Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Policy consensus/Regarding tally boxes

=Conclusions=
 * 1) Tally boxes should not be used on VfD.
 * 2) While there is no specific punishment related to tally boxes, repeatedly using them after being warned not to may be considered vandalism.

This is to determine whether or not to allow the inclusion of tally boxes on votes for deletion.

Specifically, this tally box to the right:

By tally box, it is not referring to the table used by Administrators to confirm lengthly discussions, but the tally box presented to the right.

See also Votes_for_deletion/Policy_consensus/Deletion_criterion_boxes.

Background
Prior attempts have been made before, and including the inclusion of a template, which has now been deleted. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion and the discussion of the now deleted Template:Vfd votes. The general consensus was to delete the template.

Points to consider

 * WP:WIN
 * Don't vote on everything

Discussion
There is one particular user who continues to add these boxes manually. He's been asked to stop, but he does not seem to be listening. See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:56, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Consensus
Please cite your reasons for determining consensus either way. Nonsensical reasoning and names with no reasoning may be discounted. If you agree with a prior person's reasoning, please try to explain why.

Remove tally boxes

 * 1) Administrators are the ones determine whether or not an article is kept, deleted, redirect, etc.  The tally box may confuse people that the only options in the tally box are the only options available. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:56, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) A list summarizing votes at the top of the VfD entry is useful in large, heavily-debated cases such as Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America, where it would otherwise be difficult to figure out consensus, but otherwise, they're just distracting. --Carnildo 07:06, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) *A vastly better solution for cases like these is what Rossami has done at Votes for deletion/La Shawn Barber. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 10:15, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) There is a disturbing trend around Wikipedia (not limited to VfD) to push for numbers rather than reasons.  It really needs to be nipped in the bud. --iMb~Mw 07:11, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) What Carnildo and iMeowbot said. Johnleemk | Talk 08:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) They don't always get updated when a voter casts a vote, can cause more confusion than they solve. RickK 08:37, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) As said above, it's not a numbers game, and these tallyboxes act as scoreboards reinforcing the us v. them mentality. Also as noted above, admins are the ones who do the tallying.  Who determines which votes get tallied and which don't?  We've already had disputes over counting. I can't wait for the first edit war when some anon starts bitching about his vote not being counted in the tallybox. Gamaliel 08:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Two especially egregious examples:, . &mdash;Korath (Talk) 10:08, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) I won't type in all over again what I said in the WP:TFD discussion. It still stands.  And I agree with several of the subsequent points made by others in that discussion.  Uncle G 11:15, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
 * 10) Agree with RickK; they're more harmful than helpful. Carrp | Talk 14:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Agree with what every one else said. These aren't useful and, in fact, are detrimental to determining consensus. Tuf-Kat 14:43, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Despite the names of "Votes for deletion", it's not just a matter of votes. The person we most need to hear from when consensus is heading towards a particular option is the person making the strongest argument for the other point of view.  Such a person may be already inclined to "not waste their time", however, if they think people's minds are already made up; such a tally box only reinforces that impression and impedes clear discussion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) To summarize the discussions at Talk:VfD and TfD; the boxes are a Bad Thing. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Remove, for reasons I articulated at WP:TFD. As Korath (Talk notes above, in particularly complex cases the sort of tally Rossami created for La Shawn Barber is helpful, but it should not be a template, and should be reserved for the very few discussions that need them. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) One problem I have with them is that they disturb the voting process by seeming to allege a certain outcome is already present. Also they tend not to be up to date, and do not list oft-chosen options like merge and tranwiki. I'd much prefer them gone. Radiant! 16:52, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) I think the admins responsible for deleting articles at the end of the VFD process are quite capable of counting the yays and nays and other options themselves. Is there a policy that requires people to bold their votes? If not, there should be. A tally box would be needless repetition and subject to abuse by sockpuppets and people with a vested interest in keeping an article on Wikipedia "stacking the deck". 23skidoo 17:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) *There's no policy. However, there is a request to do so, with an explanation why, at Guide to Votes for Deletion.  I recommend reading that page if you haven't already.  Uncle G 12:38, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
 * 18) I don't think I can add anything that has not already been said. Oh, and I updated the sample box at the top to reflect this vote. Hope no one minds; I'm a sucker for irony. -R. fiend 22:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) In addition to the excellent points made by others regarding the tally boxes being a subtle but important miscontruction/misunderstanding of the VFD process, I would also point out that they also add size and space. - RedWordSmith 00:35, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Counter-productive. My opinion of these boxes hasn't changed since the template was deleted.  -Sean Curtin 02:22, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Emphasises adversarial voting rather than argument and discussion. --Theo (Talk) 10:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Remove the boxes. The numbers inside can't be trusted, since people forget to update.  That means that closers have to go back and look at the discussion anyway.  They reduce what should be a meaningful discussion to an overly simplistic set of choices.  They don't allow for issues of sockpuppetry, or for holders of brand-new accounts voting en masse.  Joyous 16:00, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Remove.  There is no telling whether a tally is up to date; but more to the point the boxes create the impression that VfD is a straight vote rather than a consensus-forming process.   The fact that VfD lasts several days can mean that the later votes have a different significance than the earlier ones did, for example.   On VfD's which become very long, I do find the tables that Rossami sometimes creates to be useful, though.   --BM 19:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Remove. Deletion guidelines for administrators says the result is based on rough consensus, not on a numeric tally. However, the tally boxes make it appear as if the result depended on a numeric tally. Thus, they are deceptive and confusing. cesarb 20:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Remove always. Encourages voting rather than fixing, faction building rather than consensus.  Mozzerati 21:34, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
 * 26) Remove. The various people who update the tally may differ in their interpretation of what qualifies as a "bad faith" vote, vote stacking, and sockpuppetry, so a prudent admin would have to do their own tally at closure anyway, making these a redundant waste of effort.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 03:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Don't like 'em, but they're not as bad as those other VfD boxes that we're also voting on currently. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 12:53, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Remove. Again no need to add stuff which can lead to edit wars and might influence people for voting. Let people read the disscussion before they vote. kaal 23:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Remove. See the TFD vote for my comments. Blank Verse   &empty;   05:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Remove. As everything has been said already, I'll just state that my opinion is accurately described by a blend of 30% iMb, 45% Gamaliel, and 25% Antaeus Feldspar. --Plek 14:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Remove. I believe the tally boxes will take away focus on the discussion. Inter\Echo 22:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Object to poll

 * 1) This poll is based on the same adversarial principles as the tally boxes. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure everyone here would be willing to consider an alternate proposal; feel free to add one to the Discussion section of this page or elsewhere. Don't forget that the template for tally boxes was already deleted in a regular TfD debate. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 12:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a valid comment. However, it certainly seems to me that the results of the poll show a rough consensus to remove the tally boxes. If opinion had been divided, or if there were evidence that the presentation of the poll significantly affected the voting, there would be an issue. For the record, I'd like Susvolans to say whether or not he thinks the results of the poll indicate consensus, and, if not, what the specific problem is. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * For the record, the boxes are silly and I am as happy to see the back of them as everyone else. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I object to the poll. The tally box as shown is extremely silly, but I can imagine a similar box being extremely neutral and useful in case of long-winded debate. The very use of a silly exemplar of the object under discussion is an instance of skewing and framing debate by presenting a biased proposition.


 * Voting the entire matter up or down is another instance of creep -- corrosion of the fine principle that each user needs to have and apply good common sense at all times, and pollution of the body politic with the filthy principle that written policy can anticipate all cases, prescribe all actions, and allow users to refer slavishly to authority instead of thinking and considering individual merits. &mdash; Xiong[[Image:Xiong2char.png]]talk 08:12, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)


 * Whatever. Did you notice that this poll was closed over a month ago? The point of this was to stop some users that weren't using their good sense, and were annoying a lot of others. Radiant_* 09:01, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Dealing with violators of this policy
I am recommending that violators of this policy are given a polite warning the first time, a stern warning the second time, and block from editing for a period of 6 hours for the third time. After the third time, an administrator may op to increase the period for the block for subsequent violations. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:56, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Consensus
Please cite your reasons for determining consensus either way. Nonsensical reasoning and names with no reasoning may be discounted. If you agree with a prior person's reasoning, please try to explain why.


 * Note: An 'aye' agreement means that you support blocking for people violating this policy after the second warning. A 'nay' agreement means you do not support blocking after the second warning, but rather prefer something else or like to propose a different solution.

Aye

 * 1) Consensus on the template's deletion was reached.  Ignoring consensus and adding the tally box manually can be considered as disruption under WP:BAN but I think it would be difficult to argue as such. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:56, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Adding those boxes at this point is tantamount to vandalism.  It implies that the process is something other than what it is. --iMb~Mw 07:14, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) What iMeowbot said. Johnleemk | Talk 08:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) If consensus says no tallyboxes, then continuing to add them is just trolling. Gamaliel 08:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) The template was properly and overwhelmingly deleted.  Continued and knowing addition constitutes reposting of deleted content, i.e. vandalism.  Deal with it as such. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 10:06, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) I'm troubled by the speed with which the point where a block can be imposed can be reached, and the open-ended nature of the second and subsequent blocks.  However, I find those concerns outweighed by the need to prevent the disruption of the process of reaching consensus upon actions to be taken, the very process by which it was decided to remove these boxes, and the diversion of the focus away from reasons onto votes (which has been found to be bad by widespread agreement at least two times in the past month alone, both when the vfd votes template came up for discussion and when WP:GVFD was initially drafted).  So upon balance, and with reservations, I find that "aye" has it. Uncle G 11:15, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
 * 7) *I should mention, since the point has come up elsewhere, that another thing that troubles me about this is the conflation of such actions with vandalism. vandalism emphatically states that failure to abide by consensus decisions and general obstinacy is not vandalism.  I'm troubled by the notion of dealing with it as if it were. Uncle G 15:38, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
 * 8) **Simple defacement is unquestionably vandalism, and if the boxes serve no purpose then defacement is all that they are. --iMb~Mw 15:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) It's necessary to be able to enforce the decision to remove these boxes. Carrp | Talk 14:35, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) It' pointless to have a policy against them unless it is enforced. Tuf-Kat 14:43, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Two warnings are sufficient. In general, the editors who would (choose to and know how to) create and use these boxes have been here for a while, know how Wikipedia works, and should be able to understand the concept after being warned.  As long as the first warning is careful not to bite any newcomers, I don't see a problem. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) This is a very obvious "don't do this" policy, with little or no gray area. Therefore it should be enforced to make it stick. Radiant! 16:52, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Nay
 The first voter in this section asserts that he hates the annoying little pastel boxes that lately have been adorning the right edge of VfD far worse than he ever hated the miserable tally boxes.
 * 1) Premature. For a while, let's just keep removing them as we find them and see what happens. It's no worse than a lot of behavior we tolerate on VfD. We're only picking on this because it is conspicuous and very clearly defined. This isn't a wikifelony or a wikimisdemeanor, it's at worst a wikiparkingticket. The harm done is real but very small. Furthermore, while I am quite opposed to the little tally boxes, I perceive them as a well-intentioned effort to be bold. The proposal for enforcement is nevertheless reasonable, measured, and completely justifiable and I'll support it later if necessary. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) The penalties really ought to be decided on a case-by-case basis.  -Sean Curtin 02:27, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * (comment) Really, this enforcement bit is more of a formality than anything. The message that a strong consensus has formed against the tallying business ought to be enough. --iMb~Mw
 * 1) What Dpbsmith said. --Theo (Talk) 10:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Ditto Dpbsmith.  It isn't a big deal to just remove the tally box, when you are adding your own comment.  --BM 19:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) No need for new rules. The existing ones are already enough. If someone keeps adding back the boxes, let him trip the 3RR or be blocked for vandalism. cesarb 20:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) New discipline policy should only be created when there is an overwhelming need for it. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 12:50, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) No new policy is needed. My opinion equals the sum of 50% of Dpbsmith's and 50% of Starblind's. --Plek 14:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree with Andrew. If mischief starts to happen, let them go the way of the 3RR. Inter\Echo 22:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other

 * 1) repeatedly adding a box against a policy (which this will be) and despite warnings and talk page comments is vandalism.  This should be enforced, but there is no need for a separate vote on it.  Making extra rules just causes confusion.  Mozzerati 21:39, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with Mozzerati. This is not a special case.    &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 18:58, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree with mozzerati. No need to make special rules. Vandalism can deal with this if repeated wranings fail kaal 21:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)