Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion

This RFM is now moot because Netscott now states he wants the page deleted. So the answer for both of us to the "question to be mediated" is 'no'.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a mischaracterization of the situation. User:Kim Bruning suggested the two pages be deleted and I responded that I did not find that illogical. 13:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Two points
First, what Netscott neglects to mention is that the present title is a long-standing compromise between such titles as "polling is evil", "discuss, don't vote" and "polling". In essence, what he is asking is to abandon the consensual compromise and instead use the title he preferred all along.

Second, I doubt that mediation is going to work on this issue, because Netscott has the unfortunate habit of ignoring outside opinions that do not coincide with his own, and instead asking for a subsequent outside opinion. Indeed, we have requested outside opinion on this a number of times, and it has a strong tendency to disagree with him. For instance:
 * Redirects. Outside opinion disagrees with him . Netscott responds that outside opinions aren't binding and proceeds with the edit war
 * WP:DR. Outside opinion disagrees with him.
 * Meta. Outside opinion disagrees with him  . Netscott continues the move war by moving the talk page.
 * This move itself. Outside opinion disagrees with him . He responds by bringing a complaint about that to the admin board, where again outside opinion disagrees with him
 * When blocked for edit warring, Netscott requested a review ; when this was declined, he requests a second review.

In other words I pretty much fail to see the need for an outside opinion on this issue when we've had a dozen of such opinions already, and I fail to see why we should move from a name that is a consensual compromise, to the name preferred by one side of that compromise.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Given this response it appears rather obvious that mediation would certainly be beneficial. 16:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? We've had outside opinion everywhere and it almost always disagrees with you. From that, it is obvious that you are going against consensus. There's no point in mediating between an obvious consensus and an editor who refuses to accept it, especially if that editor has a pattern of ignoring outside opinion.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your statement that I have a habit of ignoring outside opinion is flaty false. There are several editors supporting the idea to combine these two pages under the new name... you fail to recognize that for some reason. 16:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Intentionally or not, Radiant is misrepresenting the situation.
 * I suggested the title Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and I continue to believe that it's an appropriate name for the page (in its current form).
 * Prior to that, I mentioned Polling as a potential title for a page expanded to cover additional ground. I later realized that a merger with Straw polls was possible, and it was in this context that the Wikipedia:Polling title was briefly discussed.  (There seemed to be some support, but I never managed to attract enough attention to seriously pursue the idea.)  As far as I know, Wikipedia:Polling was never considered as a name for the page in its current form, so Radiant's claim that this was an extreme title rejected in favor of the current compromise is flagrantly false.
 * Even now, Netscott seeks to perform such a merger, and there does appear to be a significant amount of support. Consensus has not yet been established, but it's Netscott who's attempting to discuss the matter and gauge the community's opinions.  Radiant, meanwhile, has continually posted dismissive comments along the lines of the above.  Some of his complaints regarding Netscott's conduct on other pages may be true (I don't know, but I have had some unpleasant encounters with Netscott in the past.), but that's beside the point.  —David Levy 21:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * David Levy, thank you for calling a spade a spade here... I don't understand this misrepresentation at all either. As far as our previous encounter, I think we could both honestly descibe the particular issue and series of steps required to come to a resolution on it as "unpleasant". The important aspect to not forget from that is that we both cooperatiively worked through the difficulties and resolved that in what I percieved (at least) to be a very amicable way. 21:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, absolutely. In the end, despite a heated conflict (and strong disagreement that persists to this day), our mutual goal of improving the project enabled us to set aside our differences and resolve the dispute in a highly satisfactory manner.  —David Levy 00:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * David - you are incorrect. In archive 1, I said "I would have no objection to renaming the page", and you responded "I would suggest Wikipedia:Polling, but all of the good shortcuts are taken". In archive 3, in the section "About the name", 6SJ7 says "How about Wikipedia:Polling and Voting?".  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  07:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. I cited my original suggestion ("Prior to that, I mentioned Polling as a potential title for a page expanded to cover additional ground.") above. How odd that you neglected to reference the much longer paragraph (immediately preceding the one that you quoted) in which I stressed my stance that the page should also cover the good side of polling.
 * 2. Polling and Voting is not the same as Polling.
 * 3. Regardless, where are you seeing opposition to either title (which would necessitate the "compromise" that you've continually noted)? The only responses that I see are Fresheneesz expressing general agreement with the original statement (which otherwise wasn't addressed) and the following replies to my merger proposals:
 * "A good description for new users who misunderstand the above discussions." InShaneee 14:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "I still think the idea that this is needed is a misconception and would most likely result in instructions creep. However, David's idea about merging this with the Straw polls page and making a Polling page would likely take care of part of this concern. It would work with our existing guidelines rather than piling one on top of another. I like the idea and think we should explore it...." Ned Scott 19:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "I think 'Wikipedia:Polling' is great." TheronJ 17:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "I agree with User:David Levy and User:TheronJ here. Neutrality is a much more preferred state." Netscott 22:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Such a merger, of course, has not been carried out. (That's why Polling is not a substitute for discussion is an appropriate title at the present time.)  Wikipedia:Polling was discussed as a possible title for a merged page (which is once again under consideration), so it's extraordinary misleading for you to claim that its lack of adoption means that it was rejected.
 * Moving on to the current talk page (containing discussion that follows the rename to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion), I see these comments:
 * "The idea of one guideline called WP:POLLING with subsections about PNSD and STRAW sounds pretty good to me. Is that really so awful?" GTBacchus 09:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "I've tried to read the whole conflict here, so I may have missed it if it wans't clear - why is having a page at Wikipedia:Polling bad? You mention how, traditionally, we as a community frown on polling, but it happens, and leave it at that. Fairly simple, in my mind, and better than the somewhat wonky title here." Badlydrawnjeff 22:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Because the ideologues among us insist on a page title that tells people what to do, rather than one that helps people." 6SJ7 01:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Apart from your continual insistence that the title must remain unchanged, the only objection to the name Wikipedia:Polling that I see is JzG's:
 * "The problem with WP:POLLING is that we don't need it. Or rather, if we did, we could just make it a redirect to here. This page states the fact that it's best to discuss not vote. Yes, we also give guidance on how to poll. But if we are to have a merged page it must retain the overall message that polling is a very, very poor substitute for reasoned debate. Plus, every time we have a poll, Jimbo kills a kitten. We must not forget that. Think of the kittens." JzG 20:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And yet, you're arguing that Netscott is ignoring outside opinions and flouting consensus by attempting to discuss this proposal. —David Levy 12:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What on earth is your point, David? Several names were considered for that page, ranging the whole spectrum from "polling" to "Don't ever vote, no really we mean don't vote. And by the way did we say, we really mean it: don't vote", and eventually a name was adopted as a middle ground. How is that not a compromise?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, you're ignoring the fact that Polling was discussed as a potential title for a page created by merging that page with Straw polls. Polling is not a substitute for discussion was  simultaneously proposed  as a potential title for the page in its current form.  You're confusing two separate discussions, one of which has been rekindled.  —David Levy 13:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not at all clear from the context in which it's originally mentioned.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, so given the appearance of general support for the idea of merging the content of Straw polls and Polling is not a substitute for discussion under the title Polling, how shall we move forward then? 13:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not in fact a given.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you refuting what User:David Levy is saying as he's illustrated this? 13:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am saying it is not a given that there is "general support" for this; first, because of Kim's objections; and second, because you appear intent on conflating the suggestion of merging with the suggestion of a major change in direction, which is consistent with your earlier suggestions of revoking and/or deleting the guideline, but certainly not enjoys "general support".  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The only one conflating separate suggestions is you, Radiant. I disagree with some of the changes that Netscott advocates, but that isn't a valid reason to reject all of them en masse (let alone to claim that the mere suggestion of ideas that you oppose somehow constitutes misconduct on his part).  —David Levy 14:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Netscott and others are attempting to discuss the matter and build consensus (which certainly appears to be leaning in this direction). Meanwhile, you're arguing that the current title is sacrosanct and that its retention is a given (even if the page's scope is expanded to cover Wikipedia polling in general).  —David Levy 13:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. Netscott and others are attempting to revoke, remove major parts of, or delete the page, which is what I'm arguing against.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * By all means, argue against such suggestions. What does any of that have to do with the matter at hand, and why do you cite your disagreement with Netscott on those issues as evidence that he's behaving inappropriately?  I personally believe that the idea of deleting the pages (originally proposed by Kim Bruning and agreed with in principle by Netscott) is absurd, but that's merely my personal opinion.  There's nothing wrong with good-faith discussion.  —David Levy 14:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Radiant, but I don't know how I could have been any clearer.
 * "Given the increasing overlap with Straw polls, I strongly suggest merging the two pages together to form Polling." 12:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "A while back, I suggested the titles Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Polling does not replace discussion, either of which would eliminate these problems. As I commented in October, however, my personal preference is to merge the page with the overlapping Straw polls to form Polling." 17:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * —David Levy 13:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The quote I was referring to is this one: "I agree that "Voting is evil" is too silly and informal to serve as the title of a guideline, but "No voting" isn't appropriate either (because it isn't true). ... For reasons already noted, "polling" (already used throughout most of the page) is a more accurate term than "voting." I would suggest Wikipedia:Polling, but all of the good shortcuts are taken." 17:45, 14 September 2006.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. You previously neglected to acknowledge the first paragraph (in which I stressed my stance that the page should also cover the good side of polling).  I assumed that this was an honest mistake, but now you've deliberately omitted the relevant text (represented above by an ellipsis):
 * "Saying that there are 'exceptions' is an understatement. (That's like saying that all people are female, with some exceptions.)  I realize that you want to discourage inappropriate voting (as do I), but our goal should be to convey an accurate statement in the first place.  (Polling can sometimes be helpful, but it also can be harmful and doesn't replace discussion or generate binding outcomes)."
 * As noted above, I later realized that such an expansion of the page's scope could be accomplished by merging the page with Straw polls.
 * At no point prior to the adoption of the title Polling is not a substitute for discussion did I (or anyone else, as far as I know) discuss the idea of using Polling as the title for the page in its current form. —David Levy 14:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. You later realized that such an expansion could be accomplished by merging. That is why this omitted text does not say anything about merging, and why when I was reading that text (and I re-read it at least five times over the course of this thread), I honestly did not understand how it in any way referenced merging. Your first statement on the page says the same, "I mentioned Polling as a potential title for a page expanded to cover additional ground. I later realized that a merger with Straw polls".
 * So we're talking past one another. I looked at the first quote and did not see references of merging. You looked at everything you wrote (which is obviously easier for you because you're the one that wrote it in the first place) and did see references to merging. And that is what we call a misunderstanding.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I plainly stated that "I mentioned Polling as a potential title for a page expanded to cover additional ground" and that "I later realized that a merger with Straw polls was possible." (And you just quoted this above.)
 * For some reason, you attempted to refute this claim by quoting a small portion of the very post that I cited (and neglecting to reference the paragraph in which I stressed my stance that the page's scope should be expanded to cover the good side of polling). I noted this fact, and you subsequently quoted that paragraph but omitted the text in which I stressed my stance that the page's scope should be expanded to cover the good side of polling.  This is highly relevant, as my point is that I never suggested Wikipedia:Polling as a potential title for the page in its current (anti-polling) form.
 * Regardless, that original post did not spawn discussion. It received a single reply (which didn't address the page's title) and was archived and forgotten.  All of the actual discussion pertained to the idea of a merger.  Polling isn't the most logical title for a page about the harm caused by polling, but it is the most logical title (IMHO) for a page about Wikipedia polling in general.  That's why I simultaneously proposed using Wikipedia:Polling as the title if a merger with Straw polls occurred and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion as the title if such a merger didn't occur.  —David Levy 14:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Look Dave, I simply did not understand that when reading it yesterday. "our goal should be to convey an accurate statement" is not necessarily the same as "stance that the page's scope should be expanded" and not the same as "merge". The fact that you just required three paragraphs to explain this may have something to do with that, or perhaps it's the fact that I can't actually read your mind. Does that really mean you need to spend five pages attacking me?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  07:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not attacking you, Radiant. I simply never claimed that the original statement had anything to do with a merger (and plainly stated that it didn't).  I don't know why you just quoted that single sentence portion (and cited its inability to represent the message conveyed by the post as a whole), but let's move on.
 * Are we in agreement that prior to the adoption of the title Polling is not a substitute for discussion, the name Polling was discussed only in the context of a hypothetical merged page (not the page in its current form)? —David Levy 08:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You have a rather strange definition of "not attacking" someone. I suggest you get an outsider to look over the many accusations you've leveled at me on this talk page and see if perhaps those were overly harsh?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Defending myself ≠ attacking you. I've merely noted that you've made misleading claims and expressed my frustration regarding this continual problem.  I have not accused you of acting in bad faith, though I believe that it's fair to criticise your incautious reading/interpretation of the available information.  You may have misunderstood the situation and omitted key details because you failed to appreciate their relevance, but that doesn't negate the need for me to refute your erroneous statements.
 * 2. Is that a "yes"? —David Levy 16:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that your intent is not to attack people, but your accusatory tone is nevertheless not helpful. The same applies to your recent debate with Kim (e.g. "he keeps posting bizarre messages" and so forth). I would suggest you exercise a little more tact.
 * At any rate, to get back to the issue at hand, while your suggestion of the name "polling" was intended for a page with a different scope, that doesn't change the fact that the present title is a long-standing compromise, between earlier titles as well as suggestions ranging from "polling and voting" to "Don't ever vote, no really we mean don't vote. And by the way did we say, we really mean it: don't vote".  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  07:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. You were posting misleading claims. Kim was posting bizarre messages (and subsequently acknowledged that he did so based upon false assumptions made without reading the relevant discussion).  I always try to avoid offending people, but one can only be so tactful without withholding the truth.
 * 2. So that's a "yes," right? —David Levy 12:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While admitting that I'm not an "outsider" I don't see anywhere here that David Levy was attacking anyone. All I see is a spade being called a spade. 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge of WP:PNSD and WP:POLL
Should not happen at this point in time.

I wonder why folks are so dead set on it though. :-/ --Kim Bruning 18:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Now is as good a time as any... there is zero point to waiting. What would the purpose of applying eventualism here be? 19:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The entire point of keeping the pages separate was to at least reduce the potential for fighting. Of course, now people are fighting over the merge.
 * So the plan for today is to first maybe stop fighting, and then maybe someone else can start thinking of merging. Like maybe next year or so.
 * Ok in fact, I propose to merge exactly never. I'd like the new guidelines to eventually replace PNSD. But they need a lot of work, and they need to be NPOV, and this reporting at a squillion different locations needs to stop.
 * If a mediator would like to help with that, that might be cool. --Kim Bruning 19:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "The plan for today" is to establish consensus. Okay?  —David Levy 21:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's kind of tricky to establish consensus between people who are displaying such levels of animosity. So that's not a good plan for today. First things first. :) --Kim Bruning 22:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean that we should actually seek to establish consensus today. I meant that we should be working toward it instead of bickering.  —David Levy 00:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * With that I agree. :-) --Kim Bruning 02:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)