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

message: Draft copied over the old wording, with some changes per the above comments. Any more comments are, of course, welcome. (Radiant) 15:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As Blue Tie points out, it's still anti-polling. I don't mind it being anti-voting, but a blanket discouragement to not use straw polls is a disservice to those who find themselves in situations where a straw poll is exactly the right choice (done right, of course). I'd suggest that language on the proper use of polls ("proper" often meaning not using one) should be part of this if it's to be a guideline. I'd also like to see it moved to something like Wikipedia:Voting (a redirect to WP:STRAW right now) or somesuch, but that's a minor quibble compared to the anti-poll problems. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft

message: The new draft is much better than the previous draft.  However, this still suffers from the same error as the previous version did:
It is anti-voting
I do not have a problem with a policy or guideline being PRO-DISCUSSION.
But I am opposed to a policy or guideline being ANTI-VOTING 
And this one is.   Voting, polling or whatever you want to call it is used by wikipedia for difficult things, in cases of large numbers of people being involved or where a clear decision is required.  So anti-voting is inappropriate since it is an important part of wikipedia process already.  
But even more fundamentally, voting and polling are methods used to develop consensus.  They are methods that are used by almost ALL (I actually cannot think of any examples to the contrary) validated, scientifically developed methods for arriving at consensus... even methods that are very low in persuasive pressure and that rely mostly upon discussion ... still use voting.  To be anti-voting is, to me, to be the same thing as anti-consensus.  That may not be the intentional purpose but throwing out one of the most important means for arriving at consensus has that result whether intended or not.  
And finally, voting provides the SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that consensus has been achieved.  It is not just someone standing up and declaring it to be so.  
Thus, I oppose this as a guideline or a policy.  I see it as a hammer to beat up people who want to use polls and votes for legitimate consensus building purposes.  --Blue Tie 16:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ok.  I do not want a guideline with the specific intent to discourage voting. I consider it inherently anti-consensus. --Blue Tie 21:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: **Once more, if you find any statement on this page to be factually incorrect, please point it out. But we base guidelines on what does happen, not on what some believe should happen. You misunderstand consensus if you believe that discouraging voting is detrimental to consensus, or if you believe that consensus needs to be shown by voting. Indeed, for consensus, simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. (Radiant) 00:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for example, I disagree that decisions are based upon consensus. I realize that is what we say, but what actually happens is that way sometimes and other times it is distinctly different.   I also disagree that "we" base guidelines on what does happen not on what some believe should happen.  I know that is your statement, but I do not agree that it is, in fact, true.  I believe that you misunderstand consensus if you believe that discouraging voting is not detrimental to consensus and I believe that you do not understand the concept of validating consensus if you do not see how a poll does this.  Indeed, for consensus, simple vote counting is the single most common method described in various methods used in scientifically established methodologies for reaching group decisions. --Blue Tie 00:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way... I liked your old signature better!--Blue Tie 00:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Simply put, Wikipedia is not based on "scientifically established methodologies for reaching group decisions". As Kim likes to say, Wikipedia is one of those things that in theory could never work - except that in practice, it does. The phrase "simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate" is part of our longstanding description of consensus. Wikipedia is a unique community in scope, purpose and structure, and it is not generally bound by whatever rules apply in more common communities. (Radiant) 00:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider it anti-consensus to reject well developed methods for arriving at consensus. And I have had a brief discussion with Kim about this quote and said that there is no reason to imagine that wikipedia, in theory cannot work.  Kim essentially agreed with me.  Wikipedia is not in anyway special or different from other communities of people. That is a myth. --Blue Tie 04:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *We are an order of magnitude larger, for one. Basically, you're asserting that Wikipedia cannot work well except by way of these scientifically established methodologies. I assert that it is self-evident that Wikipedia does in fact work well, and does not follow these methodologies. Thus theory is contradicted by practice. A central tenet to science is that in such cases, theory is wrong. (Radiant) 09:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

text: Wikipedia should discourage voting, because it is seldom constructive.  In particular, it is not constructive in the way that I have seen it used tediously often, in an attempt to "resolve" deep-seated controversies, or frankly any real controversies; on a wiki, votes are powerless because they can only be enforced through consensus.  Unfortunately people tend to forget that WP:NOT a democracy.  We need DDV (and frankly I liked the old title even better) because it warns people that voting is not a solution, except in rare cases:  where (as in a value-neutral straw poll) the community is united in accepting the results of a vote, or where (as in AfD) the arbitrator closing the vote has the actual power to enforce it.  Wikipedia certainly should not prohibit voting, because it is occasionally constructive in cases such as these. I agree that mentioning those exceptions would be an improvement, although per the definition of a guideline, I agree with Radiant that it isn't strictly necessary.  -- Visviva 12:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Postscript:  At User:Visviva/DDV, I have rearranged the page and added a few things.  The specific language is not quite ready for production, but I think the three-part layout (votes that aren't votes, OK votes, not-OK votes) would help to clarify the point of this guideline.  My net access is limited, so I probably won't have much time to do more work on this for a while; feel free to incorporate or ignore. -- Visviva 16:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *First of all, I'd advise you to drop the adversarial tone. Secondly, please point out where exactly I make the "allegation" that we decide things by "vote count" (which I take to mean simple majority voting) "all the time", or that it is "essential" to do so? It is certainly true that respondents should actively participate in a given discussion rather than just voting and leaving- might I therefore suggest "don't just vote, discuss" as a suitable and less confusing alternative title? In actual fact, whether or not issues like AfD and especially RfA are actually super-majority votes is to say the least a controversial issue (I recall a recent massive fuss which largely centred around an RfA which was passed without a clear super-majority) and not one to be dismissed glibly. I also do not argue in the above that this putative guideline should describe the various votes we have here, of whatever variety they may be. Please actually read my comment and then respond to what I actually said rather than what you seem to think I said. Badgerpatrol 13:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: **Well excuse me if I misunderstood you, but in your previous post you said that "voting ... is essential ... and we do it all the time". AFD is not, and has never been, a supermajority vote; that is frequently demonstrated on WP:DRV and is not controversial. RFA is, indeed, confusing; it appears that many contributors expect it to be a supermajority vote, but the bureaucrats do not. (Radiant) 16:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *You did misunderstand me. "Voting" means "to cast one's vote", i.e. to express one's individual preference. Singularly, "a vote" is an individual expression of one's choice; collectively, "a vote" is a framework in which multiple respondents (in this case, Wikipedia editors in good standing) have the opportunity to express said choice. I have a feeling that you may be confusing "voting" sensu stricto with your own intepretation of voting- which seems to be that users express their opinion for or against a given motion and then the motion is carried (or not) according to a simple majority. I do not understand how this idea that every "vote" must be a simple majority vote propagates when in fact we have abundant examples in the everyday "real" world indicating that such a scenario is by no means intuitive- presidential elections, parliamentary elections, etc etc can, and have been decided in favour of the minority, and separately it is often the case that referenda, parliamentary votes etc. require a super-majority rather than a simple 50%+1. Voting (i.e. a collective expression of editors' will) is indeed, IMHO, absolutely essential to the project, we do indeed do it all the time- and we ought to encourage and cherish it. As I say above, whether or not processes such as AfD or RfA (and I confess that it is these two areas in which I have the most experience) actually are super-majority votes is another issue. For my own part, I think that at least for RfA (where the passing or otherwise of the motion (i.e. "promotion" to adminship) is very much a matter of individual opinion and preference) a super-majority requirement is actually valid and sensible. For AfD (which is largely an issue of policy enforcement) the waters are more muddied. Your own confusion might in fact be indicative of a more widespread mischaracterisation of what voting actually is, and for this reason (if for no other) I am unlikely to ever support a guideline with a highly misleading title like "Discuss, don't vote". If it was, for example, "Don't just vote, discuss" or "The majority doesn't always win" then I might be more inclined, although frankly I am not at all convinced that it is sensible or useful to enact this as a guideline at all, to be honest. Badgerpatrol 02:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I oppose this as a guideline or a policy

message: Based on the discussion above, I understand that this page is attempting to describe current practice rather than change it.  If so, I have some criticism and questions:
#As I read it, the page currently says "polling is discouraged, except in the following seven (or so) circumstances."  I'm not sure that that is true as a matter of common practice, and even if it were, I think a rename from "discuss, don't vote" would be appropriate.
#I disagree that polling is generally discouraged as a matter of common practice.  Out in the actual articles, (as opposed to the policy pages), people routinely "test the waters" with polls, with very little opposition to polls that meet WP:STRAW.
#Is there a way to test whether polls are generally discouraged in the day-to-day functioning of Wikipedia that doesn't violate WP:POINT. 
#Is there a paragraph discussing the use of surveys contemplated by WP:STRAW and the surveys that get listed on Wikipedia:Current surveys, or are the proposal authors arguing that those pages no longer reflect current practice?  
#Why does this page describe current practice more accurately that Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote?
Thanks, TheronJ 15:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing on your specific points just now, sorry... but in general, I'd note that this page, originally on Meta, is actually considerably older than WP:STRAW, so I think it's rather unfortunate that it's suddenly been re-labeled a "proposal," as if it hadn't been playing a key role in community discourse for years.   -- Visviva 16:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

message: From a related discussion on WT:NOT :
*[..] Most new users coming to the Wikipedia editing process and decision-making style quickly get to the misconception that "majority rules" and that they can get their way if they just recruit enough other people to say the same thing.  That's not particularly surprising given the democratic ideals held by the cultures that most of our editors come from.  New users as a rule try to put things up for a vote and that's nearly always a mistake.  Some issues flat can not be decided by vote.  We are writing an encyclopedia.  Majority rule can not overturn fact (though some have tried).  More often, the real problem is that a premature poll or vote tends to polarize the subsequent discussion, causing participants to harden into static positions as they seek to justify their vote.  Premature polls shut down the consensus-seeking and dialog that we all desire.  That's the real point of m:Voting is evil.  While your statement is technically true, the softer wording [of WP:NOT] would lead to an increase in the number of premature polls and a general decrease in the quality of discussion.  Experience has taught us that we really do need to discourage polls pretty strongly in order to keep actual behavior about where we want it.  Rossami (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: Greetings fellow editors. I've just updated Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy to provide a wikilink from the word "discussion" to this page. I don't think anyone can argue that the democracy section (with a link to Wikipedia:Straw polls) hasn't been that way for some time. So we have a policy page that is now pointing to both this page as well as the straw poll page. Given that such is the case wouldn't it be more logical to continue to keep the two pages and upgrade them both to guideline status and then have a better coordination between the two pages? This discussion of guideline status or not on this page has been going on for quite some time and I seriously doubt that a consensus will be arrived at without some sort of a compromise. I propose this solution as that compromise. Thoughts? (→Netscott) 05:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Originally I had objections to this guideline, but I've given it more thought. It's not so much the guideline itself that might give the "wrong" idea, but how some stuff is presented. I think we can say almost the exact same thing, but emphases less on what "not" to do. Doing this will make people less defensive about this becoming a guideline. Maybe we could title this differently, like Wikipedia:Voting (which is a redirect to Wikipedia:Straw polls), and approach the topic as "where voting fits in with Wikipedia". Like I said, we can say almost the same things, but with a different title and a different lead in, it will make people less defensive about what it suggests. Just a thought. -- Ned Scott 06:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Reading this it clicked what my trouble with this being a guideline is: the spirit that it presents is at odds with the practice, but its letter is not. This could be fixed by changing the way the ideas are presented without changing their content much, if at all. I'm big on the spirit of policies and guidelines. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

text: *Radiant, you're not heading towards consensus with such thinking. Particularly so long as this page is named "Discuss, don't vote". So long as that name is kept I'm going to continue to push for two pages and coordination between the two. (→Netscott) 16:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: **How is merging not a compromise? (Radiant) 16:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: ***Merging is not a compromise because WP:STRAW talks about utilizing straw polls in dicussions... while the expression Discuss, don't vote says otherwise. (→Netscott) 16:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: ****This page discourages polling. So does WP:STRAW. This page focuses on when a poll is and isn't appropriate, STRAW focuses on what to do if it is. It seems to me the two are complementary and therefore mergeable. (Radiant) 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *****These, "Discuss first, vote last" or "Discuss and refrain from voting" or "Discuss and poll only when necessary" are titles that better correspond to the WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY wording, no? (→Netscott) 16:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *******I like the middle one. (Radiant) 16:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: ********Good, now we're getting somewhere. Anyone else have another title that they think corresponds to this spirit? (→Netscott) 17:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I added a paragraph to the article section.  I don't disagree with the previous text, but thought it was a little light on describing the circumstances under which editors do use polls in the article talkspace, and the circumstances under which those polls are likely to be constructive.  (My anecdotal experience is that article talkspace polls are used somewhere between occasionally and rarely -- the hundred or so articles I watchlist probably see several polls a month between them -- and usually without much dispute).  I also added a link to WP:STRAW -- I understand that it's not currently certified as a guideline, but think that if an editor plans to create a poll, then the principles for good polling listed there are worth reviewing.  
Thoughts?  Thanks, TheronJ 14:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to article section 

message: I propose to delete the following sentence from the introduction:
:It is not unusual for editors to leave Wikipedia entirely, or to drastically reduce their activities, due to the bitterness left by such votes.
Is there any evidence for this statement?  I am aware of a few editors leaving because of non-expert editors editing articles, and a few editors leaving (or threatening to leave) because of bad experiences in RFCs, RFAs, et al., but I'm not aware of any evidence that eliminating voting would have prevented those departures.  Is it all right if I remove that sentence?  Thanks, TheronJ 14:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: !vote = yes that does sound like a bit of an uncited supposition. (→Netscott) 15:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I can say that I myself left Wikipedia for several months following a particularly bitter and pointless poll... a poll which I probably still can't describe in detail without violating WP:CIV, so I'll stop there.  And given the acrimony I've seen around many other polls, to say nothing of AfDs, I would be astonished if I'm the only one.  -- Visviva 16:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, I have to wonder how many people have left in frustration over discussions that go around and around forever with no "consensus", and no universally accepted and effective manner of resolving the issue in the absence of "consensus."    6SJ7 16:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is, of course, that contentious issues can drive people away from the wiki, regardless of whether or not those issues are dealt with through voting. It is incorrect to assume that voting makes an issue contentious; it is likewise incorrect to assume that voting will resolve a contentious issue. (Radiant) 09:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I only meant that remark to explain why I had initially added that line in my draft; I agree that may be better left out.  However, I would argue that by creating a zero-sum game, voting does tend to push discussions toward more and more hostile behavior, sockpuppetry, etc.; and that a close review of contentious past votes would show this to be the case.  Since Wikipedia editing must be its own reward, it doesn't take much unpleasantness to push dedicated contributors away. -- Visviva 09:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And the hilarious thing is that the basic wikipedia system of negotiated consensus was designed as being non-zero sum and actually supports multiple winners.  You just have to love the drive of inexperienced people who try to "improve" things. Just because wikipedia has a system that you didn't just invent 3 minutes ago, based on some superseded century old philosophy taught to you in high school , doesn't mean that you're not actually the reactionary :-P Kim Bruning 04:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion 

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

message: Regardless of the guideline/essay/whatever issue...  Is there a title for this page that would better reflect its purpose and content?  
*The current title "Don't vote" is somewhat contradictory to the actual contents of the page, which describes in some detail when it is and isn't constructive to engage in vote-like behavior.  
*In this respect "Voting is evil" is actually better, since it doesn't tell anyone what to do, it just describes our experience that voting tends to have a vicious effect on the project.  
*"Voting" has been suggested, but is neutral and boring and fails to reflect the normative role of the page. (Is that a problem?  Given the way people jump into voting here, I think it probably is.)
*What about "Avoid voting"?  That seems to accurately reflect the page contents, and doesn't give the (mistaken) impression that the page opposes vote-like behavior entirely. 
Any other thoughts? -- Visviva 04:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My first choice would be "Voting and surveys" - a completely neutral title that would let the text do the work, particularly given that the text describes several situations in which editors engage in practices similar to voting.  (We seem to have survived titles such as "Vandalism" without encouraging the practice, for example).  I think "Discuss first, vote rarely" or "Discussion is better than voting" would also be fine.  TheronJ 19:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Discuss, avoid voting"  "More discussion, less voting"  "Discussion > Voting"  "Discussion is better than voting"?  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with TheronJ on the title, it is better to have a non-normative title.  Actually I think the best course would be to merge this page with other policy pages (including proposed pages) whether pro-voting or neutral and just have one policy page about voting that says when to use polls and votes, and when not to.  If someone wants to have an anti-polling page, it should be an essay or be in user-space.   6SJ7 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I just started on my proposed "tone" rewrite.  Unless people are grossly offended, I would ask that people try to fix any problems rather than blanket reverting.  Here's what I was thinking:
First edit - Introduction: .  I tried to get the tone closer to what I think is the current practice - that quasi-voting occurs from time to time, usually without objection, that some people don't like it, and that it may never be understood as binding.
Second edit - Articles:  My general goal was to describe the current practice of (occasional) straw polls/surveys in the article talk space.  I removed a paragraph about how verifiability isn't subject to voting, since voting isn't binding on any issue.  With an eye towards a potential merge of WP:STRAW, I included a list of cautionary items and items to consider when conducting an article poll.  I would be very interested in any additions or changes that people can suggest to the list.  Thanks, TheronJ 19:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining my "tone" edits 

message: One question that the proposal does not currently address is whether a poll can be used as evidence in favor of "concensus by supermajority."  When I read something like this, it makes me cringe.  On the other hand, if people are going to argue that in some cases, a supermajority is as good as a consensus, then surveys aren't a crazy way to test for the existence of that supermajority.  More specifically, the relevant policy section currently states:
*"Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate." and
*"However, when supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus. The stated outcome is the best judgment of the facilitator, often an admin."
I don't know if we ought to link to/and or discuss the Wp:consensus#Consensus_vs._supermajority section, or if so, what we ought to say about it.  If we're being purely descriptive, we could say that some editors use votes to test for supermajorities, but that attempting to force concensus through supermajority is controversial and often disruptive, and attempting to determine that supermajority through a vote often exacerbates the situation.  
If someone wants to give a crack at it, go ahead -- otherwise, I'll probably sleep on it and try it later this week.  Thanks, TheronJ 21:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like that would be a sensible addition. -- Visviva 06:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supermajority? 

message: As this page evolves, it is becoming a fairly good description about how consensus is reached, the value of discussion, and the pitfalls of "voting".  This is also what Wikipedia:Consensus talks about, but with less of the how-to details that this page has.  This "how to reach consensus" explanation is very important, and not explained well enough on the consensus page or any other page that I know of.  So how about either merging this page with Wikipedia:Consensus or expanding it and making it a subpage with the title "How to reach consensus" or "The Wikipedia consensus process".  As such, I don't think it would be unreasonable to talk about why "vote" is not a good word to use in Wikipedia discussions.  There are not democratic votes here.  There are sometimes straw polls, and they should probably never be called "votes". --Samuel Wantman 11:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be a good move. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have a strong view at the moment as to the merge, but I strongly agree that it is important to distinguish between the words "poll" and "vote", which emphatically do not have the same meaning. By the same token, and by analogy with the real world, what most people would call "a democratic vote" does not necessarily have to be a decided in favour of a simple majority, as I think you're suggesting (apologies if that's not the case). Numerous poliical systems (including, I believe, the United Kingdom and the United States) regularly hold important elections in which the winner may not have necessarily received the most votes, and a super-majority requirement is quite common when seeking the endorsement of e.g. treaties, constitutional changes, etc etc. Badgerpatrol 16:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter the percentage, I don't think we want to encourage a culture of "voting" at wikipedia.  Even at the xFDs the word "vote" is destructive to the process.  The word "poll" can go both ways, so I think we should only talk about "straw polls" and "testing for consensus".  The issue is creating a culture here that makes these distinctions clear.  Perhaps this page should be called "Vote" is a word that should not be used in discussions. -- Samuel Wantman 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Not sure what you mean there... why would a guideline merge be a bad thing? --tjstrf talk 22:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] 

message: How long has the discussion on wether this is policy, guideline, essay, propoganda, or whatever else, been going on? This is insane. Why not just get rid of the page entirley? Let Wikipedians decide for themselves if discussing is better than voting. All this arguing and discussing has gotten us nowhere but a disputed tag. Some Wikipedians find polls good because they allow people to openley discuss their opinions on why they voted Support or Oppose in a formal manner. Others think it is foolish and doesn't follow Wikipedia policy. Why try to tell them what to think, and sit here on a talk page arguing about it for months? Mankind didn't evolve so they could argue over and tell each other what's right and wrong.--KojiDude (Contributions) 06:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wikipedians have decided that discussing is better than voting.  It is already mentioned in a number of policies and guidelines.  While some may not like this page, the concept of preferring discussion and discouraging voting has been WP policy for a long time and unlikely to change any time soon.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wikipedians have decided that discussing is better than voting." If that was true, then this discussion wouldn't be going on. =/ Just leave the page the way it is (or get rid of it, or whatever else) and let people decide for themselves. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it isn't a monarchy either. Imagine people getting blocked for using straw polls. It isn't really a big deal anyway. From what I can see, the groups of pro-voters and non-voters are fairly even, so what harm does it do? If you see a poll going on, how does it harm you or Wikipedia? Just ignore it and get on with your own buisness (which is the same thing everyone should do with this argument).--KojiDude (Contributions) 22:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say all wikipedians agree, but that is definitely the consensus and has been for a long time.  Even if this page was deleted, "letting people decide for themselves" isn't really an option (unless you want to remove the bits discouraging voting from all WP policies and guidelines, good luck with that).  Polling isn't forbidden, it's just discouraged.  And the alternative to voting isn't "monarchy", it's consensus.  As someone else said, democracy is "quantity" while wp's consensus is "quality".  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: When the day comes that Wikipedia is run on a democratic voting system because a bunch of noobs can't take 5 minutes to read, I will personally kiss your ass. I scincerley doubt that newbies who come to Wikipedia thinking that still think it after a month or 2. Voting is used on Wikipedia, because certain people find it easier to look at a poll and all the oppinions of the voters than to sit and discuss. Others would rather discuss because they think it's easier to understand people's opinions that way. Who cares? Either way, consenseus is reaced, so how it is reached shouldn't be a factor.--KojiDude (Contributions) 06:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, but polling and discussions aren't the problem we're talking about, voting is.  There are people who think we decide things by voting and those that misunderstand polls to be democratic votes.  We write pages  like this so that we can make a link to this page when people think that majority rules.  It is easier to make a link than rehash this every time it comes up. -- Samuel Wantman 07:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Koji - some people do think this after a month or two, as evidenced by the people who thought the rejected proposal WP:DAV (see debate here) was an accurate description of how Wikipedia works. That should be an indication of why this page is useful. (Radiant) 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woah, people, people... 

message: *To answer those people who believe guidelines are prescriptive, let me propose the following thought experiment. I really have trouble understanding the point of view that it is even possible for guidelines to be prescriptive. Suppose that for whatever reason, we have some kind of new precription and get it marked "guideline". Now the first problem is communicating this new legislation to people. Wikipedia does not in fact have an effective way of reaching its editors. We tried our best to advertise the ArbCom elections, and got a couple hundred votes. Yet with a member roster of over a million, not counting IP addresses but including various sockpuppets, it would be a conservative count to say that Wikipedia has about 100,000 editors - and we reached hundreds of those. Second, we need to persuade those people to follow the new prescription. Since we're all volunteers here, it's quite unclear how we would manage that. So we're left with the third, enforcement. The only feasible enforcement Wikipedia has (beyond telling people to stop) is blocking. So would you think it feasible to block all people breaking the latest prescription? Would the current set of admins comply, or unblock? Would the blocking actually help the encyclopedia? Wouldn't WP:IAR interfere with blocking people who did nothing but break legislation? 
*In other words, if you seriously believe guidelines can be and should be prescriptive, please explain to me how on earth you expect that to possibly work, considering we have no way to (1) inform users, (2) persuade users, and (3) enforce it on users. Challenge your assumptions. >Radiant< 23:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A thought experiment

message: After the ArbCom said that Wikipedia has a long-standing tradition against excessive voting, and that it's a fundamental misunderstanding to say that Wikipedia does resolve discussion through voting, Jimbo Wales is now also speaking up against voting, calling a vote "bogus" and "meaningless", and stating that "We don't get to better policy by having extremists digging in their heels and voting. We get to a better policy by discussion and compromise, looking for common ground, etc".   . >Radiant< 12:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page addition seems a bit irrelevant... Jimbo's talking about, "actually this IS a meaningless poll", "Please note that this is a meaningless vote", and, "The poll is entirely bogus to start with". Also the line, "We don't get to better policy by having extremists digging in their heels and voting." is nothing new as policies have never come about from voting.  12:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That, and we probably should avoid taking the line that "Jimbo's word is law" if can help it. (I'm sure he'd like to be "just another editor" if we gave him a chance! )  On the other hand, quoting The Jimbo might have more of an impact on newbies.  That and Netscott's note about the context is keeping me a little unsure about this little addition to this perfectly-worded guideline. --DavidHOzAu 12:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Of course Jimbo's word isn't law, and don't think (nor have I proposed) that we should add his quote anywhere to the DDV page (for that matter, shouldn't we remove that arbcom quote for the same reason?) However, I should point out that while, as Netscott states, policies do not come from voting, for several people the main argument against DDV has been the belief that policy is (or should be) "enacted" through a vote. >Radiant< 12:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree basically with the Jimbo thing, but see m:Foundation issues #5.  Apparently his word actually is law (who knew?), but I think it's better for all concerned if we don't lay undue emphasis on that.  :-) -- Visviva 13:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: But if guidelines require consensus, this cannot be a guideline because there is no consensus to make it one, as reflected on this talk page.  The problem is that each person who objects to it has their own reasons, so there really is no "solid" opposition, while the handful of people who are in favor of it being a guideline are so obsessed with it that they are going to get their way.  So they will get their way, but that does not strike me as being a "consensus" based decision model.  6SJ7 23:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the only objections I'm seeing now is to the label "guideline".  I'm not seeing discussion about the content.  The content of the page is stable.  Perhaps I'm missing something, and if so, please let me know if there still are content disagreements.  I am having trouble understanding the concerns of those who agree with what the page says, but disagree on calling it a guideline.  If we agree on the content of the page, it is a guideline.  If we don't agree on the content of the page, let's keep working on it until we agree. -- Samuel Wantman 06:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know what is a guideline? WP:EW. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *SJ, the point is that, since Wikipedia works by consensus, an explanation of how things work in practice is an explanation of how consensus made these things work. Actual practice is consensual, by definition, because if it wasn't consensual it wouldn't be actual practice. It is natural for a page that describes practice to attract people who don't like that practice. Indeed, if you look through this talk page, you'll note a lot of people agreeing in a short comment and leaving it be, and a few people arguing and debating at length about what they believe is wrong, and generally arguing from principles rather than from what the page actually says. The error lies in thinking a guideline is made by the "guideline" tag. It is not. A guideline is made by actual practice, and we use those tags to reflect that, for educational purposes. >Radiant< 13:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I still see this page as essentially an unecessary duplication of m:Polling is evil. I don't see the need to have a competing (read: Forked) essay. The forked nature I describe is particularly evident given the origins of this page.  15:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Pages on EN cannot duplicate pages on meta. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: **Actually they can; this argument is nothing but bureaucracy. Also, Meta doesn't have guidelines, so "it's not a guideline on meta" is a vacuous truth. For instance, see m:Be bold, m:Consensus and Wikipedia and m:External links. >Radiant< 17:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *** I belive we are in violent agreement. I was stating that the existance of a page on meta is irrelevent to en, and thus a page on en could not duplicate a page on meta regardless of how similar they are. I am saying it is impossible to duplicate, not that it is prohibited. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: **But of course, most people don't read meta. I would have no objection to moving "polling is evil" here and using that as a guideline; indeed, it's an important and oft-cited principle. But the need for this page was pointed out several times; in particular, as you claimed above, the line, "We don't get to better policy by having extremists digging in their heels and voting." is nothing new as policies have never come about from voting. BUT not everybody knows that!. How do you propose telling them, if not with a page such as this? >Radiant< 16:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Do like we've always done and just cite m:Polling is evil..... again... I see no particular need for forking that essay here and even less need for the forked version to be a guideline.  17:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: **Because if you point people to an essay, they will think it is just some random editor's opinion and ignore it. >Radiant< 17:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *If it is an accurate description of how Wikipedia works, then what difference does it make whether people ignore it or not?  If it is so accurate, then people are already doing it this way and don't need to read about it.  6SJ7 18:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Is this a statment that you agree this page accurately describes how things work? Would you mind addressing the question below? Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

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

message: Just to show which side is the vocal minority here, note that in the past the ideas expressed on this page have been supported by Tony Sidaway, Tjstrf, Centrx, Dmcdevit, Sean Black, Kelly Martin, Mackensen, JYolkowski, Mindspillage, Extreme Unction, Visviva, Kim Bruning, David Levy, Saxifrage, TheronJ, The Land, Doc Glasgow, JzG, JackyR, Samuel Wantman, Rossami, Psyphics, Daniel Bryant, Milo H Minderbinder, Friday, Jdforrester, Hipocrite and Calton, and that's without counting this MFD. That's quite a bit more than the four vocal dissenters.
But of course, counting heads isn't what matters (indeed, that's the whole point of this page), so let's look at the arguments. It should be noted that several people argue from general principle, or from hypothetical consequences, rather than from what the page actually says. That is not helpful; an encyclopedia needs facts, not allegations. Most of the arguments in opposition are combinations of the below:
#Stating that deletion processes are determined by vote count. Anyone familiar with AFD or DRV should know this is not the case. In a small but significant number of cases, deletion debates are closed in favor of the minority because the minority has better arguments. A recent proposal to change this was strongly rejected.
#Stating that "we do vote". That is true but irrelevant, since it does not contradict the idea of discouraging voting. The statement is akin to saying that, since we do protect pages, we cannot discourage page protection.
#Saying that consensus must be determined by polling or voting. It is obviously false that this must be so, because we routinely do it in other ways. It is true that it can be so, and as above, that matches what this page actually says.
#Asserting that this is a policy to forbid voting. That is a straw man; this page is neither intended as policy, nor does it forbid voting.
#A belief that guidelines are binding, even though the guideline tag, WP:POL and WP:IAR clearly state they're not.
#Bureaucratic arguments, such as saying that the page here must have the same tag as the related page on meta (obviously, enwiki has goals, methods and rules different from meta's), or saying that the formal process for writing guidelines wasn't followed (which is vacuous since such a formal process does not exist), or that a page can't be a guideline unless it's merged somewhere (which is incorrect since pages stand on their own).
#Suggesting that Wikipedia needs more formal methods or procedures to reach a decision. That is a very good point, perhaps it does, although we've worked without them quite well for the past years. But feel free to propose such a method. A proposal for change is not in any way hampered by a description of what happens now, and neither is a desire for change a good argument against documenting the status quo.
#Finally, some people don't see the need for this. But, on Wikipedia, many people don't see the need for many things. We're all volunteers here, so not seeing the need is not grounds for stopping other people who do see it. The goal of this page is explaining something that many novice users draw wrong conclusions about. Perhaps not necessary, but certainly useful.
*In other words, most arguments against this page are based upon misunderstanding or fallacy. That's not an opinion, anyone can make the same analysis. >Radiant< 16:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis of the dispute 

message: It's getting a bit foggy what the dispute actually is about. The page appears to be accurate, at the very least; nobody has been able to point out inaccuracies, except that John notes the ArbCom policy uses the term 'voting' so there's no reason not to use it here. Such things are easily fixed. Accuracy is about opinion, it's about fact. If this is accurate, then it's a good idea to say so; since Wikipedia can be confusing, educating novice users is very important.
Now the point here is education, not legislation (indeed, since we can ignore all rules and guidelines have exceptions, Wikipedia cannot be legislated in the first place). Thus, to call this an essay would be misleading, because CAT:E contains many arbitrary opinions, and this page is far more than that. Indeed, those 'pedians in need of education tend to ignore essays for this very reason.
Several people say that this can't be a guideline. The first question is, why not? WP:POL clearly states that writing down the common results of a well-used process is a good approach. People claim it has no consensus, but the lists of editors and arguments above indicate otherwise. More importantly, how can you seriously claim that a long-standing practice on Wikipedia does not have consensus? Nobody has been able to point out discrepancies between actual practice and what the page says.
And the second question is, since of course not everything in Wikispace fits neatly in the pigeonhole, what else would you suggest? >Radiant< 16:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just reading the rewrite for the first time, but I don't really see any inaccuracies, other than some sections that, in my opinion, could do with more explanation. It's an accurate description of current practice and long-established policy. I don't see any reason not to consider it  once a title is agreed upon. Dmcdevit·t 10:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About tags

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

message: This document should spend more time talking about the benefits of voting. (You can call it "polling" if you really hate the word voting.)  It needs to conclude with:
Discussion is not a substitute for Polling.  Sometimes, even endless discussion will not reach unanimous consent, and possibly not even consensus.  In those circumstances, a vote should be conducted with a super-majority carrying the day.  Remember also that Jimbo Wales can personally over-ride any decision, even one made unanimously.
I look forward to thoughts on how this wording might be improved.  For instance, we might want to define a super-majority, but it is absolutely vital that we include something like this. Thanks, Johntex\talk 01:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would very strongly object to any such statement being part of any Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it contradicts the most fundamental principles of our project.  -- Visviva 02:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I would object as well.  The proposed addition flatly contradicts the important idea that we don't hold binding votes.  To hold binding votes would be to open the door to abuse by vote-stacking, not to mention the polarizing effects.  If after long discussion, we haven't reached a conclusion, then we keep discussing. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we do have binding votes, and they are useful.  We should have more of them. Johntex\talk 03:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which examples are you thinking of? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I have removed the "nutshell" box, for several reasons.  No offense to Jimbo is intended here, and in fact I think that he himself might object to this use of one of his quotations.  It is taken out of context from the situation in which he said this.  More importantly, it takes one sentence that he said, and in effect turns it into a policy by featuring it in the nutshell box.  If Jimbo wants to make policy by himself, he can do directly, and actually in the case of "how to make policy," it might not be a bad idea if he did.  We do not need people taking his statements and deciding on their own to turn them into "policies" or "guidelines".  Most importantly, the quotation deals only with policy-making, while much of the page deals specifically with content disputes, and most of the rest of its deal both with policy-making and content disputes.  If this nutshell is to be there (which it shouldn't for the other reasons given above), then it should be made clear that the whole page deals only with policy (and not with content issues), because then the nutshell doesn't fit the page.  But it's probably better to leave out the nutshell so that the text can stay intact.  (Of course then it should be permanently tagged as an essay, but I've said that in the past.  At least now it is better than it was, especially with the changes I have made tonight.)  6SJ7 03:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you think it is better.  Some of your changes are improvements.  However, I now find that the page does not convey the one thing that I think is most important, and that is that we shouldn't use the words "vote" and "voting" to refer to polls and polling.  The reality is that if you use the word "vote" people will assume we are using a democratic voting process.  This happens all the time.  I don't see why saying as much should be removed. --Samuel Wantman 04:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *We should in general avoid quotes by Jimbo, Brion, the ArbCom or anybody else on policy/guideline pages. >Radiant< 10:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a response to what I said? -- Samuel Wantman 11:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oh, er, no. Sorry, wrong indent. It was in response to the quote matter. >Radiant< 11:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Nutshell" box

message: Consensus is fairly fundamental to how a wiki works. That is what makes things like Bold revert discuss work.
Are you seriously removing that statement, just because other wikis also happen to work that way?
Wow, I can leave my argument about learning from the mistakes of others at home then.
Might I meatball:NameTheConflict? I'm thinking a rather extreme case of NIH syndrome.  Would that cover it?
So what can we do to have some kind of description of why wikis work this way in the article? 
--Kim Bruning 04:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (got reverted) --Kim Bruning 22:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamentals 

message: “nowhere on this page do I find the true reason”
It’s pretty hard trying to understand the arguments here.  I think a problem is that the issues in dispute are not well defined.  The vagary begins at the top of the guideline.  There is too much assertion in the passive tense.  There are statements that read like attempts at metaphysical truth.  The first sentence, for example:
“It is preferred that decisions on Wikipedia are generally made by consensus.”
Who prefers this?  Why is it preferred?  Is this statement axiomatic?  Should it be referenced to an external study, or to a logical argument?
To attempt to get to the crux of the disputes, I suggest changing general passive statements to crystal-clear cited or logically based statements.   SmokeyJoe 05:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've cited wording inserted by Badlydrawnjeff in his attempt to fix the guideline by modifying various statements to make them less definitive.  —David Levy 05:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Groupthink, closed options, us-vs-them, to name a few. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style problem with the guideline 

message: I think the sentence "Nevertheless, Arbcom decisions are subject to simple-majority vote." should come out, as it vastly over-simplifies and misrepresents how arbcom decisions are developed. All arbcom decisions are subject to negotiation and modification until a consensus is reached. The so-called 'votes' signifiy which arbitrators support the current version of a proposed statement or remedy. Note also that an arbitation case is not closed until a form of super-majority (number supporting minus number opposing equals four or more) agrees to closure. -- Donald Albury 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately for this argument, the arbcom is actually delegated from jimbo, and therefore is not directly controlled by the wikipedia community (nor would that be a good idea). Right tool for right job. --Kim Bruning 09:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Also unfortunately for this argument, there is a lot more discussion, compromising and rewording going on in the arbitration proceedings, including on their private mailing list. The statement, while not technically false, is indeed misleading in that it oversimplifies a delicate process. >Radiant< 09:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbcom voting statement