Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average rule

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Stormie 08:42, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Block revision errors -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Average rule

Strongly appears to be original research. It has no citations whatsoever, I can't find any Google hits that aren't Wikipedia-originated, and it's the creation of User:146.124.141.250 -- the alter-ego of User:Iasson [1], who's using it as the authority for the bizarre voting standards he's been adding to VfD votes and to his RFC [2]. I say this puppy should have been nuked months ago. --Calton 00:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The above IP is not my alter-ego, it is a proxy and a lot of people read and write from there. Not all articles with the above IP are written by me. Iasson 12:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as User:Iasson disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 00:59, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete reasons as above. This three-ring circus needs to leave town for good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:34, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as patent nonsense thinly disguised as original research. Raven42 01:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is getting ridiculous. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 02:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless it can be made verifiably notable. Tuf-Kat 02:45, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. See above reasons. Bart133 02:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. See Calton's and Raven42's reasons. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rhobite 04:15, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. However, this article was created in August, and Iasson didn't start posting his bizarre rules until October. Do you really believe he seeded this then waited around for two months before acting on it? RickK 05:22, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty clear he created it (see my reasons above), and he and his alter ego have been monkeying around with topics concerning democracy ever since which shows his interest in the democratic process.

My own hypothesis is that he came up with this and other cockamamie voting theories and he's trying to use the VFD process to test them out. --Calton 06:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. I have created 11 voting theories in Wikipedia. Go find them and delete them all! Fascism has to rise in wikipedia! Iasson 08:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. If they don't have encyclopedic relevance, they must all go. I've already dealt with another person like you who seems to keep insisting that ideas you invent belong in a public encyclopedia. That's simply not within reason, and you should know that. --Stevietheman 08:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Several people have been speculating quietly that this might be the case. It turns out they are right. I'm impressed. No change of vote. Andrewa 10:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, for all the reasons given in previous day's VfD for "Quadratic Rule". "Average rule has never been tried as a policy..." Barno 05:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, "average rule" + political -> 462 Google hits, but a lot of the first ones look like copies of this page... mainly anonymous edits here too... I don't see notability here per se, but the "average rule" does seem to exist in some form or fashion. --Idont Havaname 06:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article has been written 6/8/2004. Until now nobody has proposed it for deletion, and a lot of people helped to improve it. Why you want to delete it right now? Is it because I am using it to defence myself in my RFC[[3]] ?? Is it because you are a fascist and you are burning books? I suggest as decision method to be used the Average rule, I also suggest the decision to be valid as long as the average rule requires, I also suggest 25% of Active Vfd voters to vote in this poll in 5 days, in order for the decision to be legitimate. Iasson 08:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not the forum to discuss voting policy, as has already been explained to Iasson. See RfC (also note I added this comment after the ones below it). — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 21:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no time-based rule regarding the deletion of articles, and an article doesn't become any more encyclopedic if it happens to stay alive in the Wikipedia for any length of time. The reasons expressed here for its deletion appear to be valid. So instead of complaining about book burning, how about addressing the concerns? And if you can't address them, just accept the judgement and how Wikipedia is organized. --Stevietheman 08:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Policy bullshits! I am asking you to show me an active poll where the active wikipedians have voted and they still keep valid a decision that says that original research is prohibited from wikipedia. Can you point to that poll? Or, is the prohibition of original research just another decision of the administration cabal? Iasson 09:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • see Wikipedia:No original research. As I understand it, this is a founding principal of Wikipedia. Thryduulf 09:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I see. We have to find the reasons why the administration cabal insist of keeping such a principal. Is this founding principal by chance? Is it because administration's plans are to create the best encyclopedia in the world and sell it somewhere someday, and they want us to create articles in their encyclopedia for free, but of course without beeing able to tranform their encyclopedia to something else because this is against their business plans? I cant find another reason but maybe you can help me a little to find one, and I am in good faith to believe it. Of course there is also the possibility that this is NOT a founding principal as you claim. Iasson 10:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't think that they could do as you suggest, because of the GNU Free Documentation License Wikipedia uses (see Wikipedia:Copyrights). It is normal for an encyclopedia to contain no original research, as it is a secondary source not a primary source. There is, however, a fork called wikinfo that apparently does allow orignal research. Thryduulf
            • What is going on here? Original research is always considered to be a reason to delete an article in Vfd! Why nobody proposes to move original research articles to wikinfo, and everybody here proposes for every original research article to be deleted? This is another proof that the deletionist gang band has overcome wikipedia. If the owner of wikipedia is not a cabal member, he must uproot deletionist cancer gang band from wikipedia's heart, and he must do it as soon as possible. And dont mention to me undelete policy bullshits. How a newcomer can vote for an article to be undeleted, if he cannot read it? Iasson 11:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
              • Probably because Wikinfo is not a Wikimedia project. Thryduulf 11:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • Aha!..ok then...as I can see wikinfo and secondary_source are sister projects of wikipedia and they welcome original research articles. Thats good! So I propose as a policy, all proposed for deletion original research articles to be moved there insteed of deleted. Then if voted for undeletion, they should return back to wikipedia. And of course if somenoe asks wikipedia about a deleted original research article, wikipedia should point to its sister projects with a warning that this was an ostracized article. If you want to convince me that you are not a deletionist gang band that want to overcome wikipedia and turn a supposed edited by anyone encyclopedia to an encyclopedia that supports your deletionist gang band POV, you HAVE to support as a policy what I am proposing you. If you dont, this proves that you are a deletionist gang band, and every rational human person can understand this. I am not supporting the average rule article right now, I am supporting all the past articles you have already deleted, and the future you are going to. Iasson 11:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                  • You appear to have misunderstood what I meant in my previous comment. Wikinfo is not a sister project to wikipedia. Thryduulf 12:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                    • And what about secondary_source? I consider your answer as an acceptance that you are a deletionist gang band that wants to turn wikipedia to an encyclopedia that , although supposed to be edited by anyone and support NPOV, contains articles that are compatible only with the POV of your deletionist gang band. Nice try, troll guys, but you are not going to win against all rational human persons. Iasson 12:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
              • Comment: I've suggested to several authors that they check out Wikinfo, and strongly suggest it to you too. You can even write signed articles there, but you don't need to sign articles. I've transwikied one article there myself and intend to do more, but it's far better if the author does it, and the copying is automated and very easy provided you do it before they are deleted here. So I hope to see you and your theories there. But be aware that most of the policies of Wikinfo are based on Wikipedia, and your behaviour here would not go down well there either. No change of vote. Andrewa 12:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • And I am saying to you that, for now on, I am going to cast peculiar votes in all proposed for deletion articles. It is finnaly clear to me that your Vfd policy is against NPOV, and as long as I am a strong advocate of NPOV I want to destroy anything that is against it. 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)
              • PS You participated in the VfD of the article I transwikied to Wikinfo, it was South African Art Music by David Hönigsberg. It's attracted no objections there yet. Andrewa 13:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • see also Wikipedia#No original_research. Thryduulf 09:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Iasson, you know too much. Better watch your back, or you'll be the next one to get deleted. --Slowking Man 23:21, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
          • Not helping, Slowking. Really. This ain't MTC. humblefool® 04:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I have found 11 persons that have contribute to the article in this 6 months period. Here they are: Stevietheman, 193.92.*.* (seems dialup of the same person), Mike Storm, 213.16.*.*(seems dialup of the same person), 217.81.54.218, Brian Sayrs, 69.194.194.27, Curps, Jmartinezot, Michael Hardy. The fact that nobody of them have ever asked the article to be deleted, means that those 10 persons at least have cast a keep or abstain vote. Not to mention also the other people in this 6 month period who read the article and did not propose it for deletion. All those people obviously are a keep or abstain vote for the article. I am asking an admin to tell me how many people read the article in this 6 months period, and consider their votes as keep or abstain votes. Iasson 09:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: No. This process will be conducted according to our rules, not yours. You seem to have great trouble interpretting these rules, although you have obviously read them. But we don't. No change of vote. Andrewa 10:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • What you mean your rules? You mean the rules that your deletionist gang band have created and imposed to all the others? Where is the poll that shows that current deletion policy is voted by all active wikipedia voters, and also all active wikipedia voters still keep their vote alive in your current deletion policy? You cannot point to that poll, simply because deletion policy has been created by 10-20 people and an administrator cabal, in order to destroy the work of the others, any work that is against gang band's belief or against its plans. This is clear to me, and I am not going to bother with your gang band anymore. Iasson 10:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • It most certainly does not. Just because I came across an article on a subject about which I know little and assumed good faith on behalf of its creator, does not mean that I endorse it. My vote to delete this original research remains. Dunc|☺ 13:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok Duncharris, I removed your name from the keep or abstain list of voters. Iasson 13:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Thankyou, but I'm sure I speak for the rest too. They're certainly not keep votes (not that it'd make any difference), but they might indeed be construed as abstentions if the user has not voted here here. Most of the community haven't voted, so they've so far abstained too. Dunc|☺ 17:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Iasson is right, it should have been deleted some time ago, and this might have saved a lot of trouble. Better late than never. See why Wikipedia is not so great. Andrewa 08:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. The fact that it hasn't been deleted before simply indicates that Wikipedia isn't perfect, it is not evidence that the subject is worth keeping. -- Solipsist 09:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I can't say anything better than has been said above. Thryduulf 09:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• delete, speedy as vandalism? Dunc|☺ 10:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, another of those seemingly unending Iasson discussions concerning representation and voting procedures? Lectonar 12:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment I was personally intending to nominate Average rule for deletion myself—only after I had gotten replies to a query I sent to some of the other editors of the article, precisely because I was interested in the fact that so many people had looked at it over a period of six months without themselves nominating it. I asked:

I'm thinking of nominating Average rule for deletion on the grounds that it is a neologism and original research. This article has existed since August 2004 without anyone questioning it or proposing it for deletion. Do you think it's legitimate? Do you know of any reasons I shouldn't nominate it for deletion?"

So far I've gotten two three replies.

Michael Hardy replied: "I don't know much about politicial philosophy, but my gut reaction is to suspect you're right." Stevietheman replied "Well, I didn't know whether or not it was legitimate, but I did some work at some point to clean it up. I think the original author of this article also created other works and contributions to articles I've been unsure of (like to Majoritarianism). I don't see why you shouldn't submit Average rule for deletion."

Jmartinezot says "I edited that article just to remove a blank before a comma, so I will agree with the final decision about deletion or not."

Generally, the other editors were wikifying, correcting text, editing for clarity. I don't think any of them were making content judgements. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My edits were only to clean up the article, and do in no way whatsoever endorse the content as encyclopedic. But I think because of my edits, I need to abstain from this vote. --Stevietheman 14:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism, original research, no citations presented. The strongest argument is made in the article itself: "Average rule has never been tried as a political regime in human history, but also not even a single community has ever tried to implement it." The kindest interpretation I can make of Iasson's conduct is that he has constructed some novel and complex systems for group decision-making, which may or may not have real theoretical merit as a way of extracting a judgement from a group of people, but which are too utterly impractical to merit serious consideration... and that he was hoping that he could convince Wikipedia to adopt these methods. This material could go on Iasson's user page—assuming, as I do, that he is the author—but it is not suitable for the main encyclopedia namespace. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not the author of that article, but I am willing to offer hospitality to it in my personal page, as long as it is a very good argument in my RFC against the tyranny of the deletionist gang band majority that want me to stop casting my peculiar votes. Iasson 14:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not the author of that article. Riiiiiight. It's just an amazing coincidence that the IP number of its creator is an IP number you've used.
    • as long as it is a very good argument in my RFC. It's clearly an appeal to authority you made up out of whole cloth, so it's not only NOT a very good argument, it demonstrates the bankruptcy of your defense, such as it is. --Calton 15:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • It's a somewhat interesting proposal, but so impractical that I cannot imagine its ever being adopted for human group deliberations, even if it could be shown that it was better at identifing the will or the judgement of a group of people than traditional voting methods. Iasson if you are interested in promoting the use of this rule, or have a general interest in voting methods, then you should consider copying this material to your user page, as it is a place within Wikipedia where you could keep it and people could read it if they were interested. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, or more probably something connected with Iasson's views on Wikipedia voting procedures -- which doesn't belong in the main article space. --BM 17:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, block Iasson for 24 hours for disrupting VfD. --Carnildo 18:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. If User:Iasson's quote above (I have created 11 voting theories in Wikipedia. Go find them and delete them all!) is true and not just emotional rhetoric, he/she should be sanctioned for repeatedly disrupting Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 22:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Enough. It's time for Iasson to be banned for disrupting Wikipedia. RickK 00:09, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Note his statement above, "And I am saying to you that, for now on, I am going to cast peculiar votes in all proposed for deletion 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)" would seem to be an invitation... Dpbsmith (talk) 01:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Carnildo 01:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, in order to further the sinister machinations of the cabal. --Zarquon 02:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, because There Is No Cabal, and they want the original research gone. --TenOfAllTrades 03:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with you. There is no cabal. I was just wondering about this[[4]]:

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!

Iasson 13:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And how is that relevant to this VfD, exactly? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss it. If you want discussion about it, read my rant [[5]] and lets discuss there. Iasson 13:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In other words, you acknowledge that this is wholly irrelevant to this VfD. So why did you post it? It doesn't even make sense anyway: you (quite literally) asked to be banned (the comment "Be prepared, my peculiar votes are going to flood your POV Vfd policy and procedure, until an administrator bans me" from this very VfD) and now you're upset because someone complied. Boo hoo. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Xtra 03:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original "research", or more likely an original attempt at disruption. —Stormie 09:07, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Original research. "Average rule has never been tried as a political regime in human history, but also not even a single community has ever tried to implement it, as long as its implementation is complicated and requires a high level of mathematics." Also, Wikipedia is not a theatre of war, an experiment in anarchy or an experiment in democracy. JRM 13:47, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
• Delete. I do, how ever, find it really funny how impractical this method would be to actually use. It's junk stat science from an increasingly likely troll. humblefool 00:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete,Delete,Delete This was amusing at first; now just very tiresome.Sc147 02:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research, and delete wikisaboteur for good measure. —Korath (Talk) 06:56, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 22:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and delete - David Gerard 22:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. --Slowking Man 23:21, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.