Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Iasson

(Iasson | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute[edit]

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

Description[edit]

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 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[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

Disruption of wikipedia to make a point: [2] and [3]
Most of this vote has examples in it: [4]
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)

Most of the VfD votes he has cast, as listed here: [7]
Unilateral changes to Wikipedia:Deletion policy [8]
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[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

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

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

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

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

Stormie 07:11, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Korath (Talk) 18:37, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Rick K 21:13, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
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)
Raven42 04:35, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Carnildo 04:42, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Xtra 04:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
RadicalSubversiv E 00:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) Troubled that this behavior is continuing even after RFC certification.
Szyslak 10:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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)
Looks like either deliberate obstruction (or a bizarre world view) to me. - Solipsist 20:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
DCEdwards1966 21:13, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Iasson's behavior in VfD is mildly disruptive, where both of the words mildly and disruptive are important. I interpret his conduct on this page to mean he is not acting in good faith. I and others have tried to accommodate him by participating in his own poll according to his own rules. It seems clear to me that his actions in continually changing the rules of his own poll show that he does not intend to respect the results of his own poll, has no intention of respecting consensus, intends to continue his behavior no matter what the community thinks of it, and enjoys the game of constructing verbal defenses for his behavior. Because the disruption is mild, mild measures are called for (e.g. editing his votes to remove the disruptive portions and blocking him should he attempts to reinsert them). Dpbsmith (talk) 15:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This chap has an agenda certainly that is very unhelpful. It started off as being slightly annoying, now he's causing problems. Dunc|☺ 13:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm convinced that he just wants to have his own rules, and obviate the ones the rest of us live by in the Wikipedia. He also doesn't see the need to seek any consensus on changes to the rules. On top of this, I do believe he is outright misrepresenting his role in the creation and modification of various articles. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 22:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just caught the guy trying to restore an unsourced term to Athenian democracy today. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 11:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He is clearly operating in bad faith and does not respect consensus. He used to be quirky, now he's being purposefully disruptive and needs to stop, or be blocked. DreamGuy 00:05, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Response[edit]

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 ~~~~):

The end of wikilove.[edit]

First the imposed deletion policy appears from nowhere. Then an initialized deletionist majority is formed. This is the end of wikilove. Vandalisms are commited by the initialized deletionist majority in order to transform wikipedia from NPOV to their POV. The resistance of wikipedians starts.

Numbers cannot lie [[13]]

Oct 2002 0 bans

Nov 2002 0 bans

Dec 2002 0 bans

Jan 2003 0 bans

Feb 2003 0 bans

Mar 2003 0 bans

Apr 2003 0 bans

May 2003 0 bans

Jun 2003 1 bans

Jul 2003 0 bans

Aug 2003 0 bans

Sep 2003 1 bans

Oct 2003 0 bans

Nov 2003 0 bans

Dec 2003 0 bans

Jan 2003 0 bans

Feb 2004 7 bans

Mar 2004 12 bans

Apr 2004 18 bans (RickK’s arrival and his first ban as administrator)

May 2004 17 bans

Jun 2004 94 bans

Jul 2004 62 bans

Aug 2004 64 bans

Sep 2004 59 bans

Oct 2004 51 bans

Nov 2004 116 bans

Dec 2004 80 bans

Jan 2005 330 bans and still counting!

I am proud that my name is mentioned in this block list

I refuse that I wrote the articles they said, although it would be honor for me to have written them. I hope that the author of the articles will appear someday. I admit that I was inspired from the articles majoritarianism [[14]] (before the vandalism), average rule and quadratic vote and that my behavior was based on these articles. When I used the articles as defense and as arguments for myself, the initialized deletionist majority reacted immediately. Instead of answering to my arguments, they deleted the arguments. They deleted six-month-old articles in a 5 days period using their well know synoptic procedures. Similar to Democracy, the initialized deletionist majority destroyed also the meaning of “initialized majoritarianism” because they were clever enough to understand that this could also be used as an argument against them, or it could possible trig the misleaded wikipedians (still members of the initialized deletionist majority) to start thinking.

I make a call to all free wikipedians, but also to the misleaded wikipedians that still belong to the initialized majority.

Don’t accept the imposed deletion policy! Demand to vote for it and for the rules it imposes, demand to define it accurately!

Protect with your account’s life our beloved NPOV wikipedia and fight against the deletionist forces that want to transform it to POV.

Don’t participate to initialized or loose majoritarian schemes.

Don’t give up the fight!

Venceremos!

Numbers may not be able to lie, but they sure can be misleading. Sometime in November, someone by the name of "Sollog" discovered Wikipedia and created an article about himself. He was less than happy when it was re-written to conform to a neutral point of view, and spent the rest of the month using anonymous proxies and sockpuppets to vandalise it. In January 2005, violating the WP:3RR became a blockable offense, and people have been getting 24-hour timeouts for revert warring. The rest of that just appears to be a normal result of the growing visibility of Wikipedia. --Carnildo 19:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They're misleading for another reason as well. The List of blocked IP addresses only lists currently blocked IPs; any IPs that are unblocked (intentionally or automatically) drop off the list. Thus the numbers for previous months inevitably drop, except for infinite blocks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And another reason they're misleading is that many are anonymous proxies, which the admins are getting better at finding. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The deletion policy didn't come from nowhere. It's been there at least since I became a member last March. Also, all evidence I have points to Iasson inventing the concept of "initialized majoritarianism", thereby the concept is not encyclopedic. Iasson has yet failed to produce any evidence of the term's notability, which is required for the term to appear in this encyclopedia. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 22:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tyrannical majority claims all the time belongs to them. Proposition of a time splitting decision rule.[edit]

I am not changing the rules, I am just an Average rule advocate. This time-splitting rule seems to be in contrast with all the other decision rules but also can coexist with them, it seems to me that it may be legitimate to implement it whatever the distribution of the votes in the peculiar poll is, as long as average rule does not prevent from the other rules to be implemented in their own time period. Only an (unamimity-average_rule_advoquates+1) rule may stand in front of average rule and prevent its implementation and coexistence. So if tyrannical majority wants to tottaly extinguish peculiar votes (as it does with any other minority group) you have to prohibit the implementation of time-splitting decision rules (like average rule is) and claim that all the time belongs to your beloved rough consensus majority. I found this behavior on behalf of the rough consensus majority unfair and based in bad faith. But if you hate time-splitting rules (majority always does) go change your vote in my peculiar poll to unanimity minus one, convince all the others to do the same and Iasson's disruption may (or may not?) end. A second way to stop Iasson is to convince all the others and ask them nobody to propose him as a legitimate voter, discount any vote that proposes time-splitting rules and prohibit the implementation of such rules. There is also a third way to stop Iasson, go change your vote and vote for average rule with maximum time limit the eternity, and convince all the others to do the same. Currently, I can see that your favorite rough consensus decision method has just the simple majority of the votes. At least rough consensus should gain the rough consensus of the votes, in order to have the same rights to be implemented as the average rule has. Iasson 23:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello? The evidence is that you created this so-called Average rule you keep citing (see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Average_rule. You're right in that it appears you're not "changing the rules" -- you're making them up out of whole cloth. And nobody -- nobody -- has any obligation whatsoever to pay the slightest attention to self-serving "rules" you pull out of thin air. Wikipedia is not a political-science testbed for trying out voting theories. --Calton 07:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello? Average rule article has been created 11:26, 6 Aug 2004. Until then nobody has proposed to delete it, and a lot of people helped to improve it. Why you want to delete it right now? Is it because I am using it as defence for myself? Is it because you are a fascist and you are burning books? Iasson 08:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because it's original research. The fact that nobody noticed you sneaking it in is immaterial. In fact, it would have passed by if you hadn't drawn attention to it by your bizarre postings. Besides, an appeal to authority that you made up yourself isn't quite on, is it? And what books, pray tell, am I burning? None, since this so-called Average Rule hasn't even been published, has it? --Calton 08:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The fact that many people helped to improve the article and the fact that it stayed alive for 6 month shows that you cannot claim rough consensus has been reached in 5 days in order to delete it. According to your stupid wikipedia deletion policy, a gang band of 10 hardcore deletionists are enough to delete whatever article they want within 5 days, and this is the gang band you belong. I am sure that IF this article escapes for deletion, a speedy_delete moderator is going to delete it. Because the ONLY reason you want to delete it, it is because I am using it as a defence for myself against your tyrannical majority. Nobody noticed me sneaking the article, nobody will notice you deleting it, and especially the people who helped improving it. Iasson 08:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And dont tell me about the undelete policy bullshits. How a newcomer can vote for an article to be undeleted, if he cannot see it? Iasson 13:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So, you continue to refuse to provide evidence of the notability of these various terms? Let's forget for a moment how decisions are made for article deletions. Spend a few moments and prove, for kicks and giggles, that your terms exist in the wild. I'm thinking that you know full well they aren't notable and are playing some kind of game here. Prove me wrong (and speaking of how long the article existed before now lends *nothing* to your argument). — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 22:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Iasson's poll[edit]

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?[edit]

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)
Vote:Stop. Calton 00:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vote:Stop. Immediately. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 02:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Invalid question Peculiar votes are fine. Policy discussion is inappropriate. Tuf-Kat 02:41, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Vote:Stop. And also stop voting in your own polls. Also denotes a lack of ethics. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 22:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vote:Stop. --Death phoenix 05:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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)

With the Monobook skin and my browser's defaults, "Iasson" and "lasson" appear identical. My mistake. Please accept my apologies. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:42, 24 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 in a fragment of time, or allow Iasson to cast his peculiar votes not in all Vfd candidate articles but in a percentage of them. I have not decide yet what average rule type to use, but of course not the lifetime average rule. The 9 months average rule seems more appropriate to me for the case, but wait, is the 1 second average rule a better choice? "my eyes are turbib, shed in tears in front of the sun, my body is tired and I walk slowly. What is the power that moves me? where do I own my last breath?"Iasson 10:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vote:Rough consensus. Jayjg | (Talk) 00:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vote:Rough consensus -- the way it's done now and the way it has been done without any problem. What you have, Iasson, is a solution in search of a problem, and that you are confused by the VFD voting procedure (and resolution procedures generally) says less about any inherent confusion in them and more about your capability or willingness to understand them. and come to think of it, what do you mean by "What decision rule shall I follow"? Are you taking charge? --Calton 00:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vote:Rough consensus. If you are unable to judge matters which are not explicitly laid out for you, then a simple majority should suffice. If you are still unable to judge, trust and follow the interpretations of long-standing Wikipedia editors. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 02:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vote:Rough consensus. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 22:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vote:Rough consensus. --Death phoenix 05:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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)
Vote:Until there is a change in VfD policy that reflects your opinion. And it should be valid as long as the Average rule requires? Why? Was there legislation passed recently? Is the European Parliament sticking its nose in again? --Calton 00:41, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vote:Until VfD policy changes, or permanently—take your pick. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 02:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vote:Until you grow up. Not even Anthony is quite this juvenile. Dunc|☺ 13:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vote:Permanently, if you like to be considered a mature person. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 22:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vote:Until there is a change in VfD policy that reflects your opinion. --Death phoenix 06:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is the minimum amount of voters that have to vote in Iasson's poll in order for the stop or continue decision to be a legitimate one?[edit]

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. In case votes bandwidth falls below 2%/5 days, then in order for the decision to remain legitimate 12% of the active voters have to have their vote casted (regardless time).As long some active voters may become inactives, the above percentages should remain the same.This means that new active voters are required to arrive and cast their vote in this decision and keep the percentage above the minimum, 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)
Vote:Two. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 02:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vote:As many as for RfC certification (two). --Death phoenix 06:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Non peculiar polls[edit]

Could you please vote on those non peculiar polls too?

Andrewa's poll: When should the Iasson's poll close?[edit]

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

comment:And we'll never see a democracy where a poll never closes. You must seem to think that everyone else is somehow supposed to suffer your behaviors indefinitely. Who are you? What makes you special and everyone else needing to bow before you? Creep. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 22:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vote: The poll should close 24 hours from now, specifically 18:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC), as it has had adequate time to attract enough votes to establish a rough consensus. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

comment:You are lucky because Andrewa's poll is not a peculiar one. Iasson 23:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vote: 18:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC). Thryduulf 21:40, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vote: 18:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC). Jayjg | (Talk) 00:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

comment: Dont be in a hurry to close my peculiar poll, because the results are in favor of me right now. Unanimity_minus_one or eternity_average_rule is not voted by all of you, , and rough consensus has only the simple majority of the votes. Also, in case the poll is going to be closed, be sure that in the meanwhile nobody has already proposed me as a legitimate voter, and of course after closing my peculiar poll you have also somehow prevent the legitimate electorate to increase, because a newcomer may also someday appear and propose Iasson as a legitimate voter. Iasson 00:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vote 18:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) Xtra 00:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vote: 18:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) is acceptable. This farce has gone on long enough. —Korath (Talk) 03:38, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Vote:Yesterday, or the day before that, or the day before that... --Death phoenix 06:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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)
      - Clarity of policy (assuming the lack thereof) is separate from legitimacy of policy. That you don't (or won't) understand policy imposes no duty on the rest of us to bend it to your will. The policy works, has worked, and will continue to work long after your peculiar proposals have been archived and forgotten. And your polls's relevence is entirely self-declared: I'm voting in them not because I think they have any standing whatsoever, but because by adding to the sheer weight of numbers I'm hoping (and, I suspect, so does everyone else) that you will, as the saying goes, get a hit off of the clue bong. Namely, you are disrupting the process with your solution-in-search-of-a-problem. --Calton 01:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        There is a very serious problem to be solved, and this is the Tyranny_of_the_majority problem. Thats why the Average rule and the peculiar polls are used. Iasson 08:27, 25 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)
Vote: Of course. The issue here is your behavior. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 02:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vote: Definitely yes. --Death phoenix 06:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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)
  - BZZT. Wrong. Rick would have to answer for blocks that are disputed; however, admins are admins because they are trusted to make good judgements. You seem to suffer from a fatal lack of the ability to assume good will of others, Iasson. hfool/Roast me 23:48, 25 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)
Vote: Nominate myself for adminship and then block you. No, I'm kidding—I'm sure an administrator would block you. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 02:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
'Vote:' If you want, I could block too, just for good measure. :) BrokenSegue 03:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vote:I can't punish you, but if I were an admin, I'd block you as per standard blocking procedure. --Death phoenix 06:12, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A peculiar vote in another format[edit]

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)
Comment: Hee hee hee ha ha!! Thank you for "you seem to be an experianced peculiar voter." I have had my actions called peculiar before, but not in that way. You may copy those votes into the individual questions if it will help you recognize the near-unanimous general opinion of diverse WP participants. (Not a cabal, by the way; I don't know any of the others in this RfC, and I don't know how many are admins rather than casual editors.) Barno 05:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MacGyverMagic's comment[edit]

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)
- - Administrators are only promoted after a 7 day voting period during which points against them can be made. Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, Jan 26, 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[edit]

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: 6 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. I consent either with average rule or with unanimity, and maybe with unanimity minus one, hoping I am not the one. In all the above it is assumed of course that Iasson is a legitimate voter, and member of the electorate. Unfortunately noone has proposed me yet.

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)

The above calculations have been made 07:09, 24 Jan 2005. The result of the poll changed, so if you want the accurate calculation of the average rule you have to do the calculations again. I am trying to keep poll's current result in this paragraph, but not in its comments. Iasson 08:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are the only one proposing the average rule. Unless the average rule meets some other definition for being supported (at least majority) by other users, then it is invalid for you to claim that it is a reasonable choice. Overwhelming consensus (10-1, with your vote being the only one for continuing) is for you to stop the peculiar votes. You alone are proposing the average rule. Sorry, doesn't work that way. - Taxman 16:28, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Look. In order for majority rule to become the decided rule to be used, the majority of the voters has to vote for it. In order for the rough consensus to be used, a rough consenus of the voters who vote for it have to be reached. In order for unamimity to be used, all people have to agree for it. But the average rule can be implemented even if just one legitimate voter ask for it, as long as this rule does not exclude the other rules to be implemented, and only requires every rule to be implemented in its own percentage of time. So if you consider my vote to be a legitimate one, you have all of you choose the unamimity minus one rule in order to be able to block the average rule implementation. Dont worry, I am not a legitimate voter yet, but I hope someone will propose me to become one. Iasson 16:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In fact the average rule does conflict with all of the other rules. The consensus is for you to stop the peculiar votes. Your average rule allows you to make peculiar votes a small % of the time, which is in clear conflict to every other decision rule. Your over-reliance on the decision rule is troubling. There is near unamimous support for your stopping the peculiar votes. At that point the decision rule is irrelevant. Again, see the section 'MacGyverMagic's comment'. Also again, you can either choose to work towards what is best for Wikipedia, or you can choose to be difficult, disruptive, and waste other Wikipedian's time. I certainly recommend the former, though you seem to be choosing the latter. - Taxman 20:31, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

As long as I still cannot understand what consensus is, I am just expecting for you and for everyone else to change their vote and create a rational result in the decision rule poll. A rational result on my peculiar poll is the only way for me to understand that you dont want my peculiar votes. And the current result is not rational, as long as rough consensus has not the rough consensus of the votes, neither simple majority has the simple majority of the votes, and only the average rule can be implemented. You said "There is near unamimous support for your stopping the peculiar votes" and maybe you are right, by why this unanimity_minous_one rule does not appear in my peculiar poll? I beleive what I can see in my poll, I am not supposing like you are doing, and unanimity minus one is clearly not voted (by all except myself) as a decision rule in my poll. And your beloved rough consensus decision method has just the simple majority of the votes right now, so it does not deserve to be implemented too. You may believe that I have trick everybody, but if all of you really want and care to stop me casting peculiar votes, you can still change your votes and create a rational result before someone (not me of course) decides to close the peculiar poll. Iasson 00:41, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We have unanimity-minus-one. If you don't accept this now, why would you accept it later? I think you're just trying to sucker us. If we all voted to use "unanimity-minus-one" as the decision criterion, wouldn't you just say that you didn't think there was consensus on that decision and open up an infinite regress? Achilles and the tortoise... Dpbsmith (talk) 14:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You may have unanimity-minus-one in the question whether I have to stop or continue casting peculiar votes, but obviously you dont have unanimity-minus-one in the question that asks for the decision method that is going to be used for my specific case. If you assume that you have unanimity-minus-one in the decision method question, I may also assume that in all questions it is not unanimity-minus-one but unanimity-minus-two, as long as Ollieplatt seems to support me. Achilles and the tortoise... you are right. I am still not capable to solve the problems that average rule arises, and especially I dont know what the appropriate action is in case an eternity average rule is proposed by someone. Iasson 11:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A wee bit of bad news about your supposed "support" from Ollieplatt, I'm afraid. Said user is a sockpuppet, and is about to be banned for one year by the arbitration committee. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Libertas/Proposed_decision for all the gory details. Votes from sockpuppets don't count at all, and I'm afraid that votes from banned users don't hold a lot of water, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:37, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

You argument does not make sense unless you are accusing me of beeing a sockpuppet of Ollieplatt. You may ban all votes coming from Ollieplatt's sock puppets, but you are NOT allowed to ban votes comming from Ollieplatt person himself. As long as you are assuming that all votes conserning the decision method to be used are rough consensus votes or whatever without of course this beeing observable in my poll, I also assume that Ollieplatt person is with me, so unamimity-minous-two is the case here. Iasson 13:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ollieplatt doesn't seem to be your sockpuppet (that wouldn't fit the facts) but he is a sockpuppet nonetheless. But that part doesn't even matter. You yourself said that in order for a voter to be considered valid, they have to stay active in this discussion. Since Ollieplatt is banned, he won't be active in this discussion, and is invalid. You've been caught up by your own voting method. That's rather amusing actually. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:08, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Legitimate Electorate and Active Voters of Iasson's poll[edit]

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, Ollieplatt, Gazpacho, David Gerard, JuntungWu, Calton -- 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)

I have serious doubts about you. You have to convince me that you are not the same person. Will you send me a SASE envelop in order to convince that you are not you? Iasson 12:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

compare our contribution histories Hfool:[16] Thryduulf:[17].

You will notice that the times of our edits are different

mine generally range from about 08:30UTC to about 19:00UTC and then from about 21:00UTC to about 03:00UTC
hfools are almost always between 22:00UTC and 04:00UTC

the articles we contribute to are generally different (outside of this RfC and some VfDs) and our edit summaries have completely different phrasing.
You will see I did lots of work on the WikiSyntax balancing parentheses project, Hfool has no such edits in his most recent 1000.
Hfool has contributed to several discworld articles, I haven't contributed to any
I have wikified worked on most of the Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends articles, Hfool has not contributed to any of them.
Hfool dual liscences his contributions under a Creative Commons liscence, I dual liscence mine into the public domain (see our user pages)
On his userpage, hfool says he lives in Highlands Ranch, Colorado, USA. I have detailed where I live and work on Wikipedia:Wikipedians/United_Kingdom#T-Z. I have never been to Colorado, and had never heard of Highlands Ranch before looking at Hfool's userpage.
I have uploaded images from the UK that I have taken (inlcuding ones on the Bridgnorth Cliff Railway, Dover Castle, Ironbridge Gorge and Flying Scotsman (locomotive) arcticles). I'm not aware of any photos Hfool has uploaded.
Hfool states he is a member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. I'm not a member of any Wikipedia organisations.

If you look at all these factors, you will see that we are either separate people, or one person with a severe multiple personality disorder. Thryduulf 14:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A SASE envelope is always a better proof, but your proofs seem to be reasonable enough. I almost believe that you are separate persons, but I still want to keep you as one person until someone proposes me as a legitimate voter. Lets negotiate. You and hfool have one vote's power. Go propose me both of you as a legitimate voter, then I will change my vote and I will propose you as separate persons. Iasson 00:49, 25 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 small fragment of time, as long as according to the votes the most of the time rough consenus has to be used. Unfortunately Iasson is not a nominated voter as long as no member of the legitimate electorate has proposed him, so his average rule vote does not count.Iasson 07:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment: As you must be aware by now, there is no "legitimate electorate" beyond "votes made in good faith". No one can nominate you to be part of any electorate you are not already part of. I don't know what average rule is, and I don't really care. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia has never used it, and certainly won't start doing so with this RfC. You expressed your opinion, Iasson, and you can continue arguing about electorates and active members all you want, but there is clear agreement from everyone but you that you are misusing Wikipedia. Please stop. Tuf-Kat 23:15, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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)

objection to point of evidence[edit]

quote: The anon here is suspected to be Iasson, as he uses the page in his votes: [[18]]

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[19]).
- 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)

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

Outside view[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

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

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

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)

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? Rick K 08:25, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Rick K 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) ¹

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 person proposes deletion
1 or more people posts there opinion to Keep, Delete, Merge, Move and/or Redirect, and any comments they wish to make about it.
After 5 days an administrator takes the apropriate action based on the votes and comments.
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. Rick K 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. Rick K 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)

^Note 1 : 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[edit]

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.

Well, David, Iasson has recently posted a comment on a VFD discussion that he's going to intentionally cast "peculiar votes" as a protest to gum up the works of the VFD mechanism until an administrator bans him. I'd say that, if it was originally humor, this is a user who doesn't understand when to let a joke die. But it's looking more to me like we have a crank on our hands, and if he is going to declare publically his intention to damage Wikipedia until banned, I'm more than happy to oblige him. Jwrosenzweig 21:56, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gazpacho's summary (withdrawn)[edit]

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 (withdrawn)[edit]

~~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)

~~Andrewa's summary (second attempt)[edit]~~
As yet, and partly in hindsight, Iasson shows no interest in becoming a productive member of this community.
A poll was conducted on Iasson's request, and contrary to the normal conduct of an RfC, after he undertook to abide by the result. This was done in accordance with the policy of assuming good faith.
The result of this poll is clear, but Iasson's response has been to revoke his commitment to abide by the result. He instead now quibbles about its validity. There is no longer any possible assumption of good faith, and many of Iasson's edits must now be considered vandalism, as several have said all along.
Iasson has as yet made no useful edits to Wikipedia articles. His main contributions to the article namespace have been POV edits to articles which he has then quoted on project namespace pages.
Iasson's implicit and explicit claims that he wishes to improve Wikipedia procedures are questionable. He has shown no interest in supporting the project in any other way.
The value of continued discussion is also questionable. It may be interesting and rewarding for some of those involved, but the danger is that it may also be feeding a troll. The standard by which the value of the discussion should be judged is simple: Does it contribute to the goal of building an encyclopedia?
Continued vandalism should be dealt with according to normal procedures, including reversions, blocks, and if needed, bans. This is already underway and I support it. Andrewa 08:56, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Andrewa's second summary. From a VfD today about one of his original-research voting-rule articles: "Be prepared, my peculiar votes are going to flood your POV Vfd policy and procedure, until an administrator bans me. Iasson 12:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) ". As far as I'm concerned, this and the related ranting (since the VfD and its vote had their chance for the process to work) are clear grounds for a block and temporary ban. Repeat actions upon return would be grounds for a lifetime ban. Barno 15:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. After that comment, it's clear that there's more than enough material to warrant immediate action. The idea of a complete reformation of character after things have gone this far might not be wholly impossible, but not nearly likely enough to change what we need to accomplish here: getting this over with and getting back to the task of building an encyclopedia. I think the only way to accomplish that is to give Iasson some time off WP to cool down, and if he comes back and starts the same schtick over again, then I doubt anyone would raise serious objections to a permanent ban. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Concur with the above regarding a ban. He's added more junk to a VfD today [20] [21], which I then deleted[22]. Thryduulf 16:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Concur with Andrewa's second summary. Iasson is a POV-warrior for the voting methods he has invented. The problem is not merely over-assertive advocacy for his POV, nor merely his mildly disruptive edits in VfD. It is clear that he will not accept binding decisions reached in accord with current Wikipedia policies and procedures. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I concur with this summary whole-heartedly. Iasson shows that he has no interest in Wikipedia's purpose - to build an encyclopedia - and his continued disruption to the project namespace in the face of overwhelming opposition warrants a ban. sjorford :// 17:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Concur. My remark that Iasson had apparently ceased his disruptive voting was premature, as he has resumed on both Quadratic rule and Average rule. In addition, his comments have degenerated from naive misunderstanding to somewhat unintelligble ranting. "Peculiar voting" aside, his comments on those VfD pages are rude and inflammatory—that alone might merit a ban. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 22:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Concur. And I fully support bans of increasing length to counter Iasson's attempts to disrupt Wikipedia. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Concur. Iasson should be blocked. If he would like to be productive, there are numerous new userids he could use to make productive edits. Tuf-Kat 01:19, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Concur. After his abusive actions on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Average rule, including his claim to have made 11 fake pages, and the threat to continue casting peculiar votes until he is banned, it is no longer possible to assume good faith. Ban him. -- Scott e^iπ 06:57, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Concur. Though this isn't an official vote (isn't that ironic), I will support any action that reins in Iasson's disruptions, up to and including outright banning. --Calton 07:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Concur. It is now evident that Iasson is editing in bad faith and with the aim of being at least moderately disruptive -- either he needs to make positive contributions here or counteraction up to and including short-term bans will be appropriate countermeasures. I encourage those who have interacted with him directly (I have not) to file an arbitration case if they feel there is sufficient evidence and if they feel they have the time necessary to deal with such a matter. Jwrosenzweig 18:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am possibly the person who has interacted with him the most, and I am certainly not against requesting arbitration if we think it would be accepted. I don't, however, have the time at the moment to be the principal person involved in providing evidence due to work commitements. I've also only been here since boxing day, so I'm not compeltely au fait with the necessary procedures, etc. yet. Thryduulf 23:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If it turns out that this needs to go to arbitration, then I'd be willing to do the evidence collecting. But I don't expect it to be needed -- the policy of blocking him after each disruptive vote should be sufficient. --Carnildo 00:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There should not need to be an arbcom case against him; arb should be saved for disputes that are not blatant. I Concur with the summary, and trust that the banning will continue until Iasson either stops or is permabanned. humblefool 01:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Strong Concur. The more I read of Iasson's antics, the more I think he is simply being destructive on purpose, as some sort of test being deployed against the Wikipedia. If there's a cabal, it's one he's leading. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 23:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Concur. But don't cabals usually have more than one person in them? [User:Raven42|Raven42]] 01:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Concur, I wouldn't be suprised if he was someone's sockpuppet. BrokenSegue 04:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Concur. Official Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids filibustering, and semi-policy discourages misuse of process and disruption. Iasson has stated that he means to do all of these. He should not be blocked if he surprisingly chooses to make good-faith edits. Gazpacho 02:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
~~Discussion[edit]~~
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

1