Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AKFD/Voting rules

Here's what happened.

I started the vote, and said at the same time "I'm not sure how to declare the winner: perhaps a 2/3 majority required for deletion?"
The Anome and a number of other people added their vote
Eloquence said "More importantly, set a majority threshold for determining the outcome of the vote."
I realised that any argument over the majority required would necessarily be agenda driven. People voting for deletion would argue for a simple majority, people arguing against would want 2/3. This, I knew, was a recipe for disaster. Since I had not voted, and have in fact never expressed an opinion on this matter, I desperately hoped that people would understand the impossibility of discussion at this stage, trust me to be impartial, and accept an assertion from me of a set of rules.
To this end, I replied to Eloquence: "It's probably not appropriate to discuss the threshold now, since the vote is already in progress and we already have a good idea what the final ratios will be. How about we leave it at 2/3 for this vote, and discuss now what it should be for the next vote."
Then blowing a bit more hot air, I declared it a "rule" and added it to the top of the voting section.
The Anome, a user who voted in favour of the deletion of every redirect, changed my "rule" to a simple majority only. Thus my disaster came to be.

Unless The Anome is shouted down by people on both sides of this debate, or he withdraws his objection, this vote cannot be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. Unless something very strange happens, the vote will nothing more than a poll. -- Tim Starling 10:41 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Initial discussion

I'm not sure how to declare the winner: perhaps a 2/3 majority required for deletion? -- Tim Starling 07:02 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Or perhaps we realise that the whole vote is a sham if most of the people that took part in past discussions aren't involved? and if much of that discussion itself aren't even linked to from the voting page?? -- Toby Bartels 18:55 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

1. Advertise. 2. DIY, I didn't protect the page. -- Tim Starling 01:14 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'll try to contact folks who previously expressed an interest, if they don't spot this in a week or so. And add a few links here, where appropriate. Oh, we should set an end date for the vote. 1st August ok by everyone? Martin 20:11 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

More importantly, set a majority threshold for determining the outcome of the vote. --Eloquence 16:59 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's probably not appropriate to discuss the threshold now, since the vote is already in progress and we already have a good idea what the final ratios will be. How about we leave it at 2/3 for this vote, and discuss now what it should be for the next vote. -- Tim Starling 05:53 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

A vote needs rules, otherwise the result won't be accepted. I've added some, based on what I think was closest to the understanding of the people who have voted so far. If anyone thinks these rules are unfair, say so within the next few days, so that we can scrap the vote and start over. -- Tim Starling 06:25 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Special treatment?

NPOV outranks votes! -- Toby Bartels 18:55 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Everyone is interested in maintaining NPOV, but there is conflict over its interpretation. A vote is one way of resolving that conflict. -- Tim Starling 01:14 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Why should these redirects get any special treatment (and no, I doubt anyone's offense is sufficient reason, whether it's my own or my mother's or anyone else's)? Our policy so far has been to keep redirects because they're small and keep links live. Koyaanis Qatsi 06:36 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

These redirects get special treatment because lots of people say they need special treatment. That's democracy for you. Policy is not set in stone, it is decided by general consensus. If you think deleting redirects is a violation of policy, then consider this to be in some sense a vote on policy change. -- Tim Starling 07:02 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I think it shows a disheartening intellectual wimpiness, for lack of a better term, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. NPOV would hear someone say "I find this offensive," then go add that to the relevant article, with attribution. Instead, this is a case of people saying "I find this offensive" and then the response: "oh, I'm so sorry, let's change it." NPOV, I think, would say "I've registered your complaint." Period. FWIW, I do find the homophobia implicit in the slogan both ridiculous and laughable, but I don't think my opinion of it is of any consequence to wikipedia, and I also don't think it should be. Koyaanis Qatsi 07:13 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, and you're welcome to express it at the bottom of the page. By placing your comments here, I'm assuming you are attacking the validity of this vote, and that is something I intend to defend. I don't have an opinion either way on the issue itself, I just want to see it settled. BTW, I think the word you're looking for is "apathy", rather than "intellectual wimpiness". -- Tim Starling 07:32 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ok, a few points: 1) your use of "attack" indicates you consider challenges to the validity of this vote irrelevant. They are not. If the majority of wikipedians voted to throw out NPOV, Jimmy would step in and invite them to leave. Some principles here are sacrosanct. I maintain that deleting these redirects simply because some people are offended by them is a violation of NPOV. That deserves to be discussed. 2) Having the issue settled quickly may not be in our best interests long-term. Points need to be brought up, hashed out, discussed, rebutted. Democracy is not simply a vote, it's also a process of discourse, communication, and education. As a proponent of democracy, you understand this. We should decide whether deleting relevant redirects to an article can be considered a violation of NPOV. (I of course have no problem with deleting irrelevant redirects to a subject: e.g. redirecting cow to dog can and should be undone.) 3) "Apathy" is not the word I am looking for, but thanks for suggesting it. Rather, the word I am looking for is more like the opposite of "apathy": "I can't handle that, take it away." Koyaanis Qatsi 08:03 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

1) NPOV requires points of view to be contextualised. Since the redirects in question do not properly contextualise the point of view expressed, outsiders may incorrectly assume that Wikipedia condones such views. The current naming of the article itself contains much better contextualisation, and hence it is more NPOV. The current debate is centred around removing ancient POV detritus.

2) What do you mean "quickly"? This article has been discussed since February, it first hit the mailing list in March, and redirect deletion has been discussed since at least early June. Plus you've still got a month left! The problem with stalling forever is that you get your way until someone finally does something about it.

3) Oh okay, you mean my motives for starting this vote in the first place. I said on VFD what my reasons for that are: oscillation annoys me. It seems to me that a small group opposing deletion may not be enough to halt the deletion, but it is enough to get an article undeleted. I think that wastes time: people have to repeat their arguments over and over. The side that stays motivated the longest wins, not necessarily the right side. I think an issue has to be decided by the community, while there is passionate and active discussion, not by a single proponent who is left on their soap-box after everyone else has drifted away. I feel the same way about Right Back, but I wanted to start with an easy one.

-- Tim Starling 09:48 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just to clarify (3), Tim, I presume you set up the vote because you were concerned it would oscillate and waste time in the future, rather than because it oscillated in the past? I'm not aware of any previous discussion on redirects, but if there is some, it'd be good to cross-link, at a minimum. Martin 10:29 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that's about right. It doesn't matter now anyway, since my lack of forethought has destroyed the entire effort. See above. -- Tim Starling 10:51 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Discussion of 2/3 vs simple majority

Why the two-thirds majority rule? This was just picked out of a hat, and is biased in favor of keeping the links. I will change this to an absolute majority, with keeping the link in the case of a tie: if you want to change it back, please justify your change here. -- The Anome

All is explained at [the top of this page) -- Tim Starling 10:44 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Tim, you set the rule after voting started. Everyone appears to agree about every part of this exercise, except the threshold. As it is now clear that there was confusion on this, I suggest that we set the threshold by an approval vote between alternatives.

So far, we have the following options:

In favour of 2/3 majority:

Tim Starling

In favour of simple majority:

Eloquence, The Anome

-- The Anome 10:48 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You still don't understand. A vote on a voting method is just the same vote all over again. It only serves to amplify the pre-existing majority. A voting method should be set beforehand, and should be reused every time there is a similar vote. A voting method set now cannot be used as a precedent, because discussion on the method is driven by opinions on the issue. -- Tim Starling 10:56 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think this is generally good advice - avoid starting a vote (or a poll) until the options have been agreed on, any voting rules, and so forth. I made exactly that mistake on the date formats vote - which I bitterly regret. :-( By contrast, on the years in titles vote we had a couple weeks between proposing the vote and actually starting it, and that worked well.

However, I think you underestimate the helpfulness of a simple poll. At a bare minimum, it eliminates the options with little or no real support, and in a transparent fashion too. It's more flexible too - a tolerances versus preferences dilemma, perhaps. Martin 11:53 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for those words of wisdom, Martin. I have now updated the page to indicate that it is just a poll. -- Tim Starling 12:13 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Eloquence's conclusion

Alright, unless there are any further objections, I'll get rid of the redirects "'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan" and "AIDS Kills Fags Dead slogan". --Eloquence 04:35 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What's the rush? The vote only began five days ago. -- Oliver P. 04:57 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What is the rush? Koyaanis Qatsi 21:55 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I object - there's no rush. Give it a month. Martin 23:46 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)