Talk:Traditionalist Catholicism/Archive 3

message: This rough consensus vote seeks to determine the direction discussion will take by majority decision, where true consensus does not seem forthcoming despite several months of discussion. The vote will be overseen by neutral third-party Pathoschild. 75% of active editors supported holding a consensus vote (Lima, Dominick, and Jgofborg). Used2BAnonymous, representing 25% of the vote, opposed.
Guidelines
:The vote will be held over 24 hours, subject to extension upon reasonable request. A minimum of 75% is required to constitute a rough consensus. If there is no rough consensus, the draft summary will be kept by default. Any user may vote if they have been registered for at least one month and have 100 or more edits.
Goal
:The primary issue being voted upon is the underlying principle of each draft summary. Draft Summary Lima seeks to equally represent both the inclusive and exclusive definitions throughout the article. Draft Summary Used2BAnonymous seeks to fully describe the inclusive definition in the summary, and dedicate the rest of the article to the exclusive definition. Should a draft summary recieve a rough consensus, that underlying principle will be the guideline for continued discussion.
Voting
:Please indicate your position for both draft summaries. Type "Support", "Oppose", or "Neutral" as appropriate, followed by an optional comment and your signature with timestamp (see the example vote by neutral Pathoschild).
====Draft Summary Lima #4====
 Traditionalist Catholic and traditional Catholic are terms used to refer to Roman Catholics who want to see the worship and customs of the general body of Roman Catholics return to those prevailing before the reforms of the 1960s.Many of them claim that, since then, the presentation and the understanding of the Church's teaching have changed, at least in emphasis, to an unacceptable degree; and some exclude from the meaning of the two terms those whose views on this matter are less strong.
# No vote: DSL4 supports equal representation throughout the article. // Pathoschild 16:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am personally opposed to simple majority. However, I will be consulting with more experienced mediators in the interpretation of this vote. // Pathoschild 13:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am concerned the rush to "credentialize" will only attract PoV twisters. As a compromise, restrict voting to active contributors. Most all the edits for "credentialization" were one or two words, to get over the magic number of 100, not a bona fide history of editing wikipedia.Dominick (TALK) 13:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I object to the "credentilizing" of people since 6 December 2005 for this vote. There was not 100 edits on either new person before the vote was called, most of the 100 edits are one word or letter to make the magic number. Dominick (TALK) 14:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary: Rough consensus vote

message: Traditionalist Catholic and traditional Catholic are terms used to refer to Roman Catholics who want to see the worship and customs of the general body of Roman Catholics return to those prevailing before the reforms of the 1960s.Many of them claim that, since then, the presentation and the understanding of the Church's teaching have changed, at least in emphasis, to an unacceptable degree; and some exclude from the meaning of the two terms those whose views on this matter are less strong.
# No vote: DSL4 supports equal representation throughout the article. // Pathoschild 16:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft Summary Lima #4

message: Traditionalist Catholic is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s.The terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" are more exclusively used—and are used in the rest of this entry—to refer to Catholics who not only would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s, but who also want to preserve (and restore, where wanting) all the sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, who take issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, who see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed since Vatican II, and who seek to preserve what they consider "true" Church teachings in a manner that more "mainstream" Catholics find objectionable.
# No vote: DSU12 supports full inclusive definition in the summary, with the article focused on the exclusive definition. // Pathoschild 16:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft Summary Used2BAnonymous #12

message: * I asked for a modification that we go to 50% + 1 which is the majority definition. If voting is restricted to the four contributors it will be 75%. Dominick (TALK) 13:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am personally opposed to simple majority. However, I will be consulting with more experienced mediators in the interpretation of this vote. // Pathoschild 13:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am concerned the rush to "credentialize" will only attract PoV twisters. As a compromise, restrict voting to active contributors. Most all the edits for "credentialization" were one or two words, to get over the magic number of 100, not a bona fide history of editing wikipedia.Dominick (TALK) 13:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I object to the "credentilizing" of people since 6 December 2005 for this vote. There was not 100 edits on either new person before the vote was called, most of the 100 edits are one word or letter to make the magic number. Dominick (TALK) 14:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Dominick, — I have not bothered with the rest of your message, or with Kaliz's snivelling, mostly indecipherable rant. I am at this moment merely considering your slanderous allegation: 
:Everytime a sedevacanist gets heat they appeal to the gnostic principal of secret knowledge.
You claim to be a Catholic. You must therefore be aware of the Catholic law forbidding slander, calumny and the rest. Since what you have written, you have written in response to me, it is obvious that you are speaking of me. Please therefore substantiate  this: 
# That I "got heat"
As far I can recall, the exchange on this entry was / is between Used2BeAnonymous on one side and you, with Kaliz jumping in recently, on the other. I was never a part of it. Or maybe I have amnesia and you remember my own actions better. If so, please do remind me. 
Remember that this is a strict responsibility according to Catholic law. 
Thanking you in anticipation, 
WikiSceptic 13:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dom is but slightly better, once again with apologies; he knoweth not what he speaketh. Dominick (TALK) 13:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just this one statement? What was the importance this statement had to the conflict between you and Used2BeAnonymous? You must also know that it was made after you had hatchetted the Dictionary page. And, even so, this statement does not substantiate what you alleged. One statement does not prove heat. Try again. WikiSceptic 13:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please substantiate 

message: Dear Dominick — I am not American. I am Goan, a subspecie of Portuguese, and I live in Bombay, India. Here, English newspapers routinely use "left" and "right" and Anglophones here understand these terms. Regards. WikiSceptic 16:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am not "American" 

message: Why is the page reverted back and forth? Please leave it to the present version that U2B has reverted it to. If necessary, host the other version as an alt or temp page and call for votes over a period of time. Please. WikiSceptic 16:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The rough consensus vote has drastically failed to achieve any form of agreement, and was apparently a failure in planning on my part. I suggest calling in more experienced mediators to take my place or, if preferred, resorting to official mediation. // Pathoschild 16:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you discount people who made 100 single charater edits in the past 24 hours when the vote was called, we show consensus. Dominick (TALK) 17:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we need no vote to make changes.  Let's just do that. JG of Borg 17:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit wars 

message: Voting is not consensus, and can only ever be used to show where people stand on an issue. Suggest a version, see who opposes it, ask why they oppose it, ask for sources, interpret the sources, ask for more information if necessary, or bring in various mediation such as WP:RFC if they fllibuster. Voting is only as good as the people who happen to be watching the article at the time, and so cannot be taken seriously or upheld as "the final say". — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-6 16:30
:The rough consensus vote has drastically failed to achieve any form of agreement, and was apparently a failure in planning on my part. I suggest calling in more experienced mediators to take my place or, if preferred, resorting to official mediation. // Pathoschild 16:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you discount people who made 100 single charater edits in the past 24 hours when the vote was called, we show consensus. Dominick (TALK) 17:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we need no vote to make changes.  Let's just do that. JG of Borg 17:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Consensus vote" is an oxymoron