairs. We don't need to hold a big discussion prior to sticking the tag on, we just say "this is what we do on Misplaced Pages so it's a guideline." There has to be a compelling reason ''not'' to put the tag on in such circumstances. --] 17:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony at least has heard my opinion on de facto rules already: they shouldn't exist. By attempting to unilateraly declare something policy, you undercut the support in the process by the lack of openness. The "non-bureacratic nature" of Misplaced Pages is found in the openness of the processes it uses. Dictatorship is of course also non-bureacratic, but I don't believe that's what you meant by the nature of Misplaced Pages.

However, since this essay definitely does approach guideline status in its use, I support a ''consensus'' of this officially being made a guideline. --] 18:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' conversion of this essay into a guideline. A complete avoidance of votes to illustrate consensus leaves us without any clear evidence of what the consensus actually is. We are thus left with edit wars in which each opposing side claims -- and legitimately believes -- that their version of a page is the consensus version. The avoidance of votes on policy matters creates problems such as those exhibited on ], where there is an edit war over whether the page is actually a guideline or a proposal, whether there is a consensus for enacting the proposal as a guideline, etc. Due to this dispute, the page is now protected. There is even ! A vote of established users would be an excellent way to resolve the deadlock as to whether ] is really a guideline. A classic objection to polls is the possibility of sockpuppetry -- however, by limiting voting to established users, almost all sockpuppetry can be prevented. If we declare that "voting is evil" as an official guideline, we will cause many edit wars and other disputes simply because nobody will really know what the consensus actually is. ] 18:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*See the ]: Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Nobody here suggests a "complete avoidance of votes", soyour argument is a straw man. A vote would be an awful way to resolve WP:DENY, for the very reasons discussed on this page. ] 19:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*Indeed, enacting ] as a guideline wouldn't really produce "a complete avoidence of votes", it would produce an ''almost'' complete avoidence of votes. Which would create all of the problems that I previously described -- most issues that were deadlocked due to an inability to discern consensus still wouldn't be resolved by voting. ] 19:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::A vote doesn't solve that. It is quite valid that a majority vote is not be binding, regardless of whether it was ensured to be purely a vote of established users. It would still be claimed, validly, that a bad policy is still a bad policy; a vote wouldn't solve an edit war over that, only an agreement, which can only be produced by discussion. Your theory of sockpuppets is likewise novel, but the fact remains that while it is trivially simple to discount obvious sockpuppets, there are numerous supposedly established users that are in fact sockpuppets; similarly, any host of tendentious article editors or others with an agenda on this openly accessible and quite popular encyclopedia can easily game the vote. Even if you were to somehow magically ensure that all voters had the fundamental principles of Misplaced Pages at heart, you cannot ensure that they know an issue well enough or have read the discussion about it to make an informed vote. I won't continue now with the several other problems with voting. The only way to make valid decisions is through reasons with reference to the principles of Misplaced Pages. Voting is a romantic but increasingly unworkable notion. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 20:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
:We cannot always act on the basis of "an agreement, which can only be produced by discussion" because there are some issues upon which there will never be any agreement. Of course we attempt to "make valid decisions... through reasons with reference to the principles of Misplaced Pages", but this does not constitute a ''method'' of making decisions because there will disagreements how the principles of Misplaced Pages should be upheld in particular cases. If there were really "numerous supposedly established users that are in fact sockpuppets", then it would seem that the use of voting in ] would produce a dysfunctional process -- supposedly, ] is not a vote, of course, but very rarely does the candidate become an administrator after receiving the support of less than 75% of the established editors commenting on their candidacy. Similarly, pages are rarely deleted if a majority of established editors endorse keeping them. We have employed vote-like mechanisms in these situations because there is really no other way to produce an outcome that will be widely regarded as correct. Of course, where ] has shown leadership on certain questions, his judgment must be respected. What I take issue with, however, is the "anti-voting thesis" that ordinary editors are somehow empowered to act against the wishes of most editors, to create policy that most editors do not want, and to delete pages that most editors want to keep, based on the claim that the principles of Misplaced Pages are somehow being advanced. Since we disagree on how to apply the principles, the "anti-voting thesis" inevitably leads to anarchy, with every editor edit warring for the version of the page that they favor, and every administrator wheel warring over page deletions based on their personal views of these pages' merits. Editors or administrators who wish to do something that most editors won't like have three avenues of appeal: to ], to ], and to the arbitration committee. Misplaced Pages has, and needs, leaders, who are free to act against the majority if necessary. However, we cannot endure a situation where all editors proclaim themselves to be leaders in their own right. ] 21:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::Appeal to '''Danny'''? Dude, where did that come from? ] (]) 23:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*What you have written here is a clear essay against the ]. The point of VIE is the exact opposite: if you vote, whatever the threshold is, one party loses. Discussion, on the other hand, makes people draw up a meaningful compromise, which means that everybody wins. And that's why one should not vote. ] 21:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::Or, even worse, because both parties were too busy pushing and rallying votes, they didn't discuss different possibilities and the reasons for them, so everyone loses. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 21:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*I do not see ] as a means by which ordinary editors may act against the will of the majority. Instead, ] simply accounts for the fact that the rules are necessarily written in broad and sweeping language, and cannot possibly anticipate every situation. Thus, there are some occasions upon which it is a good idea to ignore the text of the rules in order to act in the best interests of Misplaced Pages -- ''when it is apparent that ignoring the rules in question would be widely regarded as the correct action to take under the circumstances'' (no actual voting is necessary, but what is known about the opinions of most Misplaced Pages editors must be respected). The claim that <blockquote>Discussion, on the other hand, makes people draw up a meaningful compromise, which means that everybody wins.</blockquote>is an attractive theory; however, many practical applications of ], such as the speedy deletion of the ] even though most established editors in the second MFD nomination supported keeping it, mean that most people lose. ] 22:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*If you are under the impression that MFD is a vote, you are sorely mistaken. ] 22:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*I also '''Oppose''' per ] ] 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
**If you are under the impression that ''this'' is a vote, you are also sorely mistaken. ] 23:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
***I was hoping that was witty irony. ]·] 23:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
****If you are under the impression that ''that'' was irony, er, well, yes, you may have a point there. ] 14:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

===Arbitrary section break===

I think we have some misconceptions to address here. First, no amount of arguing here will make this page ''not'' a guideline (or policy or whatever): it is already generally agreed upon and in practice, and, most importantly, ''very sensible''. The second misconception seems to be that voting and process are the same; this is very wrong. None of the various XfD processes, or RfA, RfM, etc., or even policy creation, while they are processes, are voting processes. In fact, ''none'' of our valuable processes are voting at all, for some very good, agreed-upon reasons, which can be conveniently found at ], and none of them are intended to be by the community. ] and CVU are red herrings; if we accept that they were out-of-process, that is a far cry from accepting that VIE is flawed or without support. The speedy deletion of any page cannot reasonably be an application of VIE. The concept applies only to the decision-making process. It goes like this: "How shall we decide?" "Well, not by voting on it, that's for sure." It doesn't suggest ''against the commuity's will'' but rather, that voting is not a valid way of determining such. (What you are referring to is a disputed application of ].) This page should be marked as a guideline. ]·] 23:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::The CVU deletion is an application of ]. The closing administrator in the second MFD nomination stated that "This is not a vote. Arguments do count" -- in other words, arguments for the deletion of the CVU, advanced by an indefinitely banned vandal, were more important than the opinions of most legitimate users. This is "voting is evil" at its worst. ] 23:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
:::It wasn't a vote. The arguments did count. That's a ''fact'', and anyone who disputes that clearly has no idea how decision making processes on Misplaced Pages work.--] | ] 23:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
:::You seem to be glossing over the fact that there were numerous legitimate users arguing with reason for its deletion. Also, if it had been deleted by a straight majority vote versus strong reasons to keep it, that would not be a reason why voting is bad, just as its application to delete the CVU page, among other reasons, is not a reason why voting is good. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 03:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not sure whether "voting is evil" is a guideline or a policy, but it's clearly one or the other. I'm perfectly happy with it being labeled as a guideline. Or a policy. Or whatever. Doesn't really matter, since, well, voting is evil, no matter what template tag you stick on this page. ] (]) 23:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly if one is vote-stacking and vote-canvassing (such as the gentleman above), voting is essential in order to win by numbers. How charming. Please stop. ] ] 23:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
:Actually, it is an accepted and common practice to post information about ongoing discussions on project pages in boldface type -- for example, see , as well as the many other postings about ongoing AFD discussions accessible from the page history of ]. It does not appear that administrators have removed these postings, or that members of ] have been warned to refrain from such postings -- despite the fact that ] is explicitly partisan as to the preferred outcome of AFD discussions. Why, then, is information about ongoing discussions posted on ] removed, and why am I warned that ? ] 00:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
::You're right, except that they're supposed to be related. The Counter-Vandalism Unit and Voting Is Evil have about as much to do with each other as a streetcar and a herd of cows. Look, you got caught vote canvassing fair and square because you thought, wrongly, that what was happening here had something to do with the CVU. It doesn't. It has plenty to with *fD, but the CVU isn't a deletion process. ] ] 00:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:According to ], <blockquote>Canvassing (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting") is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, and it is controversial.</blockquote> Since I didn't post this to many different users' talk pages, it doesn't constitute canvassing. My understanding of ] is that whether the project page appears to be related to the matter in question is irrelevant -- the only thing that would be prohibited by the guideline is posting to a large number of project pages -- which I didn't do. I only posted this to one project's pages. However, ] is related to the ], since the principle was used to speedily delete the ] on the basis of arguments posted by a prominent vandal. In any event, I would think that posting information on discussions to explicitly partisan projects, such as ], would actually raise ''greater'' "canvassing" concerns, since it would appear to be an attempt to contact editors who are already known to have a particular viewpoint. ] 00:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
*Nice try, but no. A single precedent does not equate to accepted and common practice. Given the way Misplaced Pages works, you can claim precedent on just about anything up to and including causing a database lock by deleting the deletion system. That doesn't mean it's common practice, or even a good idea (and boldfaced campaigning for "votes" on something you misunderstood is ''not'' a good idea). Anyway, Misplaced Pages does not work by the letter of rules, but by the spirit. ] 14:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Have we got rid of any guidelines in the last week? In no then standard opistiontion to adding more guidelines applies.] 23:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*(quick interjection to Geni) -> Yes, we did. ] 14:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:Errm, if I understand you right, that's a ].
:Anyway, calling this a guideline will encourage people to jump ahead of the process to set any consensus we reach in stone when it is applicable. Generally we have discussions first, decide what to do then, and finally reach a point where we can be satisfied that most people would support it in a formal poll based on the understanding reached in previous discussions. The danger in making this a guideline is that it would remove the verification process. We need to know that when someone says "the final decision is X" that they aren't ]. What we need to do is make a page about the recommended way to make decisions on proposals, (including content about ] ''and its counterpoint'' ],) and then make that page a guideline.
:Cover all the bases. Do it the Right Way. --]]] 00:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
::DavidH may have the best idea of all here. --] 00:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
::You can verify that by actually reading the discussion. Also note that vote-counting must discount sockpuppets, which for you to verify would require checking it all as well. I don't know what you mean about jumping ahead of process; if, in six months it so happens that this page is not widely considered a guideline, then it could be changed in the same way. I do find it amusing, however, that if a vote were to be called on this matter, there would be an overwhelming majority to make this a guideline. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 00:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Discussions are far more subjective and open to interpetation than votes or even "votes", which is one of the few good arguments for using votes in place of the preferable consensus methods on exceptionally messy issues. After having to read 300 kb of discussion, no one can make an unbiased judgment on exactly what happened. (I too would vote for this being a guideline, though only weakly.) --] 00:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
::::That's not a reason to replace a judgement that could in some cases be biased with one that is based on how many people showed up that day without regard for the validity of their arguments for Misplaced Pages, or if they have any arguments or care about Misplaced Pages at all. The fact is, decisions will still not be made by voting but by reference to policies and principles and reasons, regardless of whether this page is labelled a policy or guideline; it will merely be confusing for new users. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 00:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::Well, there's always the method where only "votes" with accompanying arguments "count", like AfD theoretically operates under. The basic point is that no single individual is really capable of neutral judgment of an argument, but they are of a vote. Basically, we need to have a guideline that is feasibly followable. --] 00:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::Votes like "Keep. This is my favorite restaurant." are regularly discounted. It doesn't matter if someone is capable of neutrally judging a vote, the fact is that the vote is not neutral in the first place; a judgement of a vote is someone neutrally judging how many fans gave an utterly biased vote, or someone neutrally judging how many people never even read the nomination. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 00:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::And in a discussion, you actually have to judge the opinions of people, not just as to whether their opinion is entitled to inclusion in the total, but as to what their opinion ''is''. Under a vote/discussion hybrid, you don't have to ] people's opinions for them, so the risk of the final decision being one person's ] is much lower. --] 01:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::A person can quite clearly indicate their opinion in a discussion. That does not mean that it counts if their opinion is "Misplaced Pages is a 19th-century bicycle" or "cool" or even "..." nothing at all. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 03:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

'''Oppose''' as well. There are certain essays that carry a significant bit of weight on their own merits (] comes to mind). After having edited on the project for some time I've never gotten the impression that this essay has garnered a general consensus about it's potential to have "guideline" status. ''(]])'' 00:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:I think it has. If you disagree, hold a vote on something, and see how many people complain about it (-: As well, ] has been edited by a large number of people, while the content of ] has been edited almost exclusively by ], so it would seem to me that the former is far more likely to "have general acceptance amongst editors". BTW, this is not a vote. ] // ] 01:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
::The general consensus, or at least the general reality that I've seen is "voting is discouraged, but not evil". Which reminds me, if we are going to make this a guideline we should really change to name to something that doesn't make moral judgments. I recognize it's intended as a joke, but it's still a rather odd name. --] 01:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:::How about ]. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 01:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
::::How about just ]? Short & sweet, and if there's anything good to be said about voting the title could accomodate that too. ] // ] 01:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::Hmmm, if I had hit "Show preview" I would have noticed that that's a bluelink before saving (-: Actually, a merge into what that redirects to might not be a bad idea. And if that page is a guideline, this sure should be. ] // ] 01:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::Now that you mention it, ] is a guideline already, and in fact . I'd be more in favor of creating an article to complement that instead of making ] or ] a contradicting guideline. Perhaps ] would be better? That's sort of what we are doing right now, isn't it? --]]] 07:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::It's a guideline on ''how'' a proper straw poll is formed, not that straw polling is good. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 17:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
: How about "]." Sheesh! How difficult it is to get the message through. --] 08:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
::Thank you for your quick reply to our little discussion about finding a place to document the current process of confirming discussed consensus. The problem with the article title you suggested is that it bears little resemblance to the style of article we were just discussing, namely, an expanded version of ] that also documents ], both of which have been rather stable guidelines/policies. (If you want to suggest that as the new title for ], ].) However, since you sound quite passionate about changing current practice, I suggest you dispute ] instead. --]]] 11:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:: Can I put my vote in here for '''oppose'''? or is that already moot? hehe, either way i spose it ey? ] 09:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

*I would have no objection to renaming the page, "Voting is evil" does sound a bit silly, the name "No voting" is probably better (and yes, as a guideline, it may have exceptions). This should not be merged with ], which are instructions on ''how'' to make a meaningful vote. There is not really a contradiction - we do not vote over ''acceptance'' of things, but for instance if we are agreed that all country-related templates should have the same color, we can put up a vote to see if that color should be red, green, or purple. That's a different matter entirely. ] 14:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

::You've cited precisely the sort of situation that I had in mind when I typed the rather lengthy reply on your talk page.
::I agree that "Voting is evil" is too silly and informal to serve as the title of a guideline, but "No voting" isn't appropriate either (because '''it isn't true'''). Saying that there are "exceptions" is an understatement. (That's like saying that all people are female, with some exceptions.) I realize that you want to discourage inappropriate voting (as do I), but our goal should be to convey an accurate statement in the first place. (Polling can sometimes be helpful, but it also can be harmful and doesn't replace discussion or generate binding outcomes).
::For reasons already noted, "polling" (already used throughout most of the page) is a more accurate term than "voting." I would suggest ], but all of the good shortcuts are taken. So how about ] (with ] and ] as redirects)? &mdash;] 17:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

::: I agree, this page is not fit to be a guideline - and changing it into one would destroy its style as an essay. But making a guideline against voting would be either redundant or contradictory to ]. This subject is already covered by guideline, it doesn't need more. ] 20:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

==Will ] become a guideline?==
<font size=larger>'''The conversion of ] from an essay to a guideline is presently being discussed ]. Note that <font color=red>a disregard for what most editors want</font>, the principle underlying ], was used to justify the out-of-process speedy deletion of the Counter-Vandalism Unit against the wishes of most established editors commenting on the issue.'''</font> ] 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
:What does this have to do with vandalism? —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 22:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::It was used once to the detriment of the CVU, I believe. Otherwise, nothing. --] 23:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
:This has a great deal to do with vandalism -- first, altering my signed comments, so that they appear to state something that I never said is considered to be talk page vandalism. Secondly, ] was used as a rationale for the speedy deletion of the ] in the second MFD nomination -- arguments offered by a banned vandal held more weight than the opinions of a majority of established users. ] 23:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::You're welcome to restore your original talk page comment (why it was changed is beyond me) if you please, though not to restore the one on this project page. And that argument, though a valid argument for use in a discussion on ], does not make this a relavent issue for posting on this page. --] 23:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Not valuing voting has nothing whatsoever to do with doing anything speedily or anything at all related to IAR. If perhaps you meant that there being a delete or keep based on arguments rather than voting would be reason to post this here, that same argument would entail that anyone could post this notice on any article they were a fan of that had been at risk of being deleted. Please explain why this is not just campaigning on your part to get what you want—through the numbers analogous to a vote, by the way, there already was an by someone who was summoned from this page (the user's edit immediately after was to change his CVU box). —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 00:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:Actually, it is quite clear that the speedy deletion of the Counter-Vandalism Unit on the basis of arguments advanced by an indefinitely banned vandal was heavily influenced by ] -- the closing administrator in the second MFD nomination stated that "This is not a vote. Arguments do count". Perhaps ] needs ] as a counterpoint. ] 03:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
::No, the speed of it had nothing to do with voting. You also didn't address whether—well apparently you didn't even read my first comment so I won't continue. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 03:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

May I please and politely request and suggest that utilizing the CVU for policy lobbying is a poor idea? ] 01:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:It is an accepted and common practice to post information about ongoing discussions on project pages in boldface type -- for example, see , as well as the many other postings about ongoing AFD discussions accessible from the page history of ]. It does not appear that administrators have removed these postings, or that members of ] have been warned to refrain from such postings -- despite the fact that ] is explicitly partisan as to the preferred outcome of AFD discussions. ] 03:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
*Nice try, but no. A single precedent does not equate to accepted and common practice. Given the way Misplaced Pages works, you can claim precedent on just about anything up to and including causing a database lock by deleting the deletion system. That doesn't mean it's common practice, or even a good idea (and boldfaced campaigning for "votes" on something you misunderstood is ''not'' a good idea). Anyway, Misplaced Pages does not work by the letter of rules, but by the spirit. ] 14:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
::I'm considerably less concerned about WikiProject Inclusion, specifically because it is quite honest about what it is and what its interests are. CVU acts in a manner that is, if not official, at least set up so as to be in the penumbra of the official. ] 14:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Phil stop it. You are just wasteing people's time. Go and do something useful like clearing ].] 15:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
::::Done. Now can we talk about the matter at hand? ] 15:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::Sure, just head ] and talk. As has been pointed out, this page has nothing to do with ], so talking about it here really won't help. --] 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::I believe the matter he is referring to is the use of this page as a sort of political constituency of friends for matters that have nothing to do with fighting vandalism, the ostensible purpose of this page. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::That would be an editor-specific issue. Again, talking here won't help. --] 22:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

== Once more about this page ==

Looking over the discussion above, I notice a lot of long-term editors that confirm that this is already a guideline (which is backed by the fact that this is heavily in use and has been so for several years). Setting aside an unfortunate misunderstanding, I notice the following objections: (1) that this must go through some official process before becoming a guideline - however, the reality is that such an official process does not exist on Misplaced Pages (but feel free to propose one if you want to); (2) objections to the name (which is admittedly tongue-in-cheek and I wouldn't object to renaming this page); (3) objections to the style (well, it's a wiki, you can edit the page to improve the style); and (4) that there are or should be exceptions to what this page says (which is okay since all guidelines tend to have exceptions, and {{tl|guideline}} even says so).

In other words, there aren't really any objections to what this page says, only a few formal objections against changing the status tag on this page. As such, I'm going to to tag this page as {{tl|guideline}} once more, in a hope that this will make it clearer to novice users that it's not such a good idea to e.g. vote on "merge" tags. And yes, Kim's tag is nice, but the very users that tend to vote on merging are the kind of user that tends to think pages are unimportant unless they're policy or guideline (can of worms, I know). ''My changing this tag won't change anything of how the wiki works, but it should make the way the wiki works clearer to new users.'' ] 23:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
:The claim that "a lot of long-term editors... confirm that this is already a guideline" seems suspiciously like, dare I say it, ''vote counting'', which cannot possibly support the proposition that "voting is evil." For "voting is evil" to become a guideline, we must have some measure of consensus that does not in any way relate to the number of people who support it, since it would be self-contradictory to vote for "voting is evil" (although we might be able to vote against it). I claim that no such "non-quantitative" consensus exists for making "voting is evil" a guideline since substantive objections to this essay have not been adequately responded to. For instance, I argued extensively in the above discussion that an avoidance of votes on contentious issues leads to edit wars since we are left without an objective means of determining what the consensus actually is. Each party can simply interpret the discussion in a manner that favors their own version of the page, and act accordingly. ] objected to "voting is evil" on the grounds that polls are an essential element in confirming the existence of consensus:<blockquote>Calling this a guideline will encourage people to jump ahead of the process to set any consensus we reach in stone when it is applicable. Generally we have discussions first, decide what to do then, and finally reach a point where we can be satisfied that most people would support it in a formal poll based on the understanding reached in previous discussions. The danger in making this a guideline is that it would remove the verification process. We need to know that when someone says "the final decision is X" that they aren't trying to pull the wool over our eyes.</blockquote>Quite simply, the claim that "there aren't really any objections to what this page says" is not supported by the available evidence. With serious, substantial disputes as to the merits of making "voting is evil" a guideline, I claim that there is no consensus for this action -- or at least no consensus which may be elucidated by employing non-quantitative measures. If it seems tempting to employ a poll to resolve the deadlock, then perhaps voting isn't so evil after all. ] 23:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
This essay itself states that <blockquote>Establishing consensus requires expressing that opinion in terms other than a choice between discrete option and expanding the reasoning behind it, addressing the points that others have left, until all come to a mutually agreeable solution.</blockquote>Since the above objections haven't been responded to, and there is no mutual agreement to make this essay a guideline, by this essay's own definition of consensus, there is no consensus to describe it as a guideline. Furthermore, despite the claim that <blockquote>it is a guideline - 'guideline' decribes how it is actually being applied - if you want to change that, good luck</blockquote>the guideline template itself clearly states that guidelines are prescriptive as well as descriptive:<blockquote>This page is considered a guideline on Misplaced Pages. It has general acceptance among editors and ''is considered a standard that all users should follow''.</blockquote> Such a template should not be placed on an essay where there is no consensus to adopt it as a guideline. ] 14:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

*Consensus does not equate to unanimousness. If you want Misplaced Pages to change its ways and adopt a process for voting on proposals, by all means draft a propopsal for that and ask feedback. ] 16:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

::I see no consensus. There probably is consensus for the basic principles, but the page itself is written in the informal style of an essay. &mdash;] 16:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::*Many guidelines are written in the "informal style of an essay". Feel free to reword, but as you yourself admit, there is consensus for the basic principles. ] 16:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::: It is written in the informal style of an essay because it ''is'' an essay. (Yes, I know, I am always good at coming in with the obvious.) It is an essay that expands upon a guideline, and one that has existed in the culture since before it became such an issue to make a practical distinction between things that were simply kept in mind, guidelines, and "official policy". In my interpretation ] is the primary force here, which is indeed tagged as a guideline; this is simply an expansion upon one particular aspect. ] ] 18:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

:I realize most "long-term editors" or whatever seem to love "voting is evil", but I am one who doesn't. I think we should vote on many things. Voting scales. Discussion doesn't (witness the trainwreck of RfA every time something outside a routine vote is used to decide the outcome). You really only have consensus if the most politically powerful person around at the time says you have consensus... that's what this whole discussion thing boils down to for me. Voting is much more fair.
:But that's just me. Anyway, if this is policy, it seriously needs to be renamed... this has always seemed to be to be saying "Voting is evil, and people who like voting are evil too!" And that's the way it's invoked... when I say something about voting, the first thing people say is "But that's evil!". --] 17:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the new name is an improvement. Though I'd prefer the sentiment be expressed as "Discuss, don't ''just'' vote." --] 19:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a better name in some ways. However, a note of caution: discussion is also sometimes misused, and we probably don't want to further encourage the trend against boldness by seeing this bit of policy used as an excuse for foot-dragging, pettyfogging or filibustering. We've had many policy discussions that have devolved into metadiscussions about whether there is consensus, not for the policy, but for whether to place a certain tag on the policy. This really is a silly situation and we ought to be thinking ahead and working out how to thwart such obstacles to policy formation where ''de facto'' consensus obviously exists. --] 19:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, thanks for the move, but I think you meant ], heh. We should probably decide on a good permanent/semi-permanent name before moving it around all evening though, so I'm posting here in lieu of making another move. --] 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
*Doh! Fixed now. ] 19:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

:W.marsh nailed it precisely; we need a better name. I will however go a step further and say that a move like this should really have been more thoroughly discussed beforehand. I think the title should not have a contraction in it. Although the old title should not have come across as denouncing votes as evil, the move has not improved the situation because it can still gives newcomers the wrong idea. Perhaps renaming the page to ] would be more profitable because that is the only situation when a vote is evil. (Rationale: Surveys that result in no consensus simply are not discussed enough beforehand, no matter how big of an issue it is. For example, if ] had been discussed a little bit more, Jimbo's statement about verifiability over fame would been part of the discussion and thus short-circuited the need for a vote; the proposal would have been ]. Nobody wins when due process is rushed.)
:In regards to a comment made by Tony Sidaway, I must warn everyone here that '''advocating the use of "obvious ''de facto'' consensus" is inherently dangerous''', especially on policy and guideline pages. That practice may have a limited place in article space, but never in Misplaced Pages space where any change affects every editor. I advise everyone here to ] because if voting can be misused, so can discussion. It doesn't matter how many people are on a talk page if some semblance of intelligence is encouraged among editors; a mindless discussion only occurs when the concerns of other editors are ignored and overlooked instead of being addressed. (Note that if discussion becomes mind''less'' then ''nobody'' is giving it the due attention it deserves, including ].) In that regard, it is easier for someone with an agenda to "muddy the waters" with pointless arguments in a discussion compared to a survey; the nature of a survey prevents minor points from being continually addressed and hindering the decision process. Voting is evil, but not discussing anything for the sake ] is far more evil; ''].''
:Discussions and Surveys are not ]; they are like a good knife and fork, and they work best together. Knives and forks are not evil '']'', but both can be used to kill.
:--]]] 02:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

== Look at any votes page ==

Whether AFD or anything like it and the close is always based on number of votes and not arguments. ] 21:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:It's based on both. --] 21:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
*AFD was specifically renamed away from "votes for deletion" to make clear that it is not a vote. The term "AFD is not a vote" is regularly heard on DRV whenever someone falsely believes that the votes are what matter. The persistence of such misconceptions is precisely why this page is so important. ] 21:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
*I dunno. I've definently closed an AfD or three based on the quality of arguments, not just the number of votes. Often those closings go to DRV, where some people (often the same people who say WP is not a democracy) argue that I should have just gone with the votes (of course they call it "consensus"). But sometimes the majority of people in an AfD just get it wrong, and don't understand an important policy like WP:V or WP:NOT. But the small sample size of the average AfD is very important to consider here... it's a lot easier to take into account the quality of arguments when 5 people are involved... if it's a close vote with 150 people involved, it's pretty much just your own personal opinion when you are saying what "consensus" supposedly is. --] 21:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I see them closed based on votes. I think it's sort of a cautious thing for the closers to do, rather than trying to be subjective by weighing the argument, and potentially making an unpopular decision or a mistake. ] 22:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

== Consensus doesn't scale. ==

Back in January or so, some well-meaning folks launched a crusade to de-link all dates, years, months, days, and so on, that they deemed "unimportant". I started a discussion about it on the Village Pump. I phrased my comments along an anti-unwikilinking-dates vein. (That is, I said "This mass de-linking of dates is silly and we ought not allow it." Only more verbose, and with subtle layers of sarcasm.)

The ensuing discussion reached no consensus. Many people agreed with me. Many people disagreed with me.

After a few days, it occurred to me that if I had but had the presence of mind to phrase my comments ''in favor'' of the thing I was wanting to see stopped, the same thing would have occurred. There would have been no consensus. Many people would have agreed with me. Many people would have disagreed with me.

After which I would have been free (FSVO "free") to use that no-consensus result to stump for the result I actually wanted, e.g. "Well, I tried to drum up some consensus to support the de-linking of wikified dates and years and so on, but there was no consensus to do so. So obviously the idea doesn't have support. So obviously you need to stop with the delinking."

This is something of a stretched example, but the point holds: Consensus will be more and more difficult to come by as the number of Misplaced Pages contributors grows. It's nearly impossible to achieve in many areas of Misplaced Pages ''right now''. Misplaced Pages now has more ''admins'' than it had ''total contributors'' back in the early days when real, actual "consensus" was an achievable goal. I agree that the solution is not a simple stand-up vote, but I'm also convinced that longing for some sort of nebulously-defined "consensus" like Misplaced Pages had in the Good Old Days(tm) isn't the solution, either.

All the best,<br>
]|<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0"><sub>]</sub></font><br>
23:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:The reasonable thing to do is to have dates linked according to whether they are appropriate to context, which is what the manual of style on links currently says. If someone is making changes that the editors on individual articles oppose, then that needs to be discussed with those editors on the particular article. You don't need mass consensus for individual articles. You don't need a mass consensus discussion or vote if something follows from the essential properties of the encyclopedia. The opposition to these changes is to making mass, sometimes disruptive, changes across the wiki—that is, imposing things based on some vague "consensus" or idea of propriety. I don't think many people actually think that all years on every article should be linked, it just should be done in the way most other things are done on the wiki, not through a top-down imposition. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 05:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:12, 20 August 2024

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMisplaced Pages essays Mid‑impact
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Misplaced Pages essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Misplaced Pages essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysTemplate:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysWikiProject Misplaced Pages essays
MidThis page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.
Note icon
The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.
Archiving icon
Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Guideline status

See box. Formerip (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result: Demote to essay status.

3 editors supported the status of this page as a guideline, 8 opposed it and 1 was neutral. Surely that's all anyone needs to know? However, just in case...

Demoting a guideline is not a minor step, particularly if the guideline has been in place for a long time. So, it should require a very clear consensus. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that this guideline was created without consensus and has been persistently controversial. That doesn't erase its legitimacy, but might mean that a less cautious approach can be taken with regard to altering its status.

One support vote simply stated that it was a legitimate guideline and the user was comfortable with that. This is not an invalid viewpoint, but it also doesn't offer a very strong argument. The second support vote was made on the basis that "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" reflects consensus on en.wp. That's very arguable, but other editors in the discussion seem to wish to add caveats to that statement, and it is not self-evident that they are wrong. I'm also not sure that we should take a position that a guideline should be preserved merely on the basis that the page title rings true, without considering the contents of the page. A third support was made on the basis that removing the guideline would mean we wanted everything to be decided based purely on numbers. That seems to me like a false premise, because WP:NOTDEMOCRACY is policy. Moreover, it seems completely obvious that this is not the view of the community and that removing the guideline would not make it so. No-one in this discussion, for example, appears to take such a view.

Overall, the supports, as well as being inferior in number, do not offer compelling arguments.

Opposes suggested that the page is written like an essay. This is a fair point. It is much longer and more detailed than we usually expect a guideline to be, offers more in the way of observation and, quite possibly, more that might be contentious. It is also argued that polling actually plays a significant role in the development of the project, so it is not desirable to be very prescriptive about its use. On the one hand, this may not be entirely fair on the guideline, which does make clear that there is a place for polling. On the other, a number of users in the discussion express a desire for flexibility where prescription is not needed. From this perspective, it can again be observed that the guideline contains greater detail than guidelines normally have. It is more in line, perhaps, with what the community expects from an essay. Some participants to the discussion indicate a feeling that the guideline strikes a tone which is too cautious about voting and fails to reflect the reality that voting (with or without a !) is something many Wikipedians value. This also seems to me to be an opinion with validity.

Please note that this RfC close is not a funeral rite. Content from the guideline may be suitable for canibalisation or adaption for other policy and guideline pages, which is something that editors who might be unhappy about this close can pursue if they wish.

I just read this page, and was surprised to find such a guideline. I then wondered how this could get a guideline status and proceeded to spend an hour reading discussions. I haven't read all discussions, but skimmed over them and am trying to give a summary of the situation.

This page's status has been discussed over and over again, as soon as When was this page authorized by consensus?. As I write this, it is presented as a guideline. The issue is complexified by renames and numerous proposals to merge with similar pages. There are many discussions that followed, but here are the main (feel free to add those I missed):

2 general issues were pointed out. This page was created by copying the Meta essay Polls are evil (). First, this was tagged as a guideline from its creation, without following the proper guidelines life cycle. Therefore, this is not officially a guideline. However, as far as I can see, the last time the guideline tag was removed or marked as disputed was 5 years ago (last dispute ended with , although the page was then protected). Therefore, this could be considered as a de facto guideline. Second, Polls are evil is and has always been an essay written as an essay. This page was originally titled "Discuss, don't vote". This was further enhanced to the current "Polling is not a substitute for discussion", which I consider perfectly neutral. Nevertheless, the content still reflects the personal tone of the original essay, although the tone is much more moderate now. The current content still looks more like a demonization of polls than praise for discussion. As I write this, the page's first sentence is "Polls lead to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to... suffering.", presented as a quote.

To go forward, we would need to decide whether this should keep the personal and living tone of an essay or if we should continue to turn it into a neutral piece. If there is consensus to make it an essay, the status could be changed. If there is consensus to make it a guideline, an RFC could be opened. If there is no consensus, perhaps this needs to become 2 pages. I am personally not familiar enough with the other pages with which a merge is proposed to say what would be best in the long term. Meanwhile, I have simply restored the disputed tag. --Chealer (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Disputes that haven't been touched in a year or more may be fairly said to be inactive. You may not like this being a guideline, and you are welcome to start a new discussion on its status, but I'm comfortable with it being a guideline. -- Donald Albury 14:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, I didn't mean to say that the dispute is active, nor that this shouldn't become a guideline. As I said, I did not check related pages enough to give an informed opinion on the best course in the long term. I just quickly checked Misplaced Pages:Straw polls. It could be decided that this page addresses a subtopic of polls and that some content from Straw polls should be moved here. I believe Straw polls would then become an informative page without normative content. In this case, the question of whether this page should become an essay or a guideline remains.
Then, it was also suggested to merge with Misplaced Pages:Consensus. I don't have an opinion on this at this time. --Chealer (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:articles for deletion/Olivia Hack... well, the closer said that "keep" arguments are strong but not strong enough to deal with blurry intersection, and even superior amount of "delete" votes does not overcome the "keep". Even I, myself, voted "delete". Moreover, another closer said that failure to meet one guideline is not a strong reason to delete. I wonder if NOTVOTE guideline (or disputed guideline) applies to this discussion. Nevertheless, this guideline is conflicted by stronger points in renaming discussions. I tend to ignore this guideline because of readers' interests and intentions to read one article or another. See Talk:Doctor Zhivago. --George Ho (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I just looked here because I was pointing to it in another discussion, and I was very surprised to see the "under discussion" tag. Although I do realize that a certain amount of discussions are essentially closed by vote-counting, particularly when the responses are clearly one-sided, I really think that there is strong community consensus that Misplaced Pages reaches consensus through discussion and not through voting. If there ends up being any serious interest in changing the status here, I would strongly urge a community-wide RfC in order to get, um, discussion, from more than just a few editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support formal adoption of this principle as a guideline (no, I've not fully read the entire page recently). The demonstrated consensus (e.g. in determining AfD outcomes) is indeed that polling is not a substitute for discussion. -- Trevj (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Not that with the message traffic here people seem to care all that much, but it's plain that there are many areas of Misplaced Pages which DO use polls. Aside from those AfDs which are flooded by anon IPs, it is seldom the case where a closing admin will dare to rule for policy over consensus, and most of those cases go straight to DRV. RfA is absolutely a head count, pure and simple; as I documented a couple years ago, almost no admin candidate who hits the 75% threshold and fails to withdraw is ever denied admin status, and almost no candidate who fails to hit 70% is ever promoted. Unless people are willing to truly apply this principle, across Misplaced Pages, there is no sense in enacting it. Ravenswing 20:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Polls are evil - I love that there is a poll about a page on polling. - Anyway, This should be an Essay. It's how it's written. Misplaced Pages:Straw polls exists for those who want a project guideline. If anything, reverse-merge to Misplaced Pages:Straw polls. - jc37 20:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
    Note:This user actually means Demote to essay.Forbidden User (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    This user actually meant what this user wrote : )
    Comments in an RfC need not be emboldened text : )
    (and yes, the irony here doesn't escape me : ) - jc37 22:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Demote to essay - Weighing on consensus is very hard, especially for those not familiar with policies and essays. With recent events, such as Justin Bieber on Twitter, maybe majority vote is becoming more important than article quality and rules, as some deletion-ists have good arguments. Also, move requests rely more on vote counts, as rules may change. --George Ho (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Demote WP:NOTDEMOCRACY is an adequate explanation of the subject at hand. Yes, it's a bit vague, but so is the (US) Constitution; wiggle room is desirable. Admins are free to give as much or as little weight to poll results as desired, and I certainly wouldn't want this page to discourage anyone from voting because he or she doesn't think it matters. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Support as a guideline Logic and reason have got to be worth more than how many people sign their name to something. The only reason to demote this would be if we don't believe in that anymore and we want AFDs, RFCs, etc to be closed based solely on majority rule. Does that sound like a good idea to anyone? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

  • If you want this guideline to stay as a guideline, must requested moves be exempted from this guideline? --George Ho (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It doesn't sound like a good idea ... but it does seem to reflect current Misplaced Pages practice. There are many areas where headcounts are what carries the day, and there are some areas - like RfA - where majority vote is the tacit rule. If this guideline is enforced, then it should remain one. If it isn't, then it should be demoted. And it isn't. Ravenswing 20:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - While common sense is used to ignore this guideline, I have never seen such demeaning mentality over one simple thing, title X vs. title Y, in WP:move review. Therefore, I've crossed out my vote, so I'll be neutral for now. --George Ho (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Demote We can't have a guideline contradicting a policy. 2Awwsome 16:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Demote We have voting systems in Misplaced Pages. Even FA elections are somewhat more like polling than consensus. Meanwhile, this guideline demeans the benefits of voting, such as efficiency and reflection of group intelligence. Per users above, common sense has been used for billions of times to ignore this. It does looks like copied from an essay as well. By the way, should some admins come and close this? This discussion is sooo inactive. P.S. If we use vote-counting here, the result is a perfect tie.Forbidden User (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Demote to essay We need fewer guidelines not more. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Stuartyeates, I'd suggesst using stronger arguments, as consensus concerns about the quality of argument more.Forbidden User (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that a desire for a small set of consistent rules rather than the current rambling musings of the community is not a strong argument, then you have misunderstood the last 300 years of scientific reductionism. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought you could explain more on why there should be fewer guidelines, not really saying it is not a good reason.Forbidden User (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Demote. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Discussion is not a substitute for polling. This is trivially true: the two do different things and get used in different ways in Misplaced Pages. Right now Misplaced Pages works remarkably well by being flexible about everything (sometimes excruciatingly so!). Anything that acts against this is probably unwise, particularly if it encourages category errors of the kind implicit in the wording of this discussion. (You'll note that my response is a weird hybrid of both a poll response and a discussion response. A pure poll or a pure discussion wouldn't allow this sort of mixed response, but by having both a great deal of flexibility is obtained.) RomanSpa (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Guideline status

This RfC was closed because no one leaves comment at all. Forbidden User (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As there is a tied and inactive discussion on whether to retain Misplaced Pages:Polling is not a substitute for discussion as a guideline. I would like to have outsiders' opinion here. Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: It looks like a consensus on demoting this guideline is forming. Before requesting for closure, I hope some more people can give their opinion here.Forbidden User (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Voting is evil!

If this is true, then what is Misplaced Pages? A monarchy?! --MurderByDeletionism 16:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a problematic policy. Who decides if an argument is "good"? Misplaced Pages is a self-perpetuating oligarchy.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Explanatory supplement

This should be an Explanatory supplement. Several policies and guidelines link to the essay to supplement and clarify their meaning.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Usage of !vote

According to WP:!VOTE which links to a section of this article, Wikipedians often use the expression "!vote" (read as "not-vote"). The "!" symbol is used in various fields as a symbol for logical negation and was introduced in this way on English Misplaced Pages in 2006. So a reference to a "!vote" or "!voting" is a reminder and affirmation that the writer's comments in a poll, and the comments by others, are not voting, but are just offering individual views in a consensus-building discussion. However, in practice, I feel like it is much more common to see people use the phrase "!vote" to refer to their actual votes. Perhaps the text on this page should also include a comment that this phrase is often used in a way at odds with the original intent of the term? signed, Rosguill 00:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Categories: