Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Iasson: Difference between revisions

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:38, 15 Jan 2005), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC).

---

• (Iasson | talk | contributions)

---

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

Description

User:Iasson has been causing disruptions of the Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion page, as well as creating articles to back up his person point of view in the main wikipedia namespace.

• I accept that I have caused disruptions in Vfd by casting peculiar votes, but accusing me that I have create articles in the main wikipedia namespace to back up my person point is unnaceptable. Please stop accusing me for that, because it is a lie. Otherwise I will find a friend of mine and I will accuse in a RfC that you have thrown the atomic bomb in Hiroshima, you have killed Kennedy e.t.c. This is redicilus, you are abusing RFc and you should delete your accusations now. Iasson 18:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe the article creation is reffering to the (now deleted) List of Active Vfd Voters. I recognise that you dispute you were the anonymous user who created this, but you did embrace it and defend it during its VfD, and referenced it in other VfDs. You should be aware that launching frivilous (sp?) RfCs will leave you liable to a Request for Arbitration.

• note that prior to making this statement Iasson altered Hfool's description of the reason for the RfC (I will add diffs later, my connection is currently too slow). Thryduulf 19:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• [1] hfool/Roast me 01:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Also on the main RFC page. —Korath (Talk) 02:48, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I will continue to change RFC's main title. The title of RFC has to be NPOV and not support your POV, especially when your accusation that I have created anonymous articles to support my POV cannot be proved. I can also accuse you that you have create all anonymous articles in the wiki main space then with a friend of mine create an RFC for you. If you think I am wrong, make a Request for Arbitration for it. Iasson 07:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The RfC's title is "Requests for comment/Iasson", which can be read as "Requests for comments about Iasson". You cannot make this more NPOV.
• What you edited was the the allegations against you (and the brief summary of them on the main page). These are the opinion of the person requesting the RfC, and exist as a way of informing the community why comments are being requested. Editing the allegations against you is the equivalent situation to a defendent in a real-world law-suit editing the charges against them, effectively saying "I don't want to be charged with perverting the course of justice, I want to be charged with parking in peculiar places instead", or in a more extreme example "I don't want to be charged with murder, I want to be charged with affray". As in the real-world situation the defendent (you) has the right to defend themselves against the allegations made against them, not against the allegations they want to defend themselves against. Thryduulf 11:12, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I explained and below, my point is that you are allowed to make allegation only if you have proof of it. What is your proof that I have created articles in wikipedia name spaces in order to suppoort my POV? You dont have any proof, so you are not allowed to make an allegation. This is similar to real life if I accuse you for murder without any proof. If I will do this, then arrive to the court and asked about proofs and present none, then I am the one who is abusing the court. The same happens with you, you are abusing RFC policy by accusing me of creating articles without presenting any proof of it. Iasson 11:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Iasson has made similar pointless votes on WP:FAC. The votes are generally nonsensical, and clearly not designed to be helpful to improve the nominated article. - Taxman 17:07, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

1. Disruption of wikipedia to make a point: [2] and [3]
2. Most of this vote has examples in it: [4]
3. The anon here is suspected to be Iasson, as he uses the page in his votes: [[5]]

• No I am not the creator of this page, and I have found another who may also be suspected for creating that article, as he he uses the page in his personal page. [[6]] Iasson 11:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a terrible defense, Iasson. The point here is that you used it as a type of foil of acceptance for you peculiar votes. User:Xtra just thinks it's funny. hfool/Roast me 00:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I absolutely refute any such claim by Iasson. hfool is correct when he says i found the thing funny (farsical, more like). making baseless comments about people to throw the suspicion off yourself is defamation in the real world. Xtra 02:33, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Most of the VfD votes he has cast, as listed here: [7]
2. Unilateral changes to Wikipedia:Deletion policy [8]
3. Unilateral changes to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators [9]

• Evidence for the second claim. Here is one of the votes: "Object. because I dont like stars to be in front page. I suggest: To use unanimity minus one as decision rule. To keep the article in front page for 2 days if nominated otherwise keep it away from the featured article candidate list for 4 months. Minimum voters I suggest to be 12 in a 5 days period. Iasson 12:30, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)" [10] and [11] First, the vote doesn't follow any of the established criteria, of which not liking the topic is clearly not one of them. Second, the user has been asked not to make policy suggestions in votes; there are appropriate avenues for that. Third, the suggestion doesn't make sense in the light of FAC and main page featuring policy. Fourth, what does minimum voters have to do with anything? Fifth, FAC already has a well established 2 week voting period. Fifth, the user posted similar votes to other nominations, but varied the numbers in the suggestions arbitrarily, evidence of the lack of any attempt to be helpful, but instead just being problematic. Also, forgot to mention the above quoted vote is on a nomination with otherwise unanimous support. - Taxman 17:16, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point
2. No self-reference

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. User talk:Iasson. Note the multiple attempts to achieve reasonable dialoge.
2. User talk:Humblefool
3. [12]
4. User:Thryduulf. Note particularly Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/South African Art Music
5. User:Wyss

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. hfool/Roast me 02:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. Thryduulf 11:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Stormie 07:11, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
2. Korath (Talk) 18:37, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
3. RickK 21:13, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
4. I want Iasson to stop spamming the VfD votes with comments which proport to represent voting policy, but which in fact do not, and which might mislead new voters. Vote on the VfD, and explain your reason for voting that way; don't abuse the VfD page by constantly filling it with new ideas for how votes themselves should be taken.Jayjg | (Talk) 02:39, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
5. Raven42 04:35, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
6. Carnildo 04:42, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
7. Xtra 04:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
8. RadicalSubversiv E 00:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) Troubled that this behavior is continuing even after RFC certification.
9. Szyslak 10:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
10. This user's ongoing attempts to impose his own rules on VfD voting have been merely a distraction (but a repeated one, showing disregard for collaborative process) to those of us who know the policies, but has been out-and-out misleading and counterproductive for relative newcomers dealing with their own articles or starting to help contribute to VfD. RfC discussion below shows that the user is finally agreeing to more cooperative measures, and I hope these can be fine-tuned enough to resolve the matter without further conflict. Some of WP's policies are amenable to precise definitions and quantitative rules, and some aren't. lasson and others who find this unsatisfactory should either send their proposals through discussion processes or start their own project, rather than claiming power to force unagreed rules upon the community. Barno 18:20, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
11. Looks like either deliberate obstruction (or a bizarre world view) to me. - Solipsist 20:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
12. DCEdwards1966 21:13, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

objection to point of evidence

quote: The anon here is suspected to be Iasson, as he uses the page in his votes: [[13]]

• This accusation is unfair! I demand to withdraw it now! you are abusing RFC. Iasson 18:53, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC). [moved from directly below the quoted point in the Evidence section by Thryduulf]
  • The accusation is not unfair. Read it again carefully and note the word "suspected". The Response section is for your defence, where you can present any evidence you have to the contrary. Thryduulf 21:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you crazy? Evidence of what? Do YOU have an evidence that YOU did NOT wrote that article? You dont have of course. So you are also suspected of writting it! I think you have a serious problem with your logic. Are you a man or a woman? Iasson 06:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't have evidence that I didn't create the article - the difference is that nobody has accused me of creating it. Either of us could request the evidence from a sysop (see Jamesday's evidence in this arbitration case[14]).
  • This is not an abuse of RfC, it is stating the basis for the dispute about which comments are being requested - which is the point of an RfC. The Response section is for you to present your defence to any statement you disagree with. Thryduulf 21:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This is the logical wrong you are doing. Not ANY statement. Your statements have to make sense and they have to have a chance to be proved, otherwise you are not allowed to state them. Your statement that I am creating anonmymous articles in wiki main space to support my POV does not make sense. Please change the word "creating articles" with the word "editing articles" otherwise I will not stop change it. thank you. Iasson 08:03, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • "This is the logical wrong you are doing. Not ANY statement." I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying here and so I can't answer it.
      • "Your statements have to make sense and they have to have a chance to be proved, otherwise you are not allowed to state them." All the allegations made are backed up with evidence that supports them, or at least that the person making the allegations believes they support them. If you believe that any of the allegations are incorrect, then state this in the reposnse section. If you have evidence that you believe supports you, present it.
      • "Your statement that I am creating anonmymous articles in wiki main space to support my POV does not make sense. Please change the word "creating articles" with the word "editing articles" otherwise I will not stop change it." The statement is not mine, and so I cannot change it. Whether it makes sense or not (which it does), is different from whether it is correct or not (which you dispute). If you believe it is incorrect, you should say so and state what you believe to be correct. Nothing gives you the right, or me the right, or anybody else the right, to edit another persons words in an RfC. Thryduulf 11:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree with that. "Nothing gives you the right, or me the right, or anybody else the right, to edit another persons words". The problem is that the above words saying that I have created articles in order to support my POV, are offeding me because they are not true. If I start saying offending words, are you allowed or not to edit them? Lets negotiate. At least let me change from "creating" to "editing", or change from "articles" to "article". Your supposed flawed proof refers to only one article possibly created by me. Why this "articles" word appears in RFC? Where are the rest articles, and your proof that I have created them? Iasson 12:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • As I mentioned above, I did not write those words and so I cannot change them. I am not therefore in a position to negotiate with you. Thryduulf 12:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • Yes you didnt write them, but remember that those words have to be signed by two persons in order to exist in this RFC. If you repeal your signature from the word "articles" or from the word "created", then those words do not have two signatures and do not deserve to appear in this RFC. According to the RFC policy you are allowed to edit them because you also have signed them. Iasson 12:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
              • I am certifying that I believe what hfool as said to be true, and that I have done what he said I have done. I stand by that. I have also added in a couple of points. At no point will I edit Hfool's words on this page. I will not remove my signature from the words you object to, becuase I believe they do deserve to be on this RfC. Thryduulf 13:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Iasson's poll

I can see that some wikipedians want me to stop casting peculiar votes of the type [poll option, decision rule, time the decision should be valid, poll's minimum participation] .I would like to ask them some questions, in order to be able to decide what to do. Dear wikipedians, I am asking you to express your opinion whether I have to stop casting peculiar votes or not. I ask especially Stormie,Korath, RickK, Jayjg, Raven42, Carnildo, Xtra, Radicalsubversiv, Szyslak and Barno to answer me in order to be able to take my stop or continue decision . Could you please asnwer all the below questions?

Important note.: I added a Vote: prefix in front of the votes, in order to count them and take the decision. If someone things what he said is not actually a vote, he can remove the Vote: prefix and his opinion is not going to be counted in the final result.

Shall Iasson stop or continue casting peculiar votes inside Vfd?

yes? no? whatever?

• Vote:Stop. Andrewa
• Vote:Stop. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Stop. Rossami (talk) 04:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Stop. —Korath (Talk) 04:39, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Stop. dbenbenn | talk 05:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Stop. Taxman 12:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Stop. Xtra 14:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Stop. hfool/Roast me 00:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Continue.Iasson 10:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Stop. Jayjg | (Talk) 00:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• vote:Stop. Thryduulf 00:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What decision rule shall I follow in order to extract a decision whether to stop or continue?

unanimity? strong majority? simple majority? highest minority?

• Vote:simple majority. Thryduulf 10:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:consensus. If we explain why your "peculiar voting" is detrimental to the Wikipedia project, you should stop because you are here to do things that are helpful to the Wikipedia project. Tuf-Kat 22:17, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • comment: What is consensus finnaly? Is consensus a decision rule or a measurement in order to count poll's participation (as Thryduulf voted below)? I really dont know if my peculiar votes are detrimental for wikipedia or not. If they are really detrimental, lets vote about it and prohibit them tottaly from all wikipedia places.Iasson 07:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know what Is consensus a decision rule or a measurement in order to count poll's participation (as Thryduulf voted below)? means, so I can't answer that -- consensus means, ideally, that everyone is in agreement; more practically, it means that a large majority are in agreement, though the circumstances can change how much of a majority or who is counted. It is true that consensus is not a clear-cut method of making a decision; in general, I think Wikipedians feel that, as a goal, it is nevertheless the fairest way to run the project. I (and others) have explained how your votes are detrimental below: do you not understand the claim that new users will be confused by your declarations? Do you not think this is detrimental? Voting on these issues should not be done, because Wikipedia does not use voting in most circumstances; instead, we discuss and try to come to agreement (i.e. consensus). Do you agree or disagree that stating erroneous policy could confuse newcomers? Do you agree or disagree that confusing newcomers is detrimental to Wikipedia? Tuf-Kat 23:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • I am a newcomer, and you are confusing me with your detrimental Vfd policy, which does not define clearly a decision method to be used in order to extract decisions from Vfd polls. You are not only confusing me, but also offending me by saying that my vote is just a suggestion and may not be counted, and it is in the judgement of the admin cabal to decide finnaly whether or not the candidate article is going to be deleted. Iasson 08:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • i sincerely hope that is a joke if you want to stay around wikipedia for long. Xtra 08:41, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, Carnildo said that our votes in Vfd are not votes but just suggestions to the admins. And Tuf-Kat said that the final delete decision is not made by the voting procedure but by an admin who is based on an undefined and blur thing named consensus. This makes me believe that there is an administrator cabal behind which dont want a legitimate electorate to be defined. They dont want also Vfd policy to be defined accurately in order for the admins to be able to decide whatever they want and cancel our votes. I hope I am wrong, but if I am right I am asking the cabal to appear here, admit that they will never define a legitimate electorate or an accurate Vfd decision policy, then I am going to leave this place and stop bothering you before send me away. Iasson 09:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Simple majority of logged-in users who, at the time of the announcement of the poll, had made edits to at least 10 different articles which edits had each survived for at least 2 weeks without being reverted or deleted. Andrewa
• Vote:If Iasson feels that the vote expresses a rough consensus that he should stop, he should stop. If Iasson is unable to judge rough consensus, he should ask me to judge and abide by my decision. Unanimity always represents rough consensus; as a guideline, barring reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry or other irregularities, 2/3 represents rough consensus. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

why my name is mentioned here? Lasson 20:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Vote:Rough consensus, per Dpbsmith. —Korath (Talk) 04:39, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Rough consensus. - Taxman 12:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Rough consensus. hfool/Roast me 00:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote: Average rule. Means either concatenate time and allow Iasson to cast his peculiar votes for example 1 month in a year, or allow Iasson to cast his peculiar votes not in all Vfd candidate articles but in a percentage of them.Iasson 10:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Rough consensus. Jayjg | (Talk) 00:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How long the stop or continue decision I will take should be valid?

1 day? 100 years? until this or another poll says otherwise?

• Vote:until there is a change in VfD policy that reflects your opinion. Thryduulf 10:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Until the situation changes so that your manner of voting is no longer detrimental to the project. This will probably never happen. Tuf-Kat 22:17, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Permanently. Andrewa
• Vote:Until there is a change in VfD policy that reflects your opinion. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Until there is a change in VfD policy that reflects your opinion. Rossami (talk) 04:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Until there is a change in VfD policy that reflects your opinion. —Korath (Talk) 04:39, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Until there is a change in VfD policy that reflects your opinion. dbenbenn | talk 05:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Until there is a change in VfD policy that reflects differently. - Taxman 12:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Until there is a change in VfD policy that reflects your opinion. Xtra 14:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Permanently. hfool/Roast me 00:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:As explained above, it should be valid for as long as the Average rule requires. Iasson 10:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:until there is a change in VfD policy that reflects your opinion. Jayjg | (Talk) 00:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How many voters have to vote in Iasson's poll in order for the stop or continue decision to be a legitimate one?

• Vote:the point of an RfC is to try and gain a consensus. Thryduulf 10:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • comment: Strange... Tuf-Kat thinks consensus is a decision rule and you think is a measurement in order to count poll's participation. Could you please define consensus accurately? Iasson 07:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know what your question is Iasson, but AFAICT, Thryfuulf and I are in agreement on what consensus is. Consensus means that there is agreement on an issue. It is often impossible for there to be complete consensus, where everybody agrees with a particular solution; thus, we sometimes make decisions about what constitutes consensus -- if you disagree with such a decision, there are methods of reversal for anything an admin or other Wikipedian does. The number of people who voice an opinion is mostly irrelevant to consensus because those who do not voice an opinion can be presumed not to care. Tuf-Kat 23:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • I disagree with you. The number of people who voice an opinion is tottaly relevant because those who do not voice an opinion can be presumed to believe that the issue is not important, thus no decision has to be made on that issue. Iasson 10:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:the number of users is mostly irrelevant. Tuf-Kat 22:17, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:One. Andrewa
• Vote:The number of users is irrelevant. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Two, per RFC certification. —Korath (Talk) 04:39, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:the number of users is mostly irrelevant. - Taxman 12:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Vote: as many or as little as choose to express themselves in this forum. Xtra 14:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote: two seems sane, since this vote's already passed it. hfool/Roast me 00:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote: We should count the active voters of a legitimate electorate defined by the admin, and 2% of them have to vote within 5 days, in order for the decision to be also legitimate. As long some active voters become inactive, the above percentage should remain the same.This means that new active voters are required to arrive and cast their vote in this decision, in order for the decision to remain legitimate.Iasson 10:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Two, per RFC certification. Jayjg | (Talk) 00:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Non peculiar polls

Could you please vote on those polls too?

Andrewa's poll: When should the Iasson's poll close?

• Vote: Never Iasson 07:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Will you give the same answers in case another person cast similar to Iasson peculiar votes?

or your answers on the above questions are related to my person and you may change your answers in case another person behaves similar?

• Vote:if you are asking "would you give the same answers to someone else who was doing similar things to me?", then yes. Thryduulf 10:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • comment: I see. So your vote on whether or not peculiar type votes should be prohibited is: [prohibit peculiar votes, use majority rule to decide, decision should be valid until VfD policy changes, min participation should be consensus ]. You have just cast a peculiar vote! You said that peculiar votes should be prohibited, is your peculiar vote an exception? I am advicing you insteed of voting "prohibit peculiar votes" to vote: "prohibit peculiar votes except this one" otherwise the peculiar vote you have just cast in order to prohibit peculiar votes should be prohibited too. Iasson 11:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • please tell me where I have voted to "prohibit peculiar votes"? Also, this is not a VfD. Thryduulf 11:24, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • So your peculiar vote is: ["prohibit tottaly peculiar votes inside Vfd but allow peculiar votes when we are about to decide whether peculiar votes should be prohibited inside Vfd or not", "use majority rule to take the decision", "whatever the decision is it should be valid until VfD policy changes to clearly allow or dissalow peculiar type votes", "min participation in this poll should be consensus"] . Is this your accurate vote? Iasson 11:31, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Even if, in worst case, peculiar votes are going to be prohibited from every wikipedian poll, I am very glad that they have to be used at least once, when we are about to decide whether to prohibit them or not. So they are not tottaly useless, arent they? :-) Iasson 12:12, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:Yes, these rules should apply to everybody. You are never allowed to deliberately misrepresent policy, because that is editing in bad faith. The goal of VfD is to discuss articles which some people feel are unsuitable for Wikipedia; this discussion often involves people stating a straightforward keep or delete. If you would like to express an opinion on a particular article on VfD, please do so. If you would like to express an opinion on deletion policy, please do so at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. In either case, the goal is to gain a consensus, or something very much like it. Arbitrarily declaring changes to the vote-counting procedure is bad faith behavior, made contrary to, in spite of and detrimentally away from, consensus. Tuf-Kat 22:17, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • comment: My opinion is that you are the one who misrepresents Vfd policy. Vfd policy allows votes and comments and not just a simple keep-delete, prohibits tottaly the deletion of votes and of course nowhere it is written that peculiar votes are prohibited. I think you are the one who declares changes to the vote-counting procedure. My peculiar votes are actually the accurate opinion I have for each proposed for deletion article (thats why they are not always the same) Iasson 07:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The deletion policy allows for comments on whether or not an article should be deleted. Rewriting the procedure for VfD is not a comment germane to any individual page on VfD; such comments are germane to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. I have certainly never declared changes to the vote-counting procedure, and have not misrepresented deletion policy. You are allowed to vote or otherwise express an opinion on the retention or deletion of any article you like; if your vote was deleted, it shouldn't have been (please point to a page this occurred on, so I can discuss the matter with whoever is responsible). This is very different from expressing an opinion on how the VfD page works; there is a place to express such an opinion, and it is Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. In the words of the deletion policy itself, When someone has listed an article for deletion on one of the lists, anyone else may comment on the request. (thus, policy says you may "comment on the request (for deletion)"). In addition, the deletion policy explains consensus: if a rough consensus (what a rough consensus is is not set in stone, some do consider a 2/3 majority a "rough consensus", while others believe consensus implies a higher ratio) has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. In what way have I misrepresented this policy? Tuf-Kat 23:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • This is not clear. Some people say 2/3 majority is ok, some others says another percentage is ok, and if you follow the rough consensus link you finnaly arrive to a text named recommendations to admins (or something like that) that says that rough consensus has not set up in stone, and it is finnaly in administrator's judgement to decide, due to the fear of sock puppets and to the lack of a legitimate electorate. I want to ask you a question. Who are the people who decided that a 2/3 majority is rough consensus? Can you name them? Can you point to a relevant poll, where a legitimate electorate of all active wikepedia voters have decided that rough consensus is defined as a 2/3 majority. If you can point to that poll, I want to ask you also another question. Have all the active wikipedians (and especially the newcomers) that belong to the legitimate electorate the right to vote and repeal their vote in this relevent poll? Iasson 10:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• This isn't a vote. --Carnildo 20:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • comment: Yes it is. Iasson 07:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • You're obfuscating the issue, Iasson. I'm sure you know what we want, and I'm almost sure you don't want to do it. So you're delaying the implementation of community consensus. And here, community consensus is whoever shows up, just like in real life: the people who bother are the people who are heard. So, is the community consensus to tell Iasson to go through the proper channels, keep attempts at policy-definition votes and comments off the main VfD page and related sub-pages, and lastly to, uh...pay 5 wikibucks? hfool/Roast me 01:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I really dont know what you want. If you want peculiar votes to be prohibited from Vfd policy, vote for it and write it down to the Vfd policy. As long as there is ambiguity whether peculiar votes are allowed or not, I beleive nobody has the right to prevent me casting my peculiar votes or even worst delete my votes as long as deleting votes is clearly prohibited by Vfd policy. As I can see you also have a alternative definition of what consensus is. Consensus are the people who bother and the people who are heard. Shall I put your definition (along with the definitions of Thryduulf and Tuf-Kat) to Consensus article? According to my opinion, consensus is not only the people who bother and the people who are shouting, consensus are also the people who voted for Vfd policy and said deletion of votes is not allowed and now they stay silent, but this is of course another definition of consensus. Iasson 08:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Iasson, you really don't make sense. Which part of the following do you disagree with: There is a deletion policy. Any article may be nominated for deletion, provided the nomination is in good faith. Anyone may comment on the nomination, provided the comment is in good faith. The nomination is valid for at least five days. After the nomination period, an admin decides if there is consensus to delete. If there is consensus, the article is deleted. If there is not consensus, the article is kept. This is not about a "vote to delete peculiar votes" or any such nonsense. On a VfD page, you can make any comment you want provided it is made in a good faith attempt to reach consensus on whether or not an article is deleted. Your comments are not an attempt to reach consensus on the nominated article, they are an attempt to change deletion policy. It is appropriate for you to attempt to change deletion policy at precisely one place: Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Tuf-Kat 23:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • I am new here, I dont want your established policies. But let me take your quote I am supposed to agree with and analyze it.
        • There is a deletion policy.': Is this policy voted somewhere by a legitimate electorate or it is decided by an admin cabal? As long as I am new here, can I also vote against or in favor of this policy?
          • Yes, but discuss it in the proper location, as noted above. Your comments will be considered on their merits. If you purposely try to be difficult and not helpful, your votes will be discounted. If you vote in good faith, and don't do it in a way that purposely annoys other users, your vote will be heard. - Taxman 17:38, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
            • Please forgive me but I consider the answer "If your votes are in good faith they are going to count, otherwise will be discounted" a typical cabal answer. Iasson 21:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
              • As you wish. You can either try to help Wikipedia be the best it can be or you can be disruptive. I recommend the former. - Taxman 12:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
        • Any article may be nominated for deletion, provided the nomination is in good faith. Anyone may comment on the nomination, provided the comment is in good faith.: Well, Can you please define good faith? Is good faith whatever an administrator judges to be good faith? I dont know what good faith is, so please use another word insteed.
          • Good faith is a well established, and very useful term. Please read its definition - [15]. - Taxman 17:38, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
            • I am sorry, that didnt help me to understand what good faith is. Iasson 21:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
              • Then you didn't try very hard. Look for other definitions that are helpful to you. - Taxman 12:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
        • The nomination is valid for at least five days.: I disagree. The nomination validity should depend on the article nominated.
        • After the nomination period, an admin decides if there is consensus to delete. If there is consensus, the article is deleted. If there is not consensus, the article is kept.: Similar to good faith, please define consensus. If you dont it is because you are an admin who actually want to do whatever you want, and you keep playing with undefined words, like consensus or good faith in order to trick us. Iasson 06:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Accepted standards for many cases of voting are 75-80% is rough consensus. But that can be adjusted as needed, and it is accepted that bad faith votes can be discounted entirely if needed. Please discuss voting policy in the correct locations, not by making disruptive votes. Please continue learning how to edit in good faith. If you improve your edit behavior, people will evaluate you based on that, and your positions will carry more weight. We are purposely a meritocracy. Play fair, edit in good faith, and you will be treated well on the whole. - Taxman 17:38, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
            • I am sorry, but the answer "for many cases of voting 75-80% is rough consensus" is also a typical cabal answer. Can you please define accurately these "many" cases you are mentioning? And what about the "rest" cases? I would like you to define rough consenus for ALL cases, not just tell for "many" cases without defining the "many" word. If you cannot tell us what exactly those "many" cases are, could you at least tell us how many those "many" cases are? 40%? 50% 78%? Iasson 21:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
              • I'm not going to waste more time here combing through all of those. The established policy is working relatively well. If you have good ideas to improve it, discuss that in the correct locations. See the below point in 'MacGyverMagic's comment'. - Taxman 12:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • hfool said:"...pay 5 wikibucks?" What we have here? A bribery or a robery? This is unacceptable dear wikipedians! I think I am going to propose hfool for an RfC too!Iasson 07:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Whatever. Tuf-Kat
• Vote:In response to the question: "Whatever is your answer to the above 3 questions, will you give the same answers in case another person cast similar to mine peculiar votes?" We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It is very unlikely that someone else would act in exactly the same way, and not useful to try to define the bounds of the behavior. In general, I would oppose any consistent pattern of behavior that obfuscates or misrepresents VfD policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote:These exact circumstances will never arise again, but were they to do so I would vote in the same way. I don't see the above votes as setting terribly useful precedents, but I could be wrong there. I hope not. Andrewa
• Vote:Disruption is disruption. It doesn't matter who does it. —Korath (Talk) 04:46, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Vote: you are and will be treated no differently than someone else who does exactly the same. Xtra 14:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote: Users of the Wikipedai are to be treated as equally as possible. hfool/Roast me 00:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote: All wikipedians are equal in front of the policy, but some wikipedians are more equals than others. Iasson 10:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How will you punish Iasson if he acts against the will of Iasson's poll?

• Vote:FIne. I'll answer you right now. This entire nonsensical poll of yours does not belong here, but on the Talk page of this article, but since you've asked me to comment, I will. The next time you cast one of your disruptive votes, I will delete the disruptive part (as I have done, but you keep reverting it), and leave the vote part of it. And if you revert it ONCE, I will block you for 24 hours. If you revert it twice, I will block you for 48 hours. IS THAT UNDERSTOOD? RickK 23:09, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think you are not allowed to punish me, you have to reach consensus for that. In the name of what policy you are going to punish me? Iasson 10:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vote: Any acts against the will of this will be punished as above.
• Vote: No. Iasson 10:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A peculiar vote in another format

Comment: Per Iasson's request, my answers are: (0) Stop. Desist. (1) Consensus. Since you won't accept that this can have a sufficiently clear meaning, try "simple majority" for this case. (2) Until either the condition cited by Thryduulf or the condition cited by Tuf-Kat in their answers to this question is true. (3) Enough to show a consensus. See how many editors have endorsed or supported this RfC? See how many (one) have supported your side in any way? I consider that sufficient to identify a strong consensus. You don't need fifteen people to explicitly respond to your out-of-WP-procedure "poll" for the community's opinion to be clear. Barno 21:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for casting your peculiar vote in the format I prefer, you seem to be an experianced peculiar voter. But unfortunately a lot of people cannot understand it that way and they prefer to cast their peculiar votes using the questions format. Can I split your votes to the appropriate questions in order for the unexperienced peculiar voters to understand them easily ? Iasson 12:16, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MacGyverMagic's comment

Iasson, you can request policy changes on the talk page of the policy in question or the policy page at the village pump. Administrators are only a small group of the total number of editors, thus you should be able to get any good suggestion through eventually. Also, note that the deletion policy has worked without much problems so far.

The only reason administrators can make the decision is because they have proven to be trustworthy editors. Any problems can be brought up at Requests for undeletion so an admin decision in the matter can be overturned.

Also, the top of the page states that deletion should be decided based on existing policy. If the existing policy should fail, you can always suggest something else. Posting suggestions regarding policy that don't comply with current policy with your votes is annoying and defies the reason for the comment possibility. You can comment on the article. Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

• thank you for your answers. But you also, like the others fellow wikipedians, are using words I cannot define, so I cannot understand them. Words like goodfaith, consensus, or trust. Why administrators are trustworthy? Why I am not? Do you have some kind of trust metric system? Iasson 11:11, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course those words can be defined, but the point you are missing and are unreasonably leaning upon is trying to make some mathematical and overly precise definition of them. By doing so you are pusposely wasting other editors time and disrupting wikipedia. Please stop or go find somewhere else to play. There doesn't have to be a defined trust metric system in any human encounter for people to decide who they trust and who they don't. Your actions have clearly placed you in the position of very little trust from any editors that have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. - Taxman 13:59, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you have made the most important point, Taxman. As we use them, terms like consensus, good faith and trust are not strictly defined. I think the reason is that nobody has found very agreeable definitions to use in all situations, because there are so many variables that change the way these things should be measured. It is a messy method, but nevertheless, it is our method until a new one is adopted (hint: you have to propose it, as a first step). If you want to change it, Iasson, there are undoubtedly good reasons to do so. Why don't you start writing them down (you can probably guess where), and maybe make a list of whatever makes you think the current system isn't working very well. Tuf-Kat 22:42, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Current Results of Iasson's poll

Here you can find the current result of the poll. Iasson is always forced to implement the decision of the poll, whatever this decision may be. The current result seems to stop Iasson casting his peculiar votes but I am not sure about it. I am not tottaly sure that a rough consensus has been reached in the decision method question of Iasson's poll, in order for the rough consensus to be the elected decision method that is going to be used to extract the decision. Not to mention that I still cannot understand what rough consensus is, with all those sock puppets living around. Lets count the votes of the proposed decision methods:

• Rough consensus: 4 votes.
• Consensus: 1 vote.
• Simple majority: 1 vote.
• Simple majority of logged-in users who, at the time of the announcement of the poll, had made edits to at least 10 different articles which edits had each survived for at least 2 weeks without being reverted or deleted: 1 vote
• Average rule: 1 vote.
• If Iasson feels that the vote expresses a rough consensus that he should stop, he should stop. If Iasson is unable to judge rough consensus, he should ask me to judge and abide by my decision. Unanimity always represents rough consensus; as a guideline, barring reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry or other irregularities, 2/3 represents rough consensus: 1 vote.

Maybe I have to ask Dpbsmith opinion?

comment:The above was written by Iasson, the subject of the RfC. - Taxman 12:50, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Iasson, if you are acting in good faith, and not trying to chop logic or game the system that you yourself set up, it should be clear to you that the result of applying any of these decision rules is the same: you should stop. Actually, it occurs to me that a good definition of "rough consensus" is that rough consensus exists when many different reasonable decision rules lead to the same outcome. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agree, well put. (Acknowledging that this comment really belongs on the talk page not in the RfC itself, but that distinction seems long lost in the case of this page.) Andrewa 00:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your advices Dpbsmith. Let me object on what you said that "it should be clear to you that the result of applying any of these decision rules is the same". If I am going to apply the Average rule, then the results are not the same, and I am allowed to cast my peculiar votes in a percentage of 9.09% (10 stop,1 continue) of the total amount of the nominated for deletion articles. Of course,by using the Average rule, I am allowed to apply Average Rule only in a small fragment of time, as long as according to the votes the most of the time rough consenus has to be used (the 4/9 of the time). By counting the current votes and implementing the average rule method I found that I am currently allowed to implement average rule only in the one ninth (1/9) of time, so I have to set in stone now the maximum time unit that is required by the average rule to be set. Shall I use one second? one hour? one month? one year? lifetime? one century? eternity? I dont know... But when the time will come, I will use the average rule method and I will cast my peculiar votes. I have no consensus with rough consensus.

Except for the average rule, my other hope is for the active voters of the legitimate electorate to become inactives. In that case, may the new active legitimate voters change their vote and allow me to cast peculiar votes.Iasson 07:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Legitimate Electorate and Active Voters of Iasson's poll

Not all votes are going to be counted in order to extract the result. Votes of sock puppets are discounted, also votes of people who have bad faith (nooo the second is a joke, I am not member of any cabal). The legitimate electorate is going to be defined here, also a trust metric system in order to judge the new comers if they are sock puppets or not.

The current legitimate electorate is :

vote: hfool/Thryduulf(1 person), Stormie,Korath, RickK, Jayjg, Raven42, Carnildo, Xtra, Radicalsubversiv, Szyslak, Barno, Taxman, Solipsist, DCEdwards1966, Andrewa, Dpbsmith, Rossami, dbenbenn, Tuf-Kat -- Iasson 13:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not all the members of the legitimate electorate are also active ones. To become an active voter you have to vote to Iasson's poll, and also you have to show your continuous interest for the Vfd procedure by voting or commenting there frequently (frequency time period has not set up in stone yet). The votes of inactive voters are discounted until they become active voters again.

The active voters of Iasson's poll are:

comment:The above was written by Iasson, the subject of the RfC. The subject of the RfC trying to decide the "legitimate electorate" is disingenuous at best. - Taxman 12:54, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

What is your proposed legitimate electorate? Can you name them? Name your proposed legitimate electorate and sign it, in order for the trust metric system to start working. Iasson 13:54, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

comment: I am not the same person as hfool. I have one "sockpuppet" account - Awkward42, this fact and the reasons for it are documented on the user pages of both users. Thryduulf 00:40, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Best impression of Clinton:I would like to deny all anegations of sockpuppetry, and say that Iasson has been complaining about the "threat of sockpuppetry" is used as an excuse by admins to ignore legitamate votes in VfD. Both accusations are patently false. I should be flattered, I guess. It shows that Iasson thinks I would be smart enought to run two accounts - it's diffucult to make them sould like different people, I hear. hfool/Roast me 04:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

comment The results of the poll are the same, no matter which proposed decision method is used, and regardless of whether the count includes all votes or only the votes on Iasson's own list of the "legitimate electorate." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not. If I am going to apply the Average rule, then the results are not the same, and I am allowed to cast my peculiar votes in a percentage of the total amount of the nominated for deletion articles. Of course,by using the Average rule, I am allowed to apply Average Rule only in a very small fragment of time, as long as according to the votes the most of the time rough consenus has to be used. Iasson 07:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disruption is alleged, but there is no evidence of disruption at all

Having considered the matter carefully, I wish to oppose each element of the claims against Iasson. He is accused of disruption, with absolutely no evidence of disruption.

Having a view of rules or process or content or whatever and expressing that view is not disruption. In my view, this RfC is more disruptive per se than anything done by Iasson specified as disruptive.

I believe this does not pass the threshold of disruption, as it is currently defined. If the claim is that Iasson has misinterpreted Wikipedia policy and that it is confusing others, can I politely suggest an RfC is not the likely solution. It is better to clarify the policy on the appropriate pages.

Further, "no self-reference" clearly requires further explanation and some evidence. I have no idea what it refers to.

As to the charge that "unilateral" changes were made by Iasson, I suspect every user is guilty of that from time to time.

I do not speak for Iasson, nor have I communicated with Iasson at all, and I suspect Iasson can write his own summary at the appropriate time. Ollieplatt 00:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Could you please vote on my poll, to support my free speach against the tyrany of the majority? thank you. Iasson 11:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Ollieplatt's summary

Expressing a view - however unpopular - by voting cannot be said to be disruption. This RfC should be withdrawn, redrafted and if it makes even the mildest threshold of logic be resubmitted. Wikipedia ought not be a tyranny of the majority. Ollieplatt 19:12, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tuf-Kat's summary

Iasson's votes and desire to reform the VfD procedure are undoubtedly in good faith. I doubt anyone would disagree with this. However, he has been informed on multiple occasions that his proposed procedure is not the proper one, and has been told how he should go about making his suggestion reality. If he has brought it up on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion or Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy or somewhere logical like that, there has been little or no agreement from other wikiusers. This seems like a very minor issue to me, however -- his vote to keep or delete is still counted, and no one has ever tried to enforce his proposed policy, as far as I know.

Nevertheless, pages on VfD see a lot of activity from new users attracted there because their newly-written article has been proposed for deletion, and they wish to understand why. His comments, which are always written as statements of fact (i.e. they are written to give the impression of being policy), may be confusing to these new users who have no prior understanding of what policy is. They may read his procedure, for example, and think that keeping their article will require keep votes from a much larger number of people than will actually vote, which may dissuade them from explaining why an article is necessary (since they think such a large number of people need convincing, when, in fact, consensus often requires only a few people in obvious cases). Thus, his comments are detrimental to the functioning of the VfD process. If he feels he must explain what would be required to delete each article under his proposal, he should be required to at least phrase it in such a manner that nobody could believe that the proposed process is the one that will be followed. Tuf-Kat

1. Endorse. --JuntungWu 11:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Further, endorse RickK's comments. --JuntungWu 10:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Endorse. Thank you for your advices. Here is the type of vote I am going to use for now on. Please tell me if it is correctly expressed, as long as english is not my native language: "I vote to Keep this article. I vote as decision method (in order to decide whether to keep or delete this article) to be used the strong majority(2/3) decision method. I vote for the keep_or_delete decision to be valid for 14 months then reconsider. I vote for this Vfd poll to be legitimate only if after 5 days voters' participation will exceed 3% of the Active Vfd Voters + 3 votes. ". Iasson 08:23, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. No. Why not just vote keep or delete as needed, and point to a place in your User space where you discuss your problems with the voting? RickK 08:25, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

1. I would prefer to point to a place in Vfd policy where those issues are defined and written. Can you point me to that place?. Those issues I am pointing to are very essential in order to take the final keep_delete decision. If you play with these variables you can actually decide whatever you want. I think it is not correct to let any upstart member of the admin cabal to decide these variables as his own occasion serves. As long as these variables are not voted, defined or written anywhere, I think it is right to propose my own variables in order to prompt people to think and decide about this issue , of course by making it clear that they are just propositions. (ooops) Iasson 09:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Let me also make it clear that my proposed policy requires that for every single proposed for deletion article, all of the above variables to be voted along with the keep or delete vote. Of course I understand that some people may assume that all proposed for deletion articles should have a common policy. Unfortunately this common policy for all candidates for deletion articles has never be discussed, voted or written accurately anywhere, so I may also assume otherwise. Especially as long as I can find articles proposed for speedy deletion that obviously have a different deletion policy than the rest articles. Iasson 10:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia deletion policy is at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. You can discuss changes to the deletion policy on that article's Talk page. But it is unacceptable to try to get a revote on deletion policy on every VfD discussion. This is why you have been listed here. RickK 10:37, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

   I am not trying to get a revote on deletion policy on every VfD discussion. I am just trying (on issues where Vfd policy is not clear at all) to give my own interpretation of what it should be done in the specific case. Imagine it is something similar to the decision an admin takes in order to judge if an article is candidate for speedy deletion or not. What I am trying to do is to tell my opinion on how much speedy_delete an article is, by using numeriqual quantities and not subjective words. You seem to dislike my own interpratation of Vfd policy which is actually a proposition, but you do not complain at all when administrators not only propose but also implement their own subjective interpretation of Vfd policy. Why? Vfd policy has do be clarified, it should not remain a blur document, in favor of any upstart member of the admin cabal who wishes to decide as his own occasion serves. Thats exactly where my peculiar vote points to. Iasson 11:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) Template:Fn

You're contributions to VfD pages are having the opposite effect to what you desire, if that is clarification of VfD policy. The current policy is very simple:

1. 1 person proposes deletion
2. 1 or more people posts there opinion to Keep, Delete, Merge, Move and/or Redirect, and any comments they wish to make about it.
3. After 5 days an administrator takes the apropriate action based on the votes and comments.
4. If people disagree with this action there is the votes for undeletion procedure.

Speedy deletes only happen in a very strictly defined cases, anyone may request a speedy delete with the {{speedy}} tag. If it is borderline it frequently goes to the VfD procedure. There is currently a poll taking place about the criteria for speedy deletion, which you may wish to contribute to (if you haven't already). Thryduulf 11:55, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Shall I explain again why Vfd policy is inaccurate and flawed? You said:"After 5 days an administrator takes the apropriate action based on the votes and comments". What rule the administrator is following in order to take the apropriate action? Majority rule? Best rated poll option? Strong majority rule? Unanimity? Whatever he/she wishes? other? I have asked some admins and each one gave me a different answer (some answers can be seen in my personal talk page). So it is clear that as long as each administrator acts according to his personal judgement, there is not any kind of rule or policy at all! I wonder, is that hard for you to understand this? Why you keep defending the current Vfd policy which is obviously a policy only in name and not in essence? Iasson 12:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A point of fact here, it is a policy. Just because the policy involves subjective decisions on the part of the administrators, rather than your preferred objective measure, doesn't mean it isn't a policy. If you disagree with the policy, the VfD pages aren't the place to make that point. If you have a disagreement over an editors actions then talk to them about it (see the dispute resolution guidance, linked from the main RfC section). Thryduulf 14:38, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I want also to ask all my accusers a question regarding my person and my free speech rights. Can you please explain why you do not consider the last part of my peculiar vote as a comment? According to the current Vfd policy I am allowed to comment, so please consider the last part of my peculiar vote as a comment and ignore it if you dont like it. Why this hatred? Iasson 12:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have every right to make usefull comments about the article in question on its VfD page. My problem with your comments is that you are phrasing them as if they are policy to be followed for that VfD. They are not comments designed to assist the administrator in making their decision. Thryduulf 14:38, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arent my comments usefull? Have a look at them closely. I am actually suggesting the appropriate decision method to be used, I am also suggesting an accurate deletion speed of the article. For example an admin may want to take a delete_article action based on majority rule of those who voted. Suddently he realizes that two voters think that the appropriate rule to be used should be unamimity . Isnt this a usefull information for him? Then he also realizes that four other voters (among them there is an other administrator too) think that the decision rule to be used should be majority_rule_only_for_3_months_old_wikipedians_due_to_sock_puppet_attack. Isnt this a usefull information for him also?

I also actually believe that all policies that require voting as the method to resolve disputes are flawed, as long a legitimate electorate has not been defined and admins keep feeding the sock_puppetry_threat troll, as a pretext in order to finally being able to decide whatever they want. First a legitimate electorate has to be defined, and then we are allowed to start talking about different kind of voting procedures and policies. But here in wikipedia, voting procedures and policies are decided and implemented, without defining the legitimate electorate! I have made some propositions on how a legitimated electorate could be defined and on how the sock_puppetry fundamental problem could be diminished (for example by using a SASE envelope procedure, or by creating a seed of trusted users that will judge whether or not an account is sock_puppet by using for example advogato method) but no admin wants to discuss them or proposes alternative solutions. It is essential for wikipedia this legitimate electorate to be defined at last and become an authority that admins will respect and serve, otherwise every voting procedure should be considered just admins' mockery against us. Iasson 16:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One of the great strengths of VfD is that the admin taking action based on the votes isn't bound by the results of the vote. For example, if the majority of votes are for delete, but one person votes to make the article a redirect, with a compelling reason, the admin can make a redirect. Similarly, if the majority of votes are for delete, but late in the vote period someone makes significant improvements to the article, the admin can ignore the majority and keep the article.

Making the decision binding for a period of time is also problematic. Right now, Remote Influencing is likely to be deleted as being a combination of non-noteworthy kookery and original research. If, however, someone were to find documentation that the military actually did do extensive research, or if a peer-reviewed article about it comes out next week, the article could be re-created using that information.

Specifying a minimum participation is expecially problematic, considering that a VfD listing is more a request for suggestions than a vote. Articles that are highly contentous, or where one person is insistent about going against consenus, tend to attract large numbers of voters. Ones where keep or delete is fairly self-evident don't. Sockpuppets are rarely a problem, since it's generally self-evident when they're being used. The "request for suggestions" nature of VfD diminishes the problem further.

Presenting your policy suggestions as if they were established policy is a major part of the problem, and why it's hard to consider them being "mere comments". Simply prefixing them with "I suggest" would solve part of the problem; even better would be to simply note that you object to the current policy, with a link to a meaningful discussion of what you think should be done.

--Carnildo 19:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Carnidlo. I will use "I suggest" for now on, hoping there is no misuderstanding anymore. Iasson 20:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Still not good enough. Don't put your suggestion on every VfD vote that you make, or I will delete it. RickK 05:38, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Are you authorized to delete my votes? Who is your author? Iasson 06:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I won't delete your votes, just this repetative nonsense. If you want to put it on a page in your User space and link to it, I won't delete. RickK 07:18, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have struck out the latest poll method comments by Iasson on VfD, and I will continue to do this. There is already an overwhelming consensus that these comments are unacceptable on the main VfD page, and by ignoring this, Iasson has forfeited any right to have his edits regarded as in good faith. He is a troll. sjorford 22:28, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:Fnb Regarding your statement above, is there a reason you can't indicate the strength of your vote with "Strong keep", "keep", "weak keep" as documented at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion phrases? —Korath (Talk) 08:44, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

David Gerard's summary

Y'know, I always assumed it was wit and humour on the VFD page, rather than anything resembling an attempt at disruption. VFDcruft at worst.

Gazpacho's summary

I concur that Iasson's actions do not constitute disruption under WP:POINT. I note, however, that the first stage in dispute resolution is discussion on the relevant talk page, or a general discussion area like Wikipedia:Village pump. Iasson was directed to these almost immediately upon arrival and acknowledged that he saw that suggestion, but has never followed it. Instead he has chosen to filibuster his position contrary to Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement. Gazpacho 07:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Andrewa's summary

Obviously there is friction here, and IMO the best solution is for Iasson to take notice of the community view. For this reason I encourage Wikipedians to participate in the vote he has requested.

But I also think it's not Iasson's fault.

I see two problems:

1. Rudeness. Iasson is confrontational, and ignores the principles of mutual respect and wikilove.

2. Legalism. Iasson demands definitions of consensus, detailed rules for how admins are to interpret VfD votes, all sorts of thing.

These two are I think related. They represent a way that has been tried repeatedly throughout history and does not work. You can't legislate morality. You can't force people to work together, or at least not very well or for very long.

I think that both these problems were increasing at Wikipedia long before Iasson arrived. Whether this is because our standards were slipping or just because they became more important as Wikipedia grew I don't know, and it doesn't matter.

The solution is the same in any case. Admins need to set an example of mutual respect and consideration for other Wikipedians. In this way, a rude and legalistic program such as this will be un-wikipedialike, rather than being the logical conclusion of trends already apparent as it is now.

As part of this, we need to look at how policy is made, and more important why it exists at all. The primary purpose of policy is not to control people of presumed bad motives. Rather, it's to help people of good motives to work together.

This difference is very important. It's one of the sources of the frustration that Iasson and I both feel. Policy development is currently strangled by legalism and mistrust. A prime example is the continued proposed status of WP:POINT, and there are others. This is another related issue underlying this particular incident. Andrewa 20:50, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.