Wikipedia talk:Discuss and Vote

Proposal
So, basically, you're proposing the following changes:
 * 1) That deletion and featuring processes may not be decided against the majority except in case of campaigning or vote stacking.
 * 2) That all policy and guidelines henceforth be ratified through voting, including except those policies imposed by Jimbo and the Board, which only need a vote to see if they're improvable.
 * 3) That requests for adminship and arbcom elections are decided by supermajority vote.
 * 4) That developers pay explicit attention to the amount of people backing a feature request.
 * 5) That campaiging for votes on deletion and featuring processes be endorsed and encouraged.

Is that broadly correct? ( Radiant ) 17:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Yes, if I understand you correctly. If a genuine majority cannot be persuaded, then it will be a matter of contention to make the change.  Hence it should be left as it is.  Note that I do not have a problem with campaigning per se, as long as a really wide net is cast.  The more, the better.
 * 2) No. I do not think that policies imposed need ratification, but they should get feedback.  They may be improvable.
 * 3) Yes.  I think supermajority rules there anyway.
 * 4) No.  But remove the word "explicit" and I would agree.  I suspect that they already do.

--Blue Tie 17:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Amended per your comments, including point five. Please tell me if I got it right. You are, I hope, aware that you're proposing five substantial changes to the way Wikipedia presently works? Your assumptions in point three (that RFA is decided by supermajority) and four (that devs pay attention to how many people are backing a feature request) are actually incorrect, at least at present; feel free to ask a 'crat, dev or Jimbo if you don't believe me.
 * I am certainly not opposed to change; indeed, Wikipedia changes perpetually. I am not going to debate with you as to whether these five changes are desirable or necessary, but I wish you best of luck convincing the community thereof. ( Radiant ) 18:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How about if I restate your points so that they are more like my thinking. Here goes my attempt:


 * 1) That deletion and featuring processes may not be decided against the majority (or perhaps supermajority) except the majority (or supermajority) have been faked by vote-stacking.
 * 2) That all policy and guidelines henceforth be ratified through voting, including except those policies imposed by Jimbo and the Board, should be submitted to the community to judge the overall sentiment of wikipedians and to solicit possible improvements.
 * 3) That requests for adminship and arbcom elections are not decided contrary to majority or supermajority vote. What amounts to supermajority has not been described and may be different for various votes depending on the nature of the decision.  For example, a new admin may require a supermajority above 66%, but the reinstatement of an old admin may only require a simple majority (I would expect admins to develop some "enemies" who would work hard to reduce the vote, a handicap new admins would not face). I would also consider that the criteria for supermajority should relax as the number of voters increases.
 * 4) That developers may pay explicit attention to the number of people backing a feature request, but other issues may trump popular demand.
 * 5) That campaigning for participation in deletion and featuring processes not be disallowed as long as there is a reasonable attempt to request the participation of all concerned and interested parties. Campaigning for votes should be limited to the discussion page and be presented in the form of discussion related to the topics involved (as is done now).

Now, I have done my best, but I would be the first to acknowledge that my own work always improves at the hands of other wise people. With discussion, my views might change. So, I would not claim to be welded to these ideas. But, I do not think that they generally represent a huge change to wikipedia. I think that what they do is describe things that are for the most part already happening. However, one change is new: New policies should be voted on. I think that saying this is a departure for wikipedia is true. I also think it is appropriate.

Related to this is the sense of "consensus". I do NOT believe that "consensus" can exist CONTRARY to a majority much less contrary to a supermajority. To make a change contrary to the majority is to impose the views of a few on the many. This is not consensus. Consensus is where more people agree than disagree and probably, of those who disagree, many are willing to accept the proposition as being "acceptable" compared with other things that could come about and be worse from their perspective -- or acceptable because they are not considered of sufficient weight to worry about. But when has that point been achieved? Hard to say unless a poll is taken. So, if someone objects and says that a consensus has NOT been achieved and requests a poll on the matter, it should be done to validate the claim of consensus. Consensus should not be claimed contrary to the majority... but simply having the majority does not mean consensus has been achieved if all views have not been adequately considered and evaluated prior to the poll. --Blue Tie 22:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Propose all you want, but do realize that this is certainly not what is presently happening. AFDs can be closed against a majority, if the minority has better reasons; this happens in a small minority of cases, but probably a couple of times per week. RFA has strenuously resisted any particular percentage as strict cutoff point, such as the 66% you imply as an example. Your present version about developers is semantically void (they "may" pay attention to whatever they please, of course, as may everybody else) but the previous wording is a change since at present they simply don't pay attention to majorities. I'm not sure what you mean by "campaigning on an article's talk page" but campaigning is usually interpreted as soliciting "votes" all over the wiki. Change may well be for the better. But what you're proposing is change. ( Radiant ) 23:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested in some examples of AfD's settled against the majority. If RFA strenuously resisted any particular percentage, then why is 75% so commonly bandied about and in fact, proposed by a Bureaucrat, and followed universally, at least for new Admins? I do not mind if the bit toward the developers is semantically vague... it is what is happening now. I think campaigning for votes is trying to sway people to your view. I think that soliciting participation in a vote is not same thing. One should be done on the page the other should be done as far and wide as reasonable and practical. --Blue Tie 23:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (1) well then look on WP:AFD. (2) it's not followed universally; look on WP:RFA. (3) not "vague", "void" as in "empty". (4) Current practice discourages what you call "soliciting participation"; if you wish to make that change as well feel free to propose it. ( Radiant ) 00:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

(1) I see no examples of AfD's closed contrary to Majority or SuperMajority. (2) I see no exceptions on RFA. (3) Like WP:CON. Although I consider that a defect in WP:CON, I have no problem with that in this case. Developers have larger issues to consider. But I am sure that within those constraints, "Customer demand" is a key element of the decision process. (4) I know that some wikipedians have tried to discourage it. I think that is wrong. The last time I checked this is no longer a discouraged thing. Maybe it has changed back. --Blue Tie 05:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (5) Very bad idea. we don't want even more time spent off articles. Anyway, campaigning "for participation" will always end up with people campaigning only to those with their PoV (remember the whole User:Mustafa Akalp debacle on Khoi's RfA?) yandman  10:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion
The place to discuss this is at the existing Discuss, don't vote. We have had enough trouble lately with new proposals which run completely counter to established practice; experience indicates that all we will get here is a fight between experienced Wikipedians and, most likely, a small coterie of the disgruntled who have fallen foul of existing practice. As written it is not only an invitation to vote-stacking, it would also provide for mob rule to override fundamental policies. AfD closure should continue to be   Clue-based, not a vote count. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I like your comment here. It seems kind of elitist to say that policy which is accepted by the "experienced" being challenged by the "disgruntled" is somehow damaging to Wikipedia.  I understand not a democracy, but these policies are not meant to be eternal and undebatable, either.  The whole point of the project is that everybody's opinion, on some level, counts.  If someone can come up with a flawless argument against an existing policy, that policy should be changed, because since this is not a democracy, things do not stay because they are accepted by most people.  If somebody has a new proposal, we should always listen.    --Tractorkingsfan 12:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple compromise thoughts and suggestions: (1) given that the MFD vote supported "tag as rejected," I think it's probably appropriate to leave that tag there; (2) I suppose it might be possible to tag this piece both as "rejected" and as an essay; (3) on the other hand, if you want an essay about why voting is good, I think it's a good idea to write a fresh one -- you will make your points better and more clearly if you start from scratch and describe why you think Wikipedia should use more voting than it currently does, rather than using the current page, which just assumes that WP likes voting. TheronJ 14:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The outcome of the debate was to tag this page as rejected. If you wish to overturn the MFD, go to deletion review. It is factually accurate that this was a proposal, and factually accurate that it was rejected. Hence, to call it anything other than a rejected proposal is deceiving our editors.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If this page is written in a manner consistent with an essay, it may properly be tagged as such, irrespective of its history. John254 01:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That may be your opinion, but it's not backed by any kind of policy. You are going against consensus (established in the MFD) to obfuscate a fact (that this is a rejected proposal). Please tell me what your motives are for doing so.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with calling this an essay is that most of it isn't somebody's opinion, but simple falsehood. For instance, the statement that "a decision [about deletion or featuring] contrary to the majority would only be rendered when there is compelling evidence of inappropriate campaigning or "vote stacking"" is not an opinion; it's worded as a statement of fact, except that it is provably false. Essays are supposed to give opinion, not to misstate the facts.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)