Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Chaos washing machines

Vote counting
This thread copied from User talk:Tony Sidaway.

Hello, Tony. I am wondering about your closure of the Chaos washing machines VfD, in which you state that "the result of the debate was copyvio." However, when I count the votes, I find the results to be 6 for deletion, 3 for merging, 1 for keeping only if copyvio is rewritten, and 0 copyvio votes. Copyvio was certainly brought up, and the article is copyvio, certainly, but it seems to me that the result of the debate is clearly delete. So, why did you call the result as copyvio? Am I missing something? At the very least, I'd like to know why you called the debate as such. Thank you, --Blackcap | talk 04:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how you see 6 out of 10 for deletion as a consensus to delete. Some sysops will call consensus if there are as few as 67%, true, but that's more than 6 out of 10, not less. But actually the correct call here is copyvio. If it is obvious that an article is a copyright violation, it should be handled at WP:CP, during the course of which the article will certainly be deleted. Someone else may choose to write a new article on the subject, and I've allowed for it to be relisted. --Tony Sidaway Talk 05:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * But it's not 6 out of 10, it's 6 out of 9, as the 1 keep vote was on the condition that it be uncopyvioed, which it wasn't, making the result 67%. I assume that since you didn't call that as "delete" that you aren't of the opinion that 67% is consensus, which makes the result "no consensus," and a copyvio template is put on the page. So why is the debate called "copyvio?" Sure, a copyvio article should be handled at WP:CP, but that doesn't change the VfD votes. --Blackcap | talk 06:55, September 5, 2005 (UTC) Corrolary: Even if we count the "conditional keep" vote, the VfD should still have been marked "no consensus," and a copyvio notice should have gone up on the page. Either way, the result of the debate wasn't "copyvio," even though that's what the article is. --Blackcap | talk 06:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Our guide for administrators tells us specifically that copyright violations override votes. In short, it wouldn't matter if we had 10 "keep" votes, the result would still be copyright violation and no appeals because the article is almost word-for-word the same as the cited source.


 * I don't understand why you'd discount the tenth vote in your scenario. That is not how I would do the arithmetic. --Tony Sidaway Talk  07:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Right, mate. I know it's totally copyvio, I'm the one who found where it came from. But if something's copyvio, and it goes into VfD, then the VfD votes get counted, and if the votes are for delete, then it's deleted, if the votes are for anything else, the VfD is closed, then a nice fat copyvio sticker gets slapped on the page, right? Just because the article's copyvio doesn't mean that it can't be deleted by VfD or CSD (e.g. an A7 copyvio can still be speedied) as far as I understand it. If you disagree or I'm wrong or whatnot, I'd appreciate it greatly if you'd show me where I'm wrong in WP policy, beacasue after reading WP:CP and WP:AfD I haven't found the rule that copyright problems change VfD votes.


 * Also, I'm not "discounting" the tenth (Kappa's keep) vote. The vote says, "Change vote to keep if copyvio is rewritten." The copyvio was not rewritten. Thus, according to his wishes, he has not voted keep, he has not voted anything. --Blackcap | talk 17:39, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay. Well I wouldn't have counted it like that. He did vote and that vote would have been counted as a provisional keep, had I counted any of the votes at all. --Tony Sidaway Talk  22:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)