Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Iasson

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:38, 15 Jan 2005), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC).

---

• (Iasson | talk | contributions)

---

Statement of the dispute

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

Description

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

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

1. Disruption of wikipedia to make a point: [1] and [2]
2. Most of this vote has examples in it: [3]
3. The anon here is suspected to be Iasson, as he uses the page in his votes: [[4]]
4. Most of the VfD votes he has cast, as listed here: [5]
5. Unilateral changes to Wikipedia:Deletion policy [6]
6. Unilateral changes to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators [7]

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. User talk:Iasson. Note the multiple attempts to achieve reasonable dialoge.
2. User talk:Humblefool
3. [8]
4. User:Thryduulf. Note particularly Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/South African Art Music
5. User:Wyss

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

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

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

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 could you please tell me:

1) What decision rule shall I follow in order to take my decision wheither to stop or continue? unanimity? strong majority? simple majority? highest minority?

• simple majority. Thryduulf 10:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• 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)? Iasson 07:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2) How long the stop or continue decision I will take should be valid? 1 day? 100 years? until this or another poll says otherwise?

• until there is a change in VfD policy that reflects your opinion. Thryduulf 10:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• 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)

3) How many users have to express themselves against or in favor of my peculiar votes in this RfC in order for my stop or continue decision to be a legitimate one?

• 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)
• the number of users is mostly irrelevant. Tuf-Kat 22:17, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)

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 . Thank you. Iasson 08:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• This isn't a vote. --Carnildo 20:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • 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.
    • hfool said:"...pay 5 wikibucks?" What we have here? A bribery!This is unacceptable dear wikipedians! I think I am going to propose hfool for an RfC too!Iasson 07:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Stormie 07:11, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
2. Korath (Talk) 18:37, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
3. RickK 21:13, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
4. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:39, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
5. Raven42 04:35, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
6. Carnildo 04:42, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
7. Xtra 04:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
8. RadicalSubversiv E 00:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) Troubled that this behavior is continuing even after RFC certification.
9. Szyslak 10:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
10. This user's ongoing attempts to impose his own rules on VfD voting have been merely a distraction (but a repeated one, showing disregard for collaborative process) to those of us who know the policies, but has been out-and-out misleading and counterproductive for relative newcomers dealing with their own articles or starting to help contribute to VfD. RfC discussion below shows that the user is finally agreeing to more cooperative measures, and I hope these can be fine-tuned enough to resolve the matter without further conflict. Some of WP's policies are amenable to precise definitions and quantitative rules, and some aren't. lasson and others who find this unsatisfactory should either send their proposals through discussion processes or start their own project, rather than claiming power to force unagreed rules upon the community. Barno 18:20, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Outside view

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

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

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

Ollieplatt's summary

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

Tuf-Kat's summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Gerard's summary

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

Gazpacho's summary

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

Discussion

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