Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/Archive2

message: It is usual in complex decisions to have an approval poll. For example, I can see approving "retain WP:V and WP:NOR as historic" and "finish work on WP:ATT and redirect the other two when done" Thia has the advantage that we don't need to spend so much time on wording; anybody who disagrees with all the options can just add one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The solution has usually been to compile a count of all those !voting at all; usually compiled afterwards, but we could request that anyone !voting sign an overall list. If 80%, say, of those who have expressed any opinion approve "historic" or "redirect" then that's the consensus; if 80% approve both, it doesn't much matter which we do, but we can have a runoff if either of the 20% minorities feel strongly. (As I write, we have one Yes/No question, and one "If Yes, then..." question, so this is less of a problem.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's just gotten worse with forking of the discussion over to Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion, the justification for which is entirely unclear to me. 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Approval poll?

message: I think these are more elegant, both versus the version of earlier today and my first clumsy change. Should we ask the first alone, wait to see if there is a Yes consensus, and then ask the second? Marskell 15:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with asking multiple questions at the same time... but I do like having them as separate questions.  Your current version works for me. Blueboar 15:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Respond only if you voted YES" is problematic. People who vote NO to first are still entitled to an opinion on what will happen if they're voted down... I think we should space out the questioning. Marskell 15:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's why I said "this question is only relevant if the answer to the first is YES." By the way, people who agree with the merge in principle, but not the present wording of ATT, are going to vote no on #1. >Radiant< 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. I do realize that; I suggested from my initial post that this may bias the answer to first and thus that the questions should be spaced 2. Not if we offer a proper instruction in that regard. Marskell 15:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that would be fine. ATT is in its current stage a completed work (with the caveat that all policies need some tweaking). So those that believe that ATT as it stands is a no go, should vote No. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked Question 2 to make this clear; do we want to say "the merger implemented" in Question 1? Some people dispute the question of fact whether the merger has been implemented. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Insofar as ATT has a policy tag on it now, I think it fine to say "merger implemented." Or at least I don't think anyone will be confused as to what they're voting on. In fact, I think Q1 is so simple and obvious we should go with it as soon as possible and leave Q2 pending results. Marskell 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care if the change is reverted (others may); but I think we should go with both questions, in order to provoke discussion as to the next step if Q1 fails. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two questions 

message: I have tweaked this. I presume that, even if there is consensus against WP:ATT continuing to be policy, the page will continue to exist with a  tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Continue to exist

message: I guess I give up too. Marskell 22:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've still got Q1 as short and sweet... Maybe... Marskell 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh yes. The wide community debate will be good. I suggest a pop culture exception be suggested off the top. More seriously, I'm just not getting it here—usually when you're a minority of one, you can deduce why you're wrong, but I can't. Given that Qs 2, 3, 4 depend on Q1, why don't we just ask Q1? It will be the community debate. It can be left up for a week, a month. Ask: "Do you agree with the merge?" and debate it. Marskell 22:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple is best. I would keep just the 1st question and everything else moved to the debate page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude! Yes. Marskell 22:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The simple first question to ask is "Should WP:V be merged with WP:NOR?" If we don't have consensus for that, we don't have consensus to do anything. If we do have consensus for that, the argument over whether the present WP:ATT is that merger is secondary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Let's do it, then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Additionally, someone might want all three to remain active, but only some to be considered official/canonical.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So much for short and sweet 

message: Wow, there's already a talk page here.
I am concerned that canonical might not be a word everyone is familiar with, especially non-native speakers of English.  I know we are not the Simple English Wikipedia, but is there a reason another word, like "primary policy", cannot be used?
Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. But please, note that we have been working all day so far in getting this poll worded accurately. Please discuss major changes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can link to canonical, if necessary; "primary policy" is not quite the same thing. Is it what we mean? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe "ruling policy"?  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I started a suggestion on this topic lower down at canonical vs definitive. Signed Jeepday 13:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canonical 

message: Some of the options currently seem rather polarising.  It is possible that some editors will want some pages to stay merged, but not all three.
There is also the question of what to do if there is not consensus for WP:ATT.  I am not sure what options everyone would like to see there, but I think "remain active with primary policy at WP:V and WP:NOR" should be on the list.
Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now there are even less options.  : (  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See m:Voting is evil#Polling_encourages_false_dichotomy.  The question of whether or not the policies and guidelines should be merged really shouldn't be simplified to a yes/no.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not enough options 

message: There is no need or benefit to a poll on ATT. It is already policy. Keep it and V and NOR frozen and let people refer to these as they wish and discuss them as they wish while they are frozen. Let consensus emerge naturally through use and talk. WAS 4.250 22:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community discussion ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either as a new question; Is ATT policy? or the second question: ATT is policy, and therefore is the merger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe ATT has consensus; but if it doesn't, it isn't policy, no matter how many policy tags it bears. Either way, I see no harm in asking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point of yet another page to discuss this stuff.  Have proposed merging Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Attribution for simple sanity. The discussion has already forked way too much. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No poll

message: Yes. Marskell 23:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's all in the instructions. Again, you either do or do not agree with the merge in principle. We can say "Vote yes, if you agree to a merge of two of the three, and note which two", for instance. Marskell 23:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Aye, Aye. Let's put the focus on the community discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion, and then come back here in a week or so to fine tune it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm coming back in eight or so hours. I will say that, despite some reverting, we've got precise questions on the table compared to 24 hrs ago. Marskell 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The current questions are not what this poll is about. The poll is about gauging consensus for an existing merged page called ATT. No more. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if that support fails to be consensus, then what do we do? What's plan B? At lease if we have consensus to merge, and not for ATT, we know we have to rewrite the merger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Do you agree in principle with the merger intended at Wikipedia:Attribution?" 

message: When is the poll going to open? I recently voted because there was no date and I was linked from the Community Portal. I see no date anywhere, so I'm a little confused as to how this is going to run. Someone should state when the poll will open. (And, interestingly, keeping a poll only open in a certain time is more of a democracy than allowing people to vote when they want to. Chances are that I won't vote on this because I'm too busy.) └Jared┘┌talk┐  11:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening? 

message: Let me explain my position.
*I support WP:ATT as it stands.
*I believe, but do not know, that it has the wide acceptance among editors of which  speaks.
*If I am wrong, and it is not widely accepted, it is not policy, no matter how many tags it bears.
*I support merger of at least [[WP:V|| and WP:NOR into ATT, and their being marked historic.
*Nevertheless, the question above is weaselworded: unacceptably vague, to the point of meaninglessness.
**If I am ever polled on it, I will strongly oppose it on those grounds alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, the question be more clear.  What is the principle?  Why not just ask if people, (a) agree with the idea of merging WP:V, WP:OR, and maybe WP:RS, and (b) approve of how this was done at WP:ATT?  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure... Give it a go to find a better wording. So far we have not been able to come up with something that stays on for more than 15 minutes before somebody comes and changes it.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Continual change is a good thing, provided the changes are all new; they will eventually converge to something stable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do you agree in principle with the merger(s) implemented at Wikipedia:Attribution?

message: That has already happened. WP:V and WP:NOR have been merged into ATT, so this question is meaningless. What we are trying to assess is the level of support for the merger that has been in place since Feb 2007. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which is accomplished via question 3 (without forcing respondents to adopt either of the extreme positions).  —David Levy 03:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to taking question 1 out entirely, in any form; it is others who consider it the meat of the poll. The reason we are asking any question in this area at all is that Jimbo doubts that what happened had consensus. We must therefore ask, in some way, whether what did happen should have happened.   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The beauty of question 3 is that it asks exactly the same thing without demanding 100% agreement or 100% disagreement with what has occurred.  It might be true that there was/is consensus for some (but not all) of the changes.  —David Levy 03:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You may be right on this. I will sleep on it and see if still resonates with me in the morning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ???? Should some older policies be merged into Wikipedia:Attribution? 

message: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" has been changed to "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true."  This was apparently to remove an ambiguity.  But I feel many editors take the other interpretation of "verifiability, not truth", i.e. that the aim is to make Wikipedia accurate and reliable sources enable fact-checking.  They should be asked about it in the poll.  --Henrygb 19:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently I am not allowed to raise this question. Since nobody is allowed to label WP:A as disputed even though it is and has been even before I personally raised the issue some weeks ago, and a poll looking at creating consensus on a policy page is not allowed to ask policy questions, I give up.  As far as I am concerned, whatever the result of the poll, there will not be a wikipedia:consensus on this policy because policy questions will not be asked and so there is no point discussing this poll any more.   I can be contacted at my talk page if necessary. --Henrygb 21:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You certainly are allowed to raise the question, but this poll is not the correct forum.  —David Levy 21:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support such a poll question.  This change in wording is of fundamental importance to the meaning and purpose of Wikipedia in my opinion.  It has generated a large amount of debate but much more debate is needed in order to make progress in gaining understanding, persuasion or compromise, and consensus.  A poll question on this part of the wording would be helpful.  At the moment, if anyone wants to comment on the issue itself, please keep the debate in one place;  I believe currently it's at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth.  Comments specifically about whether to have such a poll question are appropriate here, I believe.  In my opinion, this poll is indeed the correct forum.  The poll is about whether WP:ATT is to be accepted as a merger of WP:V and other pages.  This change in policy wording is part of what might be accepted as part of the result of this poll;  for example, if WP:ATT is accepted as it now stands as a merged version of the other pages, then in effect that wording change would be being accepted.  --Coppertwig 21:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Change in policy is not conducted in polls. Once the ATT tempest is over, you are welcome to pursue a discussion in whichever policy page it is pertinent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that this is a straw poll, and not a vote. A straw poll is an informal type of voting where the results of the poll have little or no direct results, other than to gauge opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe policy is not changed "in" polls, but the whole purpose of this poll is to help find out what people do or do not want to be policy.  So, the question is perfectly relevant.  Is there any other reason to exclude it? --Coppertwig 23:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The change in wording coincided with the merger, but it was not a part of the merger.  It could just as easily have been carried out independently (and still could).  People might wish to change any of the wording contained within any of these pages,   but that isn't the straw poll's purpose.  If it were, we might have dozens of questions. —David Levy 23:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Support such a poll question.  The proposed merger is in truth an enormous change in Wikipedia policy formulation.  And User:Henrygb's and others' insightful formulation of the needed fix to Wikipedia policy formulation is as much a part of the four month work effort as is the current incoherent merger of traditional formulations onto the highly controversial and divisive Attribution page text.  Since our goal here should be to develop a broad consensus on what the Wikipedia policy formulation should be, User:Henrygb's question should be on the straw poll if the straw poll is to mean anything legitimate.  --Rednblu 23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagee.  The qustion isn't particularly relevant in this context, and is a matter for resolution at the talk page of whatever emerges as the controlling policypage. This is not denigrating the importance of the question in any way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this question not crucially relevant to the actual wording of the text that should appear in the final Wikipedia policy formulation?  Apparently from the justifications used to defend the wording on the Attribution page, the meaning of Verifiability has been inverted in regard to verifying truth by the text on the Attribution page.  --Rednblu 00:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is crucially important, but as to what the policy says, whatever page it lives at.  It is not important at all for deciding what page the policy will live at. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely.  It has no bearing on the merger itself.  —David Levy 00:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the question should be asked.  Without the question, we will not know whether there is consensus for WP:ATT.  From the history and the archives it looks to me as if it the the prime motivation for those editors promoting the merger and claiming "attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true" is policy despite the debates.  Note that nobody can change WP:V or WP:ATT because they are protected. --Audiovideo 02:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability, not truth

message: I think this is another wrong question. 
Is anybody actually proposing that Wikipedia:Attribution be deleted? If so, I will support the page being unfrozen long enough to make a WP:MfD nomination; but I am certain what will happen to it: Even the people who disagree with the page will wind up saying, "Don't delete it, mark it ." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too many cooks, if it actually says something like that.  Last I looked, it said "inactive" not "deleted".  As for what "inactive" means it could mean either  or  depending on the overall results of the poll, I would imagine. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it actually made it into the poll for very long, but it is certainly being discussed above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should WP:ATT exist?

message: It seems to me that the preamble needs a good weeding.   How much of this background detail do we really need?   semper fictilis 03:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. This is turning into a bit of a farce. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs weeding in part because SlimVirgin wiped out 24 hours of progress with wording it.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rv is easy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How did I do that? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See #Keep it simple.  NB: I'm not advocating a total revert, I'm just saying we don't need to have the same issue discussed in two threads. Whether to keep your major changes was already being discussed (mostly in the negative at that time, haven't looked lately) at #Keep it simple already. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Preamble

message: I would like to put a link to a page where I wrote up the rationale for the new policy page. Does anyone mind if I do that? It's at User:SlimVirgin/Attribution. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim, could you move that page to a subpage here? And name it some like "Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/Basic comparison" -- tying it to your name may make some people bring up WP:OWN, and then just do a basic-- say 5-10 sentences of what each version has to offer? Like how election ballots do? I think that would be awesome for people who will be coming in droves here to poll. Sort of a nutshell of a nutshell page for all of the polices. - Denny 03:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I could try that, but the difficulty is that they really are the same. :-) V and NOR jointly say the same thing as ATT. RS was a mess and said a different thing every week. So I'm not sure how I could do a comparison apart from what I wrote there already about the various problems the pages had. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. I guess the perceived differences, if that makes sense? It probably doesn't... - Denny 06:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what they are, that's the thing. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure they'll come out of the woodwork soon enough.  Those convinced that there are differences have been pretty vocal (unfortunately I've haven't been paying attention to their details, because the issue wasn't on my radar, so I can't answer the question myself, other than the "truth" issue, which has been coming up again and again). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vocal but talking nonsense, which I can't even paraphrase because it was incoherent. They can write their own page if they want to. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why characterize them personally this way?  Anyway, given "And name it some like "Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/Basic comparison" -- tying it to your name may make some people bring up WP:OWN", my assuption just above was that you would move the document to such a location, at which point the people with these issues would probably make them clear at it (and perhaps they cannot make them clear, as you suggest; I offer no opinion on that matter). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Anything that simplifies this mess is good.  Jeepday 03:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems to be at Wikipedia:Attribution/Attribution explanation now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  POV thoughts here, you asked to put a link to "rationale for the new policy page" but you called it "Summary of the objectives of the merger: User:SlimVirgin/Attribution" and then neglected to mention in the objections "Jimbo said "Quite the opposite of "so much for consensus". This radical change was made without any consensus at all. If people really want this, then they need to make a serious effort to get consensus, not just declare victory and make the changes. --Jimbo Wales 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: See section below (here)!  The slot is there, waiting for the other view.  Johnbod 14:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanatory page

message: To make sense of the issues for those coming late to the debate there should be a small number (2 is I suppose too small a number to hope for) of reasonably short statements by proponents of the different positions, linked to from the poll page.  Trying to pick up the issues here or on the Attribution talk page etc is now hopeless.  Johnbod 07:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two is definitely too small a number.  I'm aware of something like nine already.  That said, it's not a bad idea, though I wonder how one would ensure that one side didn't editwar to make another side's position sound stupid.  Slimvirgin is working on a related-ish document, but at this point I don't even know if it will even leave her userspace. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is fine to link to the document at her user-space, assuming proponents of the merger will endorse the summary. I will add this to the instructions, with a place-holder for the people who object to put one user-space summary too. I would encourage Coppertwig to be the one who does this. If you guys can't agree, then you could fork it, but it would really be good, if you could create one summary document. The benefit of keeping the summary in user space is precisely that it can't be deliberately weakened by someone else. --Merzul 09:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, thanks  Johnbod 09:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Works for me, but would suggest that (should Coppertwig accept the responsibility) he/she also directly invite other editors with oppose rationales expressed around here to edit it; I do not believe that Coppertwig's counter-issues are the full gamut of the counter-issues.  This would prevent the feared forking.  There could be additional ones anyway, since there are more than the two bare "yes!" and "no!" positions, such as two basic compromise positions as well (see #Keep it simple for discussion of how they will be represented in the poll), and differences of opinion on whether to include WP:RS in the merge, and so on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, I'm honoured by Merzul's nomination and by Rednblu's kind words in another section.  Other users may wish to nominate other possible moderators at this point.  I'm willing to act as moderator if that is desired and if I'm satisfied with the arrangements.  I would try to set aside my personal bias to help produce a document that sets out the anti-merge positions in a balanced and concise way.  --Coppertwig 22:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No. If you want someone to moderate, it should be one that is not involved in the crafting of this poll. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually the idea of a moderator is strange. To moderate what? SlimVirgin did not ask any moderation to write her summary of the ATT rationale. Nobody is stopping you from writing an essay about your views. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he means the term rather informally.  SlimVirgin generally appears to represent the largely unified pro-merge position; I don't see anyone who is for the merge saying they don't think their view is represented.  The anti- or why-merge positions are several, and distinct, so more than one person is likely to want input in it.   If the people actually writing the document want someone to informally moderate them, that is their business. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Throughout these proceedings, let us please allow all of our dear friends, particularly Jossi, express exactly their feelings, judgments, and emotions.  And let us realize please that Jossi's expressions are merely Jossi's feelings, judgements, and emotions.  Let us consider them exactly in all of their entirety.  And then let us proceed with our work.  What is next? --Rednblu 22:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and write up your "feelings, judgements (sic), and emotions" as it pertains to ATT, and let the community judge these on their merits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And same with SV's counter-essay. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Your "(sic)" notation is unwarranted; "judgements" is a correct spelling (particularly in Commonwealth English).  —David Levy 22:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Chairman Coppertwig?  --Rednblu 22:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with jossi on this.  Coppertwig is an involved party, and hence not eligible to moderate or mediate on this.  Also note that the Mediation Committee does not believe that mediation is appropriate for policy discussions, see WP:M#What_is_mediation.3F.  (Yes, I know mediation and moderation are different, but we don't have a Moderation Committee.)  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Chairman Coppertwig?  --Rednblu 22:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm genuinely interested in a summary of your case, but instead of more discussion here, I would really like to see one succinct and coherent document, like the one produced by SlimVirgin. If you guys could handle this in Coppertwig's userspace, e.g. User:Coppertwig/Attribution, then I'm sure Jossi will accept linking to it. I'm not saying you are forbidden from discussing things here, but everyone has stated their arguments at so many places so many times, it would be so much more helpful if you guys focused on producing one document that we could link to, and then I would finally understand your objections. --Merzul 23:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone just start writing, sort out where it will be later.  You don't need a moderator unless there's an argument to moderate.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not moderating or mediating between pro-merge and anti-merge sides of the debate.  Rather, I expect to create a user page within a few hours (perhaps with title "User:Coppertwig/Stability" -- open to suggestions) and invite certain other users (i.e. those against the merge or against the way it's being done in one way or another, even those whose views I disagree with) to edit the page, under certain restrictions such as 3RR.  I have a right to create a user page and to allow others to edit it.  I expect it will be quite suitable for linking from the Poll page under "Other statements".  I will probably reserve the right to place restrictions on users editing the page, at my discretion.   I may create other user pages as well, and there may be links from the main user page to those as well as perhaps to other user pages others may create.  I'm open to suggestions about these details from users who are against the merge in one way or another.   --Coppertwig 21:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use User:Coppertwig/Attribution.  It is already redlinked above and that will turn into a blue link the moment you create it.  :-)  I would strongly suggest doing that right now and let Rednblu and whoever else is interested from the not-ATT camp start working on it.  Don't introduced process that isn't needed.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, in reply to Rednblu:  We're all equals here.  Too much deference should not be given to any one user.  You're contributing some very good points about how the policy applies to biographies of living persons.  Everyone's opinion is important.  I'll be relying on all the collaborators to help collect information for the page and help write it, and I'll be relying on people, rather than deferring to me, to bug me about anthing I need to do differently.  --Coppertwig 21:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand.  I will behave. :) This is serious business.  I would not want to detract from that.  --Rednblu 21:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created the page User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy and invite users who are opposed to the merge, or opposed to some aspect of the merge, to edit it according to rules on the talk page of that page.  The intention is for there to be a link from the Poll page to this page under "Other Statements".  --Coppertwig 22:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest moving it or copying it (and its talk page) when it is done over to Wikipedia:Attribution/Attribution opposition to match SV's Wikipedia:Attribution/Attribution explanation, and give it an essay tag with an WP:ATTCON shortcut to match WP:ATTPRO.  The two finished pieces should be paired so that the incoming pollster has a balanced view of the issues and the equal weight of the positions in the poll (having one of these remain a userspace essay with no shortcut would undermine that balance.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I appreciate your attempt to get clear titles.  And thanks for getting us to think about the final page name early.  I speak only for myself.  I have absolutely no opposition to attribution.  I don't think anybody here has any opposition to attribution.  So it would be wrong to label this "Statements from all sides" page as any form of attribution opposition.  "Stability of policy" is a working and accurate name because, in contrast, the current Attribution policy page is a humongous inversion of the prior Verifiability, Reliable source, and No original research policies.  Perhaps, you can help us think of a better name for the "Stability of policy" page.  Let's think about it.  There is plenty of time.  This whole process with take months.  Meanwhile, we will work on the content of that page.  I have been plowing through the four months of vociferous arguments against this so-called "merger," and it will take all of us a while to get three or four clear and obvious statements.  --Rednblu 00:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  You are correct in deducing that my goal here is to ensure equal representation.  At this point in the debate I'm not taking sides any longer and lean toward a centrist, compromise position. I.e., I'm more concerned about the poll being fair and useful than about any particular option on it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements from all sides needed

message: In my view, main question here is Question 3, and we should give it its due weight by placing it first. However, I don't understand this formulation from it: "Wikipedia:Attribution becomes inactive. (Elements that reflect consensus are integrated into the original pages.)" There shouldn't be anything in ATT which isn't already in the original pages. Wasn't that the stated purpose of ATT - to combine original pages without changing anything? -- Vision Thing -- 14:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are changes (I believe improvements) in phrasing, and discussions which are (I believe) statements of present practice not explicitly stated in the source pages. Which of these have consensus support would require more discussion if 3d passes.   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I believe that your explanation will be helpful to others too. -- Vision Thing -- 16:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 3

message: Where's  when we need it?  Hey, it takes one to know one! Fondly, Butseriouslyfolks 05:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Asperger's Syndrome]] Orgy 

message: This is the butt-ugliest page evah! What are you guys doing? It's horrible. So much boldface, everything all over the place.
Can we not just have a simple list of questions? This is close to demented and as good an argument for not designing things by committee as could be imagined. If sent to this page to vote, I think I would run shrieking for the wikihills. Grace Note 05:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't seem so bad when there are 100 comments in it; the headings will be very helpful.  The problems with the structure and wording of the poll are far, far more serious. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the structure is bananas. I will laugh my nuts off if someone votes yes to question 1 and then yes to only one of question 2. Grace Note 02:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweet Jeebus! 

message: Tjstrf added this sentence "more than 2,000 edits to the page itself, and more than 5,000 edits to the talk page by more than 300 editors)" here with the edit summary "(It's an attempt at refuting the "no wide consensus" argument.)"  I object to this sentence being included on the grounds that arguments should go in the pages linked to for that purpose, not on the poll page itself.  --Coppertwig 13:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is useful information, alongside Jimbo's comment and SlimVirgin's summary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Coppertwig, but I am more concerned with the wording of the questions and their options.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid arguments in header info 

message: Say a straw poll opens, and UserX decides he wants to vote for an option not listed, so he adds it and votes for it.  Is it allowable to move or remove UserX's opinion?
The only relevant guidance I can find on this is in Wikipedia:Straw polls, Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, and of course m:Polling is evil. (All essays.)
Wikipedia:Straw polls#Creating_a_survey says, "Once started, the questions and wording in the survey should not change. However, if someone feels that the existing survey is seriously flawed, this is typically an indication Step 2 was not completed properly."  Step 2 is "Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process."  (By that standard, we might never have a straw poll....)  A new option would not count as changing the question, but it would count as a new wording.  So, apparently it would not be desirable for a new option to be added during the poll.  Contrarily, m:Polling is evil#Polling_encourages_false_dichotomy suggest adding additional choices, though it does not specify whether this should happen before or after the poll is open.
Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks#When_to_refactor.3F says, "It might be better to not refactor if there is any kind of voting going on. Tampering with comments that are attached to votes may be perceived as in some way tampering with the vote itself. There is also the possibility that refactoring will make disreputable users think that it's ok to change someone’s comments and so abuse this policy. Of course bad edits by people abusing the policy may easily be reverted."  At the top, it also says "The remove  personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly." - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI (emphasis original).
Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages stresses that it is important to preserve the original intent when refactoring.
Sorry, I don't mean to wikilawyer.  However, if new options cannot be removed once the poll is open and people have voted for them, I don't see the point of removing them now.
—  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine the poll once launched will be watched like a hawk by... many, many people, as it will be linked with an announcement (I hope for the duration) in the Watchlist header. Any shenanigans will be undone probably in a race or personal attacks removed (NPA still applies to polls, I'd hope!!). Once it goes live it will have been a week plus so the vote shouldn't be changed with more options, and no one can say they "didn't know" since the watchlist header is pretty obvious to let everyone know. - Denny 01:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To avoid any confusion, I was assuming that UserX did not make any personal attacks, simply added a new option to express his opinion.  (RPA just happened to mention a situation involving polls, and personal attacks are probably a more extreme situation than new options....)  So are you saying that just personal attacks should be removed, or new options as well?  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you not taken part in many polls here? I think you'll find the wording, number of options and so on very flexible, particularly with such a poorly designed poll. I urge you and the others involved in crafting it to ask question one only, as simply as you can, and then ask the others at another point. Grace Note 03:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we move or remove votes once they've been added? 

message: I moved it to be under Project space, under this ATT page, with a clean copy of SlimVirgin's page in User space. It seemed like it was a more appropriate location. - Denny 16:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tagged it with  so as not to confuse noobs about what it is, and added a shortcut for it (the name is a lot to type or remember).  PS: I believe you copy-pasted it, not moved it, and forgot its talk page material; I copied that over, too.) The shortcutt is WP:ATTPRO (and of course the upcoming essay from the other side would eventually be WP:ATTCON. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to location of summary explanation 

message: I just put in a revised version, see:
Do you want to have Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources merge into Wikipedia:Attribution (keep in mind that all of the content/policy of the three old policies exist in the new ATT policy? A "yes" here indicates you support a full merger. A "no" response means you oppose full merger. If you are "neutral," you can specify that also. If you support a partial merger, see question #2.
Why can't it just be this simple? If they support a partial, that is what question #2 is for. - Denny 17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Denny, I think I understand where you're coming from, but you just created a massive question by inserting what is more properly a notice. I've just added some wording as a "special note." Marskell 18:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks... I think that note does the trick. - Denny 18:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: DennyColt, I hope you realize you just massively changed the nature of the poll and made it even more illogical than it already was.  Question 2 is emphatically not just for people who don't have an total-yes or total-no answer; two of the options in Q2 correspond to those two positions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that it's been reverted.  Please don't re-revert. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't my intention to muck it up... I was trying (ham handedly, unfortunately) to streamline things... - Denny 22:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted, and I wasn't intended to be yelling at you or anything.  I said "please" :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised question #1. 

message: I removed the reference to Jimbo's wikien post because it is really out of place and over-the-top. The message details already specify everything this reference says. However, I've been reverted, apparently because this is more, um, convenient? Comments regarding the necessity of this are welcome. Picaroon 22:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important.  This debate has been very, very contentious.  Being able to ascertain that Jimbo did say what he said and did so from an official standpoint, not just as a commenting Wikipedian, is important.  It took me over half an hour to find that message, and I know what I'm doing.  The average "I'm just here to edit articles" user would never find it on their own at all.  NB: I'm not the one that added the reference in the first place, all I did was link to it and properly format it (and footnote it so that it is out of the flow of the text). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I was clear enough. I replaced the reference, ie, the <ref> tags and such, with a direct link. I'm not talking about removing the link, I'm talking about the format in which the link is presented. Picaroon 22:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh.  I don't care all that much. Evidently someone does, probably for the reason I mentioned (it's distracting to have the stuff in the middle of the flow of the passage.  The footnoting system exists for a reason.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: And stop nitpicknig about stupid things like 3rr, or a syllable here, or why that one consonant that you don't like actually implies a personal attack, etc.? And focus on deciding how to close this circular debate to put the poll live? - Denny 22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I refactored the 3RR thing to get rid of the nitpicks.  I'm not sure what you mean about te syllable/consonant bit, but am in general agreement with you that people haven't been talking much about the poll (self included sometimes.)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was tossing the consonant/syllable bit as an ad hominem to mock the ad hominem onslaught that is this page since yesterday. It's like some people are heck bent to only have the following be the extent of their language skills here and on related pages: "Voting evil. 3rr! Vote invalid! Principle! Principle! Principled votes invalid on 3rr is evil!". It was getting tiring... - Denny 22:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  <handshake> And sorry about the 3RR blather; what was intended to be a "look, it's really simple, quit fussing" example turned out to be a goat...roping.  I hope the refactor isn't reverted by someone who feels overly YOYOW. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we cut the crap? 

message: Could we please put in some dead/neutral space between the end of the instructions and the first question? It's a silly, small thing, but I think it would be helpful for readability. With the... unorthodox structure of the poll (big numbers) it all looks muddled now. - Denny 22:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better yet (or in addition), remove the weird numbers.  They are not helpful in any way.  Wikipedians generally are pretty competent at counting to three.  If someone demands numbers just do it as ==1. Question 1's text here== — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd say "in addition" and leave the number debate to others; I'm fine either way (and think they are nice, in and of themselves). I'm gonna add the spacing in--I think it just helps. - Denny 22:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the numbers may become helpful when there are large numbers of votes, but I don't feel strongly about whether to have them or not. --Coppertwig 23:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I redid them as numbers in the headings.  They've lasted that way for a little while.  I guess that's a good sign. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request: spacing between instructions/first question 

message: I've protected this page. The amount of edit warring going on by a lot of people who should know better is quite frankly ridiculous. This is a discussion the community needs to have, and I hope this can be worked out shortly. Having the discussion and poll is a good deal more important than its exact phrasing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your assistance, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless it's a pity you left the page protected in its state after the balancing statement (see section above) had been removed.  I asked for pro & anti statements, as a confused latecomer to the debate, two days ago (section:statements needed from all sides, above) and the need for these seemed to be widely recognised - I had not seen any comments against having these until Jossi's interventions today.  Given the current heated climate, I suggest you unprotect long enough to either remove the link to Slim Virgin's statement or to add one to Coppertwig's page, to avoid the appearance of partiality.   Johnbod 03:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is so special about "Coppertwig's page"? He can make his comments in the community discussion page as have done all others. The page you refer to is not SlimVirgin's page. It is an essay that anyone can read, and edit, in which the rationale for ATT is succinctly expressed. "Coppertwig's page" is his personal page in which he is stating his views, and in which he has imposed special rules about who can edit, and who cannot edit. There are not two sides: That is a disruptive, divisive and polarizing viewpoint that contravenes all what I know Wikipedia to be, and it is highly disruptive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For now it is Coppertwig's page, but hopefully it won't be forever, and then this minidebate should be compelete different. If it's not, then something will be very off-kilter. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: To clarify: Despite the fact that I did something reactionary after it was first removed, I agree it should have been removed for now (i.e. while it's under one party's control). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I protected the page as I found it. I have no idea whose version it was on, and I'm not endorsing any current version with protection. Discussion should continue here as to what should be included or not, hopefully consensus can be reached quickly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  (edit conflict) Pages are always protected in The Wrong Version.  : )  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's being very hopeful indeed. But the situation here is hardly the usual WP one, since the slots were deliberately created for two opposing statements, one of which remains, while the other has been removed.  Johnbod 03:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect. See Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion and count how many statements are there. This idea of "two sides" is inherently wrong and inaccurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I belatedly concur.  The "opposition" did in fact appear to be coalescing to produce one essay counter to SV's, but I am skeptical of that eventual outcome at this point, and the shortcut setup work was premature and possibly a mistake.  Trying to be too "helpful" is not always a good idea... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) When it is no longer a userspace essay, then take this up again.  "Well, SV got hers in before it was in wikipedia:space..." complaints won't be helpful here.  That was a mistake.  I was about to revert it myself when DennyColt fixed it a different way.  Arguing further for it right now in its half-baked present state is kind of pointless. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The userspace thing is only half the issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's burn that bridge while we're crossing it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it would be best to remove all links to various peoples' views from the poll, and just include such links in the Community discussion somehow?  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Heh. I was about to start a betting pool on when that would happen. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Jimbo just changed it to semi-protected, with a note worth reading in the edit summary, FYI. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: Where was the discussion of this? "Some" and "no" do not make a pair. Marskell 10:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it makes more sense to include "yes" under "some" than to include "some" under "yes" or "no".  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 11:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that "Do you agree in principle...: Yes, No, Neutral" are more than enough and address Jimbo's request. In fact, I could live with just Yes and No. Anything else just tends to clutter the issue. Depending on the results, we can then have further discussions and/or polls, if needed. Crum375 11:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about partially?  Even if you don't break partially up into degrees (mostly, partially, mostly not), partially still can't fit under any of those.  Partially isn't the same as neutral.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 11:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  That said, it would be best to have all three middle options, so that people leaning in one direction won't be taken as being split down the middle.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 11:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: David Levy, I agree that it is redundant at best (if more options are added), and polarising otherwise.  However, adding more options is the closest thing I can see to a compromise.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 12:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a "compromise" doesn't help at all.  It merely converts the question from leading to confusing and the answers from misleading to meaningless.  —David Levy 12:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps you are right.  People who support the question won't seem to accept having additional answers.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 12:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the additional answers are hopelessly vague (and could never be reasonably interpreted to mean anything in particular).  Instead of attempting to water down question 1, we need to explain why it's inferior/redundant to question 3.  It appears that arguments over the wording are distracting people from the real issue.  —David Levy 12:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Question 3 allows people to express their view on all of the possibilities (or at least all the possibilities we can think of) as to where to proceed from here.  Question 2 should have a "conditional yes", by the way....  : )  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 12:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to explain question 3's benefits to me.  :-)  —David Levy 12:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See below.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 12:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WAS' changes 

message: What is the difference between the additional comments section here and the page Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community discussion? What sort of comments are intended to go here rather than on the discussion page? CMummert · talk 14:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave it there as an escape valve, perhaps? Disallow long comments in the vote section,; disallow inline replies to votes, and leave a space for those that want to make a point during the vote.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Polls are intended to encourage people to express their opinion, aren't they?  I agree with disallowing threaded conversation in the voting sections, but why should we disallow long comments along with votes?  Editors may feel the need to clarify their position to reduce the likelihood that their vote is misinterpreted.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  additional comments 

message: Is it only me, or is all this snowballing out of all proportion? What is going on? Why the drama, the polarization, the intensity? Can we all for a moment think what is best for the project rather than what is best for one's opinion? What this discussion and poll was designed to be is to gauge opinion. It is not a vote. By looking at the community discussion page, one can see that there is little consensus for anything... The core policies of Wikipedia, that is, NOR, V, NPOV 'will not change, and that is a given. All what is being discussed is if there is merit in having one page to represent these policies. What concerns me most is certain actions and comments that are diminishing or attempting to challenge our long-standing content policies, or to create divisiveness and polarizing the community. Let's  not allow that from continuing to escalate. It is not good for the project, is disruptive and totally unwarranted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I was actually going to post that there does appear to be consensus for the V-NOR merge on the discussion page; not incredibly robust, but discernible. Is there any reason not to take this live, sooner rather than later? Marskell 15:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It has been six days since this started, and the commenting in the discussion page is slowing down. We can propose to open the poll 28 March at 0:00 UTC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: First, I will ask Seraphimblade to unprotect this page and see if it remains stable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That seems minimal.  If the poll is still encouraging discussion is 7 days, I would reccomend letting that run its course.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A call for reason 

message: A super-basic, no frills, Yes/No/Neutral option.
::  A mock up/demonstration of this poll option is available to see at:
::* Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option1Demo
; Endorse
# ≈ jossi ≈ (I'd accept a "Partial, briefly describe" as per Marskell) (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * This page and the related stuff was on the original Watchlist notice for nearly a week. No one can say they didn't know to come here and weigh in... :) - Denny 03:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: ** Without an "other" section, what do you expect editors whose opinions aren't covered by those options to do?  The only way for such editors to accurately express their opinions as votes would be to add another section mid-poll, if we pick this version.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: **And how long do we leave the Window open? Till the last ten minutes of the poll? See: Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll#Statements. Thats been there for 2+ days. It exists... if everyone starts adding stuff, mid-stream, ok, fine--lets let everyone decide then. It always happens anyway usually. Once the poll is live I ain't touching it except to RV vandals and put my own support down in whatever form once. But for NOW, we need to get a working poll. Hence this Q1 pre-poll... - Denny 03:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *** Exactly.  Hence, I am not sure if there is a point to preventing the options from being available in the first place.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: **** I don't know if I'm typing in another language. :)  The options are there, but if concensus doesn't endorse THOSE options for the start of the poll... putting this silly structure in was an attempt to get people to actually work on building concensus rather than talking over each other. They're there. Convince people to endorse them/accept them. Q4, and Q5. If they don't have support, that doesn't mean someone is denying anyone. It means people maybe don't WANT them in. - Denny 06:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 1 - Short version

message: A more verbose option, called by some editors the 'medium' option. Has two Yes options for implementing ATT, No, and Neutral.
:: A mock up/demonstration of this poll option is available to see at:
::* Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option2Demo
; Endorse
#2nd option ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 2 - Medium version

message: A verbose option, with two Yes options to accept ATT, two to reject with different conditions, and Neutral.
:: A mock up/demonstration of this poll option is available to see at:
::* Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option3Demo
; Endorse
# 3rd option - Denny 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 3 - Verbose version

message: The most complex proposal, which actually asks us to decide which ultimate fate for the policies in question we prefer. Originally, there was a Question 3, which was eliminated by concensus. This proposal essentially replaces the idea of a binary Yes/No Q1 with the original Question 3, making the poll about what status is preferred for the policies.
:: A mock up/demonstration of this poll option is available to see at:
::* Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option4Demo
;Endorse
#This is my preference. For example, I support WP:ATT, but find both the first and fourth alternatives here acceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 4 - No question 1

message: Guettarda's version of the poll, it includes verbose questions about the nature of a merger that people support, as opposed to binary yes/no/neutral questions.
:: A mock up/demonstration of this poll option is available to see at:
::* Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option5Demo
; Endorse
# ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 5 - Guettarda's hybrid version 

message: A bit late, but this is a simple attempt to first get an answer to what at least I want to know: should we deprecate V and NOR in favour of a single policy. It is perhaps a bit confusing that question 2 depends on the first answer, but the results will be more clear, and I think it is important to distinguish objections to the merger and to the actual wording of ATT. Finally, since WP:RS isn't a crucial issue here, what should be done with it can perhaps be decided after we know what to do with V and NOR.
:: A mock up/demonstration of this poll option is available to see at:
::* Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option6Demo
; Endorse
# Merzul 00:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And in case somebody wonders why I didn't post this incredibly brilliant suggestion earlier :), then rest assured I have followed the debate here quite carefully, and so this is mostly based on what has been said here, it's a standing on the shoulders of giants kind of thing <-- that was a sucking up to get some more votes kind of thing. Good night. --Merzul 00:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know, my brain doesn't work right now, so I trust your judgement. Please go ahead and make that change. Then there are three (in principle) independent questions, and its no longer hierarchical. That's probably very good, except the name doesn't fit :) --Merzul 01:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adjusted. We can tweak the name; it only appears on the two links and the header on this page. But it still fits; only one of Q2 and Q3 will matter, depending on how Q1 comes out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good, and you're right it's still a bit hierarchical, but it is probably less confusing now. We'll see how people like it. The reception has been 3 times better than expected so far :) --Merzul 01:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 6 - Hierarchical version 

message: As Jossi suggested in a comment, lets limit it to one of these FIVE. It conceivably covers every single possibility. - Denny 15:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there's no binary question option that allows people to choose whether or not ATT should supercede whichever pages are merged into it.  That's the only option I'd support, right now, as I strongly believe it is the right way of asking this question. JulesH 08:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Five options is PLENTY

message: To the best of my knowledge, no one is suggesting that WP:ATT, WP:V, and WP:NOR all remain policy.  (If I'm wrong, whomever wants that can add a new section for themself when they add their vote, but I doubt it will happen.)
The two middle options are this (ignoring the issue of WP:RS, which was never policy anyway):
* WP:ATT becomes policy.  WP:V and WP:NOR become guidelines subordinate to WP:ATT, just as Wikipedia:Content forking is a guideline subordinate to the policy Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View.
* Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research remain policy.  Wikipedia:Attribution becomes a condensed summary with status similiar to Wikipedia:5 pillars, or in other words no official status except that which it inherits from what it summarises.
Is there a concise way to make it clear that the middle options do not mean all three pages being policy?
—  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Q2 covers this. Jimbo (from my reading) was concerned about them all merging/some going inactive, etc. Q2 in turn puts that out to gauge concensus. Unless I am misreading you. - Denny 18:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What?  *confused*  This is not about the second question/which pages are merged, but the first question/what happens to the relevant pages (including or not including WP:RS).  Some people seem to think that the middle options, in which all pages remain active, would mean that all of the relevant pages would be policy.  As far as I know, no one has suggested that.  There are things in between policy and inactive, like subordinate guideline or summary page.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there some way to make the middle options clearer? 

message: Per Jossi's suggestion, I made FIVE full mockups of each option, linked off each section in the poll. Check them out:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option1Demo
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option2Demo
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option3Demo
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option4Demo
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Option5Demo
thanks, - Denny 18:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Full mock ups for five versions

message: Good one, Conti. - Denny 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do you support Wikipedia:Attribution?

message: It looks as if we are nearing an acceptable compromise version... good work folks.  I know it was not easy, and you have my thanks if no one else's.
Once we do have a final version, the next step is to determine when to open the poll and when to close it.  Given that part of Jimbo's concern about ATT was that the merger might have taken place without proper notice and community involvement, I think it is vital that we now advertize this poll at every step.  Just as we put all sorts of notices about the discussion page everywhere we could think of (including on the watch lists)... we should do the same with the poll.  In fact, I think we should start with a notice that says: "The Poll will open on <opening day> at  and last for <number> days."  Post this at least 24 hours ahead of time... then when the poll does open, again post notices to say "The poll is now OPEN for voting, and will close on <closing day> at ".
The one thing we definitely don't want is for Jimbo to come back to us saying lots of people complained that the poll opened and closed without their knowing about it. Blueboar 19:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seen the watchlist notification? :)  Maybe for the first 24 hours of the poll when the notice changes, we can include a discreet but impossible to miss graphic for it, then just go to all text for days 2-7. - Denny 19:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is the announcement: This poll will open on March 29 00:00 UTC and will close seven days later on April 5 at 00:00 UTC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shouldn't someone uninvolved make the announcement?  Or Jimbo just because this poll is being made at his request.  I personally don't feel we are ready, and having a strict closing time might not be helpful.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The announcement will just go up on the Watchlist header at the magic time. Having a fixed closing date/time will be good so that every last person who screams "not yet!" can't make a stink, and so it has finality... - Denny 19:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification of Poll 

message: See Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/Armedblowfishmockup.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Armed Blowfish, I think your mockup leaves out the most important part... The whole point of this poll is so that we (and more importantly Jimbo) can find out IF this merger has community support.  That has to be a binary yes/no question (or at most, a tri-part yes/no/partial question).  I understand that you think we need a range of options to cover all bases, but we have to ask that basic question or we don't address Jimbo's main concern.  Blueboar 19:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just think of "The original pages become inactive. Wikipedia:Attribution serves as a unified policy on their subjects." and "Wikipedia:Attribution remains as the canonical policy, but the original pages remain active to describe the concepts in greater detail." as two different kinds of "yes", and "The original pages serve as the canonical policies (or guideline in the case of WP:RS), but Wikipedia:Attribution remains active as a condensed summary." and "Wikipedia:Attribution becomes inactive." as two different kinds of no, and there's your binary, except with different degrees of yes and no.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not need any more brilliant ideas... We have had all ideas already discussed. Let's move on by agreeing to a compromise version as per Danny's. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm satisfied with the current compromise.  Thanks, Denny!  —David Levy 20:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay.  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My suggestion for poll wording 

message: Are still disagreements about starting the poll March 29 00:00 UTC? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  It is wrong to start with the current poll text.  --Rednblu 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Notwithstanding Rendblu's (edit conflict!) comment above (the "current" poll text has rarely lasted more than a few minutes...), I tend to agree with David Levy's earlier comment that waiting until April 2 would be wise.  If this is "advertised" as much as I think it will be, it would be a top-10 April Fool's Day vandalism target.  We've all (I think) agreed that it's really important to limit people's effective ability to rant and add comment-on-comment-on-comment on the poll to make it actually possible to parse it and determine the outcome.  I think this rationale applies even more strongly to avoiding the utter bollocks monkeywrenching edits that would (I predict) absolutely certainly occur on 2007-04-01, some of them carefully crafted to not look like vandalism.  (A secondary effect of course is that legitimate but poorly phrased votes could be deleted as apparent vandalism).  A few extra days isn't going to kill anyone. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Although I support current version of the poll I don't see the reason for hurry. Aren't we having this poll because merge was preformed without enough community input and discussion? -- Vision Thing -- 21:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of opening poll 

message: Is there concensus to go ahead? Or to abort? If we don't set a motion now... to go or hard stop, we'll endlessly debate just about that. Speak now, etc. - Denny 21:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not yet, but we're getting there.  Abort?  Certainly not.  I second the motion (I guess it is Jossi's, ultimately) to proceed, with the caveat that this does not mean freeze the text of the poll.  Tweaks need yet to be made. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I forked the new thread immediately below because it seemed to raise completely different issues; I believe what this thread was for what determining whether there is consensus that the poll is getting solid enough that proceeding is possible, and on some kind of schedule (not necessarily the one that Jossi or David Levy proposed, just that arriving at one is feasible.)  If this fork was a mistake, feel free to revert, including refactoring away this note. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus to proceed

message: I propose the following simple plan:
* Day 1 (hours 0-24): Non-dismissable notice (so no one misses it or can later say they did). Small graphic to get your attention.
* Days 2-7: Dismissable notice, text only, no graphic.
* Day 7+: take down the notice altogether.
Once consensus is 'decided' however that goes for the policy, another 24 hour non-dismissable notice announcing it, and done. - Denny 20:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Non dismissible notice? This means you'll have to forbid people from editing their monobooks. (Best of luck with that.) If people don't want to see it, they shouldn't have to. Picaroon 21:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I mean with no "dismiss button" on the header itself for the first day. :) - Denny 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Middle version (no graphic), and no smileys (graphical or ASCII) in any of them.  Smileys indicate something is a joke or was meant humorously and that is not the case here.  Yes I'm a big meanie. :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My intention with the smileys was to make people feel they were welcome to add their opinions, and spread good will.  Some smiles can be more serious than humour.  But if you don't like them, it's not a big deal.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a matter of "like"; I'm coming at it from a usability angle.  A long time ago smilies (of the basic sort; there are literally hundreds of variants now, with their own nuances) could mean any number of things, but since the rise of IM, they generally equate to "JK!" or "LOL!".  I think the wording can convey what you want to.  The wording job you did on the merge template at WP:RS for example conveyed that very well (note that I kept it but removed the ASCII-smile in the proposed variant).  Something like your very encouraging wording in that template would work marvellously here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll notification on the Watchlist header 

message: Ok, stop for a minute. No poll at this point in time please. We've managed to create a huge mess. We are going to need time to tidy up that mess first. 
Starting a poll in this situation is not helping anyone get anything done, and can only cause more mess. 
I'd like to at least postpone the poll for a week or two until we (which includes several mediators) have gotten the initial mess sorted out.
--Kim Bruning 23:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Kim. You may want to read the copious discussions before attempting to jump in the fry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course! --Kim Bruning 23:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We should hold a poll on whether or not to go forward with the poll.  But first, we need a poll on whether to continue the pre-poll poll.  If you disagree, we can put the matter to a poll.  —David Levy 23:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David, I do not know how do you have the stamina to be humorous after all of this.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Polling is ev--oh wait. - Denny 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, this is why I'm somewhat confused as to what's going on. Jimbo Wales is the person who recommended that particular poll option to me ^^;; . --Kim Bruning 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Jimmy's concern was that unless people had the three relevant policy pages and the handful of places it was posted on their watchlist, they would have no idea this was coming. Even admins didn't know... so... the roll back by him and request for a poll. I had pitched the idea to do a Watchlist notice, which everyone liked, except for so far an extremely small but vocal minority. The thinking was that this way, no one can say they aren't informed. The poll especially when live will need to be advertised thus, so that regular editors can all contribute, and again, so... no one is left out. Or else next month or next year someone will say, "WTF? WHEN DID ATT HAPPEN?!" and so on. Having it 'in your face' for a week is a small price to pay for getting the job done right... - Denny 00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know about the Mediation Cabal, but the Mediation Committee does not mediate in disputes over what policy should be.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Independant and mediation cabal type mediators, yes. --Kim Bruning 23:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop! Look! Think! <small>(and ''then'' cross)</small> 

message: Why would be put Voting is Evil in a poll. Voting is Evil is simply an essay that some people wrote about how they prefer not to vote. Were here to make a poll, not to try to discourage it. If someone feels that voting is evil, then they should not participate in this optional poll that has no power anyway. YaanchSpeak! 01:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's there because it will be there.  It's a given that someone will add it.  It gets added at every poll.  Guettarda 04:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. Put it in now, instead of editwarring over its addition later, mid-poll.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting Is Evil? 

message: Having taken a break from this page, I have a modest proposal: Three questions: 
#Q1: Short Version (above)
#Q2: Which of these four pages do you think should be combined
#*WP:ATT, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS
#*:With a note: If WP:ATT is included in the combination, the combined page will start out as WP:ATT. If it is not, the combination will have to be written
#Q1:Verbose version, without the Yesses and Noes, which are in the first question. 
Unless this is immediately shot down, I will probably do a draft to see what it looks like, in which case I will add a version link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand.  How can WP:ATT be merged with pages from which it was derived?  —David Levy 02:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe a longer break, PManderson? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Bingo!  Yes.  I see it.  Good eye!  New breakthrough!  This poll structure acknowledges the actual relationship of the four independent slices of the policy problem.  No wonder none of the prior poll structures worked for us unless we just gave up!  Without acknowledging the actual four independent slices of the policy problem, we can never reach a working consensus.  I was not even close to seeing this!  Congratulations!  At least this poll structure does not force a four dimension reality into questions limited to three dimensions.  --Rednblu 12:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whats u=is up PManderson? The version you just changed was stable for 12 hours, after editors agreed  that it was a good compromise. Please, if you want to change it, propose it in a sandbox. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where was it agreed that it was a good compromise?  I left it alone because the pre-poll poll was ongoing (so it didn't really matter what was on the project page).  —David Levy 14:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly oppose the poll to which Jossi is reverting, and thought it clear that the pre-poll poll did also. It offers no way to clearly express my views, or several others. His persistent reversion remains uncollegial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also strongly oppose the "live" version (which clearly lacks support), but yours is even worse (no offense intended).  —David Levy 14:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a draft; I'm not offended. If you can be specific about what's wrong with it, maybe I can fix it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my reply below.  —David Levy 15:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A proposal

message: The proposal was presented in this edit.  I copied that page to my UserSpace at User:Rednblu/Attribution/Poll and merely fixed a link so that I could look at the complete proposal.  --Rednblu 16:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal: For the record 

message: Let's wrap this up.  It's been a full week and slightly then-some.  Seven fricken days.  With layzers on their heads.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification: If it takes two weeks to write a really fricken simple poll (layzers on its head or not), there is no poll forthcoming that is worth contemplating at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: exactly. We had a version yesterday that had support. let stick with it,. Enough brilliant ideas, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Either that, or this scenario. for the Q1 straw poll. - Denny 15:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It's been a WEEK

message: This version reads:
===Q1. Do you support Wikipedia:Attribution?
* Yes.
* No.
* Neutral.
===Q2. Which pages should be merged into it?
[Vote in the appropriate section, "yes" or "no".
====Wikipedia:Verifiability
=====Yes
#
#
=====No
#
#
====Wikipedia:No original research
=====Yes
#
#
=====No.
#
#
===Wikipedia:Reliable sources
=====Yes.
#
#
=====No
#
#
===Q3: How should Wikipedia:Attribution be related to the old pages from which it is merged
The "old pages" are those which are agreed on  in  Q2.
* The new page should supersede the old ones.
* Old pages should remain active to supplement the new page.
* The new page should remain active as an explanatory summary.
* The new page should become inactive; no merger. 
* Neutral.
Comments?
:That's virtually identical to the setup that we just rejected and moved beyond.  —David Levy 15:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that we have turned this as much as it could. People are looking at the poll as if it is the end of the world. It isn't. The poll will simply provide data upon which something will emerge, and that is neither' the status quo, or a massive change. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hence my asking that we simply go with the Five Options we have up top, rather than putting forward another series of remixes. Unless their is a super-majority saying "WE LOVE ATT!" or "WE HATE ATT!" in it, it won't have super-significance. And if a super-majority goes either way, well, there you go. We'll have proven concensus. - Denny 15:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been shot down. Option 4 above is widely supported, and opposed solely on the grounds that we should have a yes/no on WP:ATT. If someone wants Option 1 also, fine by me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What has been shot down? That a super majority of people endorsing something in the poll will have merit or something else? The two leading Q1 poll options are about even in support. I am confused... - Denny 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal made by this section. What else? Please refrain from revert-warring when confused. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The basic justification for including a "yes"/"no" question is that we need to protect the community from itself by suppressing the "insane," "horrible," "stupid" compromise options that users might be foolish enough to prefer.  —David Levy 16:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it looks like concensus is turning out different than I expected up on the poll-poll. No one has objected to my extension idea if it isn't clear, so looks like common sense now says a 4/2/07 launch of the main poll based on the... concensus that stands at the end of 4/1/07. - Denny 16:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Simpler draft

message: Scenario: Two thirds vote for some sort of merge with one third wanting to merge Verifiability and No original research and one third wanting to merge Verifiability and Reliable sources so there is a majority for a merge but only Verifiability has a majority wanting it merged so ATT becomes just a copy of Verifiability. Just thinking out loud. WAS 4.250 15:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not speculate, neither on the results of the poll, nor on what these results will influence in regard to ATT and related pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, let's not plan, just charge. Option 4 (and 3) avoid these problems.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In other words, lets move on. Seven days of discussion is way over the top and hardly "just charge". I am not happy 100% with the current version either, but we need to know when to stop and accept a compromise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version is a useless mess, and I see nothing remotely resembling consensus in its favor.  —David Levy 16:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I am outa here, then. If this is the state of affairs, that we cannot come to an agreement on a simple poll in seven days of discussions, I can only imagine the total confusion and chaos that will ensue when we try to understand the result of the poll and apply these. Ciao, ragazzi ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right behind you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto. This is farcical. We can't decide policy by a poll. We should be asking only if people support the merge. If you get into issues of whether they want this or that to be merged, what if we end up with yes, they want NOR to be merged, but not the other two? We're begging for meaningless results with this question, because only one of us (so far as I know) has professional polling experience, and he has been driven up the wall by this conversation, unsurprisingly. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scenario

message: I received the following message on my talk:
:Please stop adding sections, unless you have decided to buck all concensus and ignore the Q1 poll. Also, you can be reported for a 3rr violation.
This makes two errors of fact: 
*my last edit here was to install option 4 of that poll, which is the only one on balance supported, and the edit summary so marked it. 
*All my edits today, with one exception, have been novel combinations of text (and I have been content to see some of them reverted; I wanted text to link to.
I have some difficulty squaring this with WP:AGF. If this wording goes live, I shall vote and comment accordingly. Please restore Option 4, or present some argument that it is not the consensus of the poll. Option 3, although acceptable to me, and preferable to the present text, is too widely opposed  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we wait so that we can get a clear concensus? Option 4 seems to be pulling away for people supporting it, which is fine--I will bow to concensus happily, as everyone should. But why rush it at this point? - Denny 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do you bow to consensus? You can bow to a majority, but never to a consensus. Oh dear... --Kim Bruning 17:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean if concensus seems to be not what I would personally desire, why would I fight it and make a big stink? It's called teamwork/working with others. :) - Denny 17:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I am finding this really hard to follow. Could you please create sandbox pages for each one of the proposed polls so that it would be easy to understand? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gimme a couple minutes. - Denny 17:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done; each option has a live full mockup now. - Denny 18:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Denny. Very useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad faith or mere incompetence? 

message: ===Expected time to 'go live'===
So that we can finally get it over with and put it to the community. Based on Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Q1_Straw_poll_duration, which no one has raised any concerns over (at all, let alone substantive)... and since the concensus isn't clear yet for what to do with Q1...
Run this straw poll-poll for Q1 then all the way to April 1st, 2007, 22:00 UST. Whatever is the clear concensus on 4/1/07 22:00 goes live at 4/2/07 00:00 UST. - Denny 23:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will do this on the current version to show how this would work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The three sections are now transcluded, so that there will be less problems of edconfs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thank you Jossi. That... looks easier than I expected. - Denny 01:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Good idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I have to disagree. I think we should be ashamed of this. This page is being discussed in very negative terms elsewhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? I checked 'what links here' and didn't see anything like this (unless I missed something obvious)... - Denny 21:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know about the conversations elsewhere, but I agree with SlimVirgin that this whole thing has been a terrible mess.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: with so many cooks in the kitchen, it was bound to happen. But I guess everyone would agree that its calmed down now a lot now that half the noise has been condensed down in recent days. - Denny 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remaining major technical details

message: So that we can finally get it over with and put it to the community. Based on Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Q1_Straw_poll_duration, which no one has raised any concerns over (at all, let alone substantive)... and since the concensus isn't clear yet for what to do with Q1...
Run this straw poll-poll for Q1 then all the way to April 1st, 2007, 22:00 UST. Whatever is the clear concensus on 4/1/07 22:00 goes live at 4/2/07 00:00 UST. - Denny 23:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expected time to 'go live'

message: Notice is put up on the Watchlist header at 4/2/07 00:00 UST with this banner (which will show as a clean white background on that page):
	As requested by Jimmy Wales, a poll is now underway in regards to the Wikipedia:Attribution merger. <BR>Please express your opinion about Wikipedia:Attribution in this poll.
After the first 24 hours, we lose the graphic icon and add the magical dismiss button, and leave the notice up for the duration of the poll. Per Wales'... concern everyone will definitely know about the poll then, and no-one can reasonably say later, "I didn't know!". Any objections? - Denny 23:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notification for all editors

message: Seven days, from 4/2/07 00:00 UST to 4/9/07 00:00 UST still OK? - Denny 23:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Duration of poll

message: Do we want to put Q1 & Q2 into subpages like AfD to cut down on edit conflicts? I have no idea yet how to... do that right, so I'd leave it for others' wisdom (but seems like a good idea). - Denny 23:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will do this on the current version to show how this would work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The three sections are now transcluded, so that there will be less problems of edconfs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thank you Jossi. That... looks easier than I expected. - Denny 01:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Substringing the poll sections

message: I transcluded the header like Jossi did with the sections... Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/header. Add that to your watchlists. I did it to have the same header on each of the final five Q1 mock-ups. - Denny 03:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Substringing the poll sections - header transclusion

message: Recommendation: When the main poll itself goes live, we should leave this straw poll here at the top of the talk page (i.e., don't archive it, or move it to a sub-page linked from here) so that anyone who wants to see where the poll was generated from can see it. - Denny 20:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I have to disagree. I think we should be ashamed of this. This page is being discussed in very negative terms elsewhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? I checked 'what links here' and didn't see anything like this (unless I missed something obvious)... - Denny 21:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know about the conversations elsewhere, but I agree with SlimVirgin that this whole thing has been a terrible mess.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: with so many cooks in the kitchen, it was bound to happen. But I guess everyone would agree that its calmed down now a lot now that half the noise has been condensed down in recent days. - Denny 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Leave straw poll at top of page when live

message: Two concerns:
1) Do we not run the risk here of having some people say yes to NOR, no to V, no to RS (or whatever combination), so that we end up with a nonsensical result?
2) Do we not also run the risk of some people saying no to including RS, simply because they dislike RS and want it to disappear entirely (which is a common position)? But by voting no, they would inadvertently cause RS to be retained? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We may... In that case, whoever closes the poll will need to make a recommendation on how to proceed. Hopefully people will add some comments to their votes that may assist in determining the outcome. Again, the closing of the poll (Jimbo's request for a "certification" process, about which we know nothing yet), will need to assess the results of the poll. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is that such a great risk?  The most likely combinations, to me, would seem either WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS, or else just WP:V and WP:NOR.  I heard only one suggestion for just WP:V and WP:RS.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a big risk of #2. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm... If there is support for ATT, but only support for merging NOR and V, then RS will remain as a guideline, no? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I don't see how that would be a nonsensical result.  That's two pages... not nonsensical like trying to merge WP:NOR with itself.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to address the issue of RS being inadvertently retained because people vote No to merging it — without realizing that, if they vote No, they are voting to retain it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A clarification?  "If there is not consensus to merge WP:RS into WP:ATT, it will remain as a guideline"?  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any ideas that would not open the proverbial can of worms...? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ABF's suggestion would do it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also keep in mind that any decision against merging WP:RS would not be permanent.  If the page's opponents were to subsequently try and fail to retire the guideline (thereby establishing consensus for its existence), a merger into WP:ATT could be re-proposed.  —David Levy 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Maybe "If there is not consensus to merge WP:RS into WP:ATT, it will remain as it is for now"?  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine... but I can see other contributors here wanting to add the same for each combination.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, let's leave it then and take the risk. The page is looking quite good now, and I don't want to risk destabilizing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is stable because some of us are attempting to discuss our objections (instead of edit-warring).  Please don't misconstrue this as implicit support for the current structure.  —David Levy 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bizarre poll about the poll showed that most people support this. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a great deal of opposition, and the arguments have not been weighed by a neutral party.  —David Levy 01:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should have a poll about the poll about the poll to decide that. Jayjg (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We can simply specify that any pages not merged will retain their current status.  —David Levy 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should leave the questions as they are now, to gauge the community's sentiments, per Jimbo's request. If ATT is favored in principle, we should then decide on the proper disposition and/or incorporation of RS, regardless of whether it gets a lots of 'merge' votes or not. As it is, RS was already largely included in V, and hence in ATT, so it's really just a matter of amplification and examples. It would not make sense to leave RS as a separate independent guideline alongside ATT, since there will be constant overlaps and contradictions, exactly what ATT was intended to prevent. Crum375 00:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  There is some discussion of reliable sources in WP:NPOV as well.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with Question 2

message: To those of you who wish to refactor away comments to keep this page clean, could you please provide a link in the history to the removed comments, along with a brief comment like "refactored to preserve talk page clarity", so that no one things it is for WP:NPA reasons.  Thanks,  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already did in my edit summaries. I just moved a couple things around to declutter the top of the page. - Denny 03:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant, in the places where the comments were originally, could you please leave brief notes + history links there?  It is confusing to see comments disappear, and your edit summaries will soon be buried in the history.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sure. I'll do it now for the whole section I moved down. - Denny 03:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks!  I've provided an example below for others who read this conversation.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring 

message: I have come to this page for the first time although I have been following the merger discussion. Three points:
I think the [edit] link beside each question is a technical artefact and contributors are expected to click "Please voice your opinion" or the [edit] beside each answer. However, this does not come across clearly.
At present, on the poll page itself, although there are remarks about what good work was done and by so many people, there is no hint (or links to any hint) about why some people (even Jimbo) might have thought otherwise. Are not even pro-merger editors concerned that this may seem unbalanced and so cause dissent? 
"Any claim to that effect is a misreading or miswriting of it" is unhappily worded and seems POV. I realise what is meant is "Any claim to that effect follows from either misreading WP:ATT or from the new policy being wrongly written". Can someone with a knack for words sort this out? Thincat 10:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We might be able to expedite things, and skip this page entirely. <looks hopeful> An informal poll has already arisen on the community discussion page. See preceding section. --Kim Bruning 10:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presentation of poll 

message: Difficult to get a thought out. Here is my latest version. I'll be back in 24 hours to revert war over it. El_C 11:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I don't understand.  Wouldn't having less options make it more likely for people to add options during the poll?  Or do you mean we shouldn't have a poll and should just use the Community discussion? The latter is fine by me.  By the way, I like the new colours of your signature.  : )  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 12:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The operating assumption is that you would not be allowed to add options once the poll is open, nor say anything beyond yes/no. El_C 12:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We have a week or two to work on ATT itself, and possibly a number of substantial issues will be solved by then. So we have plenty of time to make a saner poll (and perhaps we can even pre-empt one? :-) ). Could you help look into the substantial issues still remaining with ATT?  --Kim Bruning 12:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What, you expect me to read it? I only care about the voting! Vote, vote, vote, vote, vote! El_C 12:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Seriously, we face the danger of ending up with different creatures than we expect. We have a poll that dosen't give us a hint of Jimbo's comrpomise. But the-less-than-one-minute reverters won't even give me time to think... El_C 12:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The easiest way to resolve this without turning it into a four-policy spaghetti mess is probably to drop ATT onto WP:MFD. That's a shame for the many people who worked hard and held lengthy discussions over improving it, but it's better than having multiple divergent policies. >Radiant< 12:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MfD would be a copout, and a mess. El_C 12:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware. However, nearly every other solutions proposed so far would also be a copout, and a mess. >Radiant< 12:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes for the latter, not necessarily for the former (which can be limited). Actually, saying that the former is a copout is a copout (probably!). El_C 13:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We'll have plenty of time to MFD if the whole thing crashes and burns... which is what we're trying to prevent. ;-) --Kim Bruning 13:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Radiant, I had been thinking about MfD but was afraid of getting shot. It would likely pass, judging from the Community discussion. However, I think per the Community discussion we can avoid this altogether. Marskell 13:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And to be clear: there is no "compromise" in keeping all of them live. "I have an idea of turning three pages into one." "I disagree. Let's have four as a compromise"? Make any sense? Nope. Marskell 13:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hopeless?

message: Note WP:Straw polls point 7.  Rather than section headings "Yes" and "No", the poll would be easier to watch on watchlists with section headings such as "Yes (merge)" "No (merge)" "Yes (to merge of WP:V)" "No (to merge of WP:V)"  etc. Sorry if this suggestion had already been brought up -- I haven't had time to keep up with this discussion.  
See also on same policy page:  "Straw polls should not have opening and closing times as votes do." WP:Straw polls.  --Coppertwig 13:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines for designing straw polls 

message: NOTE: I like ATT, and have been saying again and again I will be supporting it. That out of the way... I do not understant where/why/how people are saying or keep asking me... to not restrict a given requested option in the idea of the Q1 poll! I've been trying to NOT own the page, and have just been trying to help... centralize stuff since no one else was. Nearly everything someone has asked me to change I did, with the exception of adding more poll options myself since people seemed against that collectively. We've got basically all the options right there IN the straw poll between Options 1-5! If there is a lot of people asking for another given variant, go ahead and add it. 
My constantly saying "Lets not add more options beyond the five everytime someone asks for it," was based on comments from others across this page and the archives who said (paraphrasing), "We can't craft a new set of questions for each individual persons' tastes," or else we'd have a dozen plus options or more. NOTE: I only drew up Q1, Q2, and Q3. Others did, and when lots of people supported them, I just dropped them right into the poll no questions asked. If there is support from more than one person, go ahead and add the extra question to the Q1 poll, add it in. But the next random guy to appear on the page, saying, "MY VERSION NEEDS TO BE UP THERE," with no support, shouldn't get in there per se, or else this stupid little sub process to just gain concensus on the wording of ONE question will be never done. 
Jimbo asked for a poll... I haven't (I don't think) been advocating anything about policy here either way. I've been just trying to help get the poll itself done. If you guys honestly think that there is support to not do the poll, then send Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll to MfD. - Denny 13:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you were for the ATT you wouldn't be restricting choices, thus forcing people to oppose it. I challenge you to "post this in a few places." El_C 13:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Already did :) . And did you read what I wrote?? I didn't stop anyone (as if I could just by myself without edit warring) from adding more options to the pre-poll Q1 poll. We just kept saying, "Every dude that comes up with the Best Idea Ever," with no support, shouldn't get into this mini poll. It would be absurd. Do you SEE the FIVE options there? If you have a better one, post it, make a sub page, add it to a sub section here, get some support, then just stick it in the poll above. - Denny 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not finding that entirely intelligible. And does not respond to anything I said. Please repharse. El_C 13:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: My my latest version, which reflects Jimbo's comrpomise, is here. El_C 13:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Late reply. I got sick of reading the fighting here that was going nowhere over Q1. I came up with the Top 3 questions. People then came up with Q4, and Q5, which seemed popular and supported. I added them to the straw poll. For 2+ days, NO ONE objected to that idea. Because it was WORKING to make concensus. I don't care if it's not the "Wikipedia way". IAR, lets make common sense precedent. Everyone (again, one screaming voice doesn't mean there is no concensus) seemed fine with it. No one shot it down. People started insisting or suggesting MORE options to the poll--ones that got derided politely by others, or just not cared for. We said, "Lets not add new brilliant ideas" as the Top 5 are basically every possible scenario that someone might want. If that means someone DOESN'T want ATT, or DOESN'T want to deprecate the old policies, so what? Will of the people decides how wikipedia runs, not 5-10 total adminstrators. Anyway, if you WANT to add another option to this straw poll, then post your idea in a new section of this page. Make a mock up like I did for those five. Format it like that. See if people care for it--if it's just you vs the world, why include it? If people are saying, Hey, this rocks, good idea, then go up and it to the ongoing poll that 98%+ of the people on this page (i.e., concensus) didn't object to or supported for 48+ hours as it was making the only progress in a week. - Denny 13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People don't get a chance to see it & read about it when it's being drowned out by needless verbose and instant reverts. El_C 14:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then don't ram your minority unsupported views down others' throats on the front page of the poll. Post them HERE like has been suggested by multiple editors. If you don't like that and want to edit war and shake your rattle, please go ahead with being a problem. - Denny 14:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't do inneundo. El_C 14:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, plainly: Don't edit war. Don't be disruptive. Work with others as we are here. Why will you not post your ideas for the poll here? If you are completely opposed to the poll, and that is why, MfD it. Put up, or stop.  - Denny 14:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't appreciate these distortions. I support the poll, as I said from the start. El_C 14:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok. Any reason you won't play our little system here to suggest new changes that has worked to move things forward the past 48+ hours, and edit warred instead? - Denny 14:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, that's not entirely intelligible. El_C 14:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The opposition is over the poll's limitations, not the poll itself. Let's keep focused here, especially those who assume the role of heralds. El_C 14:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The poll asks people what they want. If it's something only one person or two people ask for, it shouldn't be in the main poll section. Period. - Denny 14:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's highly distortive to imply "one or two people," the prepoll dosen't even have supermajority for oversimplified version of the poll. El_C 14:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: People are going around in circles, because that's the wikipolicy way. There is a limited number of options about what to do with ATT and the old trio, in terms of supplementing or supplanting them. It really is not that complicated. El_C 14:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not restricting ANYTHING 

message: Where I posted it: , , , , , , , , . Also, if our convictions are that strong in the policies we support, and believe that they are best, why are we afraid of letting our peers fully getting a chance to voice their own on it? If ATT truly is the will... of the people, you'd have no worries. I can only see opposition to the poll Jimbo asked for if someone thought that their peers collectively would shoot it down, and didn't want to give that chance. I think they would collectively (super, super majority) ENDORSE the ATT merger, which is why I want this to go live! I want to AGF but some of the tone here is making me depressed.  - Denny 13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The opposition is over the poll's limitations, not the poll itself. Let's keep focused here, especially those who assume the role of heralds. El_C 14:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The poll asks people what they want. If it's something only one person or two people ask for, it shouldn't be in the main poll section. Period. - Denny 14:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's highly distortive to imply "one or two people," the prepoll dosen't even have supermajority for oversimplified version of the poll. El_C 14:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: only reason to oppose poll is to not give others a voice?

message: If people spend almost a megabyte of text debating the wording of a poll, the issue is obviously too complex to be solved by a simple poll, and many people who vote in the poll will misunderstand something thus skewing the results. >Radiant< 14:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People are going around in circles, because that's the wikipolicy way. There is a limited number of options about what to do with ATT and the old trio, in terms of supplementing or supplanting them. It really is not that complicated. El_C 14:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No, the reason to oppose the poll is because of the wording dispute

message: I don't see reasons presented on this talk page for including the words "in principle" except things like that that's what we're trying to assess, which is a circular argument.  Several users have expressed opposition to this wording on the grounds that it's vague and that results of a vague poll are rather useless;  that's my position.
I agree with Jossi that changes should be discussed on the talk page before editing. --Coppertwig 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately a super-minority feel that they have some special authority or power over the community and won't respect that. - Denny 13:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I'm not trying to be offensive, but that's barely intelligible. A "supermajority" ? El_C 14:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets say the poll goes live on 4/2/07. Hypothetically. For 7 days it runs. It's on EVERYONES watchlist, and lets say a total of 1,000 people in 7 days weigh in. If 700 or 800 of 1000 users say, "I endorse the ATT merger," then any concern Jimbo has on the merger is mute and null and void. Anyone ever challenging ATT from that week forward has no leg to stand on. However, if 700 or 800 of 1000 users say, "No way, no merger, ATT bad," then ATT will (correctly in that case) end up getting tagged as rejected by the community. That is what I mean. The community decides this stuff together. Not any subsection of editors or admins, in the end. My concern is that some people are not wanting to give the communit a chance to do either. - Denny 14:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not how this works, normally. Our current setup is not designed for that. --Kim Bruning 14:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, thats fine, but this is what Jimbo asked for: a poll to see what people thought. If 800 or 1000 people say, though, that they want something, why would it have no value? It only has value if endorsed by certain people in the right places? - Denny 14:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But he didn't say have a poll about scrapping one or the other — his latest change imply the very opposite. El_C 14:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: But 700/300 does not automagically mean consensus. Say, in your example above, 300 people say that they strongly oppose with reasoning behind them, and 700 people just write Support... consensus has not necessarily been acheived. We do not just look at things as a vote. Just because something has the support of 70% of opinions expressed, does not = consensus. They way you present it, the 300 opposing people are "of no value". If 300 people on this project ever objected to something, that should show you that there is not widespread support for that thing... even if another 700 said they approved. 70% at RfA (for example), where the opposing 30% might account for 10 people, is vastly different than 70% where 300 people oppose. Thanks for reading. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm pretty sure Jimbo Wales understands issues of scale, so I'm not sure that this is the correct interpretation even of what he said. ^^;; --Kim Bruning 15:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The words "in principle" 

message: Front of poll:
 number of edits	586
 number of minor edits	206 (35.2%)
 first edit	03/20/2007 21:37 (Picaroon9288)
 most recent edit	03/29/2007 14:16 (El C)
 mean time between edits	21:15 m
 unique editors	43 (0 IP addresses)
 average number of edits per user	13.6
 number of edits within last day	26
 number of edits within last week	410
 number of edits within last month	586
 number of edits within last year	586
This talk page:
 number of edits	1689
 number of minor edits	334 (19.8%)
 first edit	03/20/2007 21:54 (Picaroon9288)
 most recent edit	03/29/2007 18:31 (El C)
 mean time between edits	7:31 m
 unique editors	58 (0 IP addresses)
 average number of edits per user	29.1
 number of edits within last day	346
 number of edits within last week	1528
 number of edits within last month	1689
 number of edits within last year	1689
Thanks, - Denny 18:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? El_C 18:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarifying from the stats with the tool I found/added to my user page that this entire poll was organized/assembled by a concensus of many editors. - Denny 18:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Over the last  day. El_C 19:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well meant, and it would be nice if this were the case;  but this is GIGO. Number of edits does not prove collaboration when edits have been reverted by a handful of editors patting each other on the back. The present text is so far from being consensus that it's not even on the list of options above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This page was built off concensus

message: What is this poll for? There is WAY too much written here. Are we polling to see which poll people want, or is this the actual poll??? O_O --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 16:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page was just to hash out Question 1 of the main poll at this point, mainly. - Denny 16:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What the hell?

message: The present wording is none of the options in the Poll poll. It has been strongly opposed on this talk page, and I will vote against it as evidence of bad faith. I request that it be replaced either by Option 1, preferably with the open-ended question Marskell suggests, or by Option 4. These have the most net support, and the most support. (There's a case for Option 3, as amended; there is no case for this.) If more support materializes in the next few days, we can reconsider.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, is it not?  Apparently, the wording of this poll is being determined by the same political dynamic that determined the 1) wording of WP:ATT, 2) the cover story that this was a "merger," and 3) the inversion of the concept of consensus all done over the vociferous protest of over half of the participating Wikipedians.  Whether or not this particular political dynamic brings success to Wikipedia, we shall see.  But prominent scholars have concluded that this particular political dynamic produces decisions that destroy the enterprise.  --Rednblu 18:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with you. I strongly oppose the way current poll is worded, and how the matter is generally handled. I'm sick and tired that people who are responsible for this mess with ATT in the first place are pressuring other editors to bow "for the good of Wikipedia". Something is rotten in the state of Denmark... -- Vision Thing -- 19:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I 101% support ATT, but the abusive manhandling of wanting to force people into a scenario where its "Yes ATT?" or "Another yes ATT?" is disingenous. On that note, good luck with this poll. I'm going on to work on completely different things for now and won't be editing these pages again except to state my desires when the poll does go live. - Denny 19:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's poll about polling the poll poll. >Radiant< 07:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to close the Poll poll?

message: It does not matter to most people how the policy is organised, but rather what is said. I am  in favor of a merger, provided the merged text represents my own view of what the policy will say. I am not in favor of a merger if the merged text will move in a direction I do not want to go. Each of us probably has their own idea of what the actual  policy ought to be , and each is different. For example, if the eventual combination will make it easier to keep stubs, I want to combine them. If it is likely to make it harder, I would prefer to keep everything as it is. (and so on for a number of other criteria.) I interpret most of the recent argument as making as assumption about the final policy. 
:Apparently the hope of those revising the policy is to move slightly in an inclusionist direction, and those who are strongly opposed to that do not want a change, aand do not want to take the first step towards a change by approving the merger even in principle. 
:Does this represent the present state of the argument?19:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: why this will be confusing

message: The following language does not belong in the header. Including it is one of the claims the poll exists to decide. Until I saw it, I believed it was true; and it may be that the wording of WP:ATT is better than the process that has been used to enact it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Wikipedia:Attribution is not a change to policy. Any claim to that effect is a misreading or miswriting of it. It is simply a consolidation of policy. Editors are not being canvassed on desired changes to either policy or wording of policy. Debates over long-standing principles and policy wording should be avoided during this poll.
---
So are you saying that the poll should give Wikipedians a chance to vote FOR the huge changes to Verifiability, Reliable source, and No original research that WP:ATT makes?  --Rednblu 19:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't make huge changes. Marskell 19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Er, it doesn't really make any besides changing Verifiability to Attribution. Marskell 19:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it happens, I agree that in general it doesn't. But that is one of the things this discussion and straw poll are supposed to decide; stating this as one of the premises is manifestly improper poll design. If (as is not impossible) there is a significant sentiment that WP:ATT does change policy, then in fact it will; because those who think it does will behave differently under it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PMA, you're asking the People to vote upon whether or not a fact is true. That's not helpful. >Radiant< 07:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, in fact; since the wording of WP:ATT is fixed, for the duration of the poll, the existing discussion (and it's not only Coppertwig) of whether the meaning of  that text changes policy is important. In part, this is the long overdue discussion of what WP:V actually means. (Does it require inline citations, for example?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rotten indeed

message: on the poll page there is a link to a page called Summary of the objectives of the merger.  - that page gives a pro view, where is the page that gives the against view? --Fredrick day 19:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one made a matching one yet in Wikipedia space. There was a personal essay in one user's private space, but he didn't want to move it and put conditions on who could edit it, so it was removed and reverted. Feel free to make one! It should be on Wikipedia space, I'd guess under the poll. And anyone would be able to edit it. - Denny 19:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where was it? Where did it go? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check I think in Archive 2. I can't remember the guys name now. - Denny 20:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It has been beaten from the field of battle by the controlling political dynamic for the last four months.  As an interesting experiment, you might make the thousandth attempt.  What would you do next?  --Rednblu 20:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh? (again) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't worry Jossi. Just baiting. Marskell 20:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  The question is whether the Wikipedia community will take this opportunity to 1) acknowledge and 2) deal with the real problem here.  --Rednblu 20:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If I recall correctly, it was your suggestion that he be the one to write it, Merzul, many hundreds of edits back on this page.    HereWikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll/Archive2#Statements_from_all_sides_needed in fact.Johnbod 04:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the pointer. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merzul's right about that page. It's full of mistakes. When I tried to add a couple of fact templates to the worst ones, I was told I wasn't allowed to edit there, and my edit was reverted. The author apologized today for doing that, but it remains full of errors. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But is there a better one? If not, we should include it anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you do when people try to edit your statement, SlimVirgin? Johnbod 04:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine was moved to project space, where anyone can edit it, John. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is... 

message: I wish I had time to read all of this, I really do.  I think it's an important topic, but I just can't get through it all.  I do want to offer this suggestion, or endorse it if somebody else has already proposed it:  Start with one of poll forms with the most options, then conduct runoff ballots until one option emerges with consensus.  As their preferred options drop off, reasonable editors should choose the remaining option that is most closely aligned with their preference.  That way, a consensus can be forged from many initial options. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that exactly how 3rr came into being? - Denny 20:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea.  I had the opposite idea: start with the simplest issue ("WP:ATT is (1) policy; (2) a proposal; (3) rejected"), then poll a few days after close with ("In light of poll #1, WP:OR/V/RS is (1) policy; (2) guideline; (3) historical").  I think either way would work fine.  TheronJ 14:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  We do not determine whether or not something is a policy by voting in poll.  —David Levy 14:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does WP:ATT have wide support, or not? And the important one: How do you know? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replace "WP:ATT is policy" with "In my opinion, a consensus exists that WP:ATT is policy" if you prefer.  TheronJ 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Suggestion on Polling Approach 

message: I think links to the five options, until we decide on them, should be on the poll page until we decide on one (at which point they will of course be removed). I have been part of this discussion, and I have difficulty finding those pages; others will have more. 
Does anyone else find SlimVirgin's persistent reversions disruptive and unhelpful? They are usually coupled with admissions that she hasn't read the arguments here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My reverts are bad, but yours are okay? :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have, to the best of my recollection, abided by 1RR on this page; I have consistently tried for novel text after a problem has become evident, and I have discussed the problem here. Nor have I declined to read the discussion, and I trust I have not been abusive. By and large I have only counter-reverted reverts that have had these defects. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No problem.  They are a part of the normal manifestations of a localized consensus when there is no organic protection for the broad community's work effort.  --Rednblu 00:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a republic, even less than it is a democracy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh yes.  Well said!  Democracy and Republicanism are both poor solutions for the problem of faction.  There are much better solutions.  Which one should we consider for our purposes here?  --Rednblu 00:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." Which of the others do you propose? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  :)) Yes.  Nice question.  And I would like to celebrate the real beauty in your question, which I just realized, and that real beauty in your question "What of the others do you propose?" it seems to me is that it is addressed to everyone reading this -- not just to me.  So I will merely serve temporarily to hold the floor for someone else to answer.  And if all of the inventive people here could just keep people asking that question instead of defending the first answer that pops into our heads, we just might come up with the next worthwhile step in dealing with this very real problem of faction here.  What do you think?  --Rednblu 01:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I kind of like the model of the old Venitian Republic, talk about a convoluted (but actually somewhat workable) way to deal with factional squabbles within a ruling oligarchy ... We could make Jimbo our Doge!  Blueboar 13:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Options