Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 April 14

14 April 2014

Favorite betrayal criterion – No consensus. There is not the required consensus to restore the article, or to undo the deletion decision, which is therefore maintained by default. Relisting the discussion is neither suggested by anybody, nor do I think that it would help, given the apparent lack of interest in or knowledge about this very obscure topic among most readers. I note that several commentators suggest a RfC. –  Sandstein  18:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Favorite betrayal criterion (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) There are several relevant sources which have not been discussed in any of the AfD discussions of this article: [1] This is a popular article on this criterion. Democracy Chronicles meets the requirements for a WP:RS: that is, it is not a mere blog, but a news/opinion site with editorial oversight. [2] : This is a peer-reviewed paper, not discussed in any of the previous deletion discussions. It does not consider the issue of favorite betrayal as a voting system criterion, but rather as a more general phenomenon. Still, it gives clear evidence that this terminology is known within the voting theory field. (In fact, it suggests a possible compromise: rather than an article on the favorite betrayal criterion, we could have a slightly more-general article on the phenomenon of favorite betrayal (voting theory). I for one would be entirely satisfied with such a decision, though it's not my first choice.) Gaming the Vote: Why Elections Aren't Fair (and What We Can Do About It) by William Poundstone ISBN-10: 0809048922, p229: This is a book citation, not discussed in any of the article's AfD's. In fact, the nominator in the most recent AfD explicitly denied that there were any citations in published books. While it mentions the criterion only in passing, again, it gives evidence that this is a known idea in the field. There are also relevant citations which were not mentioned (or actively denied) in the latest AfD, though they had been brought up in previous AfD's: [3] An undergraduate honors thesis which discusses and clearly defines the criterion. [4] A paper which discusses this criterion extensively. Though this has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, it has been cited in a peer-reviewed paper by Steven Brams, making it a legitimate part of the scientific literature. [5] A homework problem in a math textbook which involves this criterion. What is Wikipedia, after all, if it isn't a place where you can look up the definitions of the terms used in your math textbooks? Homunq (࿓) 13:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Please redact the reference to another users' motivations. DRV is not a platform for attacking other users and DRVs can and have been closed early if that is how they are perceived. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 14:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Done. Homunq (࿓) 14:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC) (And, sorry.) Homunq (࿓) 14:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC) The paper by Ossipoff is problematic because Democracy Chronicles is merely a blog that portrays itself as a newspaper. In any case, Democracy Chronicles is not a peer-reviewed journal. The paper by Stensholt is problematic because he uses the term "favorite betrayal" in a different manner. He uses the term "favorite betrayal" as a synonymous term for "compromising". The paper by Poundstone is problematic because he uses the term "favorite betrayal" only in a single sentence. In this sentence, he lists criteria he doesn't consider for whatever reasons. The other papers have been mentioned in AfDs. Markus Schulze 18:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Schulze's objections above are all three based at least partly on his own original opinions. My opinions differ in key regards. The fact that DC is not a peer-reviewed journal does not make it "merely a blog that portrays itself as a newspaper". It is a news site with editorial oversight. Schulze apparently believes that only peer-reviewed sources are WP:RS. Stenholt's use of "favorite betrayal" was relevant in general, though as I acknowledged, it relates to the cases where this criterion is failed, and does not contemplate the criterion as such. We can continue to debate this issue, but anything we say on the subject is likely to be WP:OR. Poundstone chooses to mention this criterion, out of all the many criteria he could have mentioned in such an offhand manner, because he has actually already spent almost half a chapter discussing the phenomenon (without naming it), so the reader of his book will recognize the idea. Homunq (࿓) 20:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC) This is another skirmish in a very longstanding argument between two well-established editors, both of whom seem to be experts (or at the very least, familiar with obscure and recondite texts) on a topic that very few other people are qualified to evaluate. This will be the second DRV and there have been seven AfDs. If we decide to overturn, then in due course there will be an eighth AfD, and if we decide to endorse, then in due course there will be a third DRV. I believe that Markus Schultze and Homunq have become entrenched in their opposing positions and will never agree with each other now. I also believe that in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, we need to find a more permanent solution. I don't suppose both Homunq and Markus Schultze would agree to move this to a binding RFC?—S Marshall T/C 21:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC) I'd have no problem with that, as long as the resulting RfC gave due consideration to the possibility that the situation could change. That is to say: if the verdict were that the article is not currently notable and/or verifiable, I would hope and expect that there would be clear conditions on what kind of new sources could change that, and perhaps some process (that is, if a new source appears, which editors could decide if it's relevant). But since I trust that an RfC result would be at least that reasonable, I don't object. Homunq (࿓) 21:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC) S Marshall wrote: "This will be the second DRV and there have been seven AfDs." Actually, this is the third DRV. The other DRVs are here and here. And there was a request for undeletion. Markus Schulze 04:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC) I apologise for understating the extent of the problem; thanks for reminding me of the other discussions I didn't find. I feel as if this needs a more permanent resolution, because you both appear to have knowledge that could be used to develop articles and it seems such a pity that you're spending so much time butting heads with each other over this. I feel that at some point, we reach the stage where further discussion is unproductive. When this discussion is eventually closed, and whichever way it goes, please would the lucky closer who gets to decide which of these editors is right consider the following additional remedies:- (1) Listing "Favorite betrayal criterion" and variants thereof at WP:DEEPER; and (2) Imposing a rule that further discussions will be speedily closed unless a substantial new source has emerged.—S Marshall T/C 08:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Comment - while I didn't offer an opinion either way, I did participate in the most recent AFD and was able to conduct some analysis of my own in the process. I suppose my commentary could have been (and probably was) interpreted there as weak delete. I simply couldn't find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources no matter how hard I looked. I can't see that the passing mentions really do much to get is closer to the line. I can see the argument that Poundstone was "discussing the phenomenon without naming it" but that's probably not a great example to hang your GNG hat on. It relies on the premise that others interpret that discussion in the same way. As sources go, it's not a particularly good one. I'm not convinced Democracy Chronicles is a reliable source. It's effectively a blogging collective built on a WordPress system. There's nothing wrong with that per se but it seems there are some good writers there and some not-so-good writers. While it seems true that an "editor" (of sorts) picks and chooses material for publication, it's unclear what level of oversight exists. The reliability of any given article from that site would probably need to be based on the author rather than the method of publication. In this case, a Michael Ossipoff is the author. He doesn't seem to have much of an online presence at all and he certainly doesn't seem to be a professor or other academic expert somewhere that might make him a reliable source in his own right. From a functional DRV perspective I imagine the close of that AFD will be seen as entirely valid and I don't think the nominator is suggesting otherwise. But the secondary consideration (potential recreation) is more difficult. I don't think we're there yet. While this is a concept that some people have accepted, it just doesn't seem to have gained the sort of widespread acceptance or coverage that would allow it to meet WP:GNG yet. Stalwart111 07:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Homunq's comments, summarized below OK. I'm going to be honest here. I think it's pretty clear that both for both Schulze and myself, our belief about whether or not this article should exist is: Good faith. Perhaps I've made a bit too much of the fact that Schulze's method doesn't pass this criterion. I'm sure he honestly believes that considerations other than this criterion should be paramount in election system design, and that anything that's not a peer-reviewed publication doesn't merit consideration. Meanwhile, I honestly believe that this is exactly the kind of WP:V information that people come to Wikipedia to look up, so of course it belongs here. Based in something outside wikipedia policy, with policy arguments being used more-or-less as a means to an end. Schulze has an obvious motive; and, as for me, I'm part of an online community of voting activists for whom this is one of the more important criteria. (For just one instance, see this video: [6]; that's not mine, but I do know the ones who made it.) I've refrained from violating WP:CANVASS, but trust me, if I wanted to, I could marshall a dozen people here to take my side; and, knowing the various online voting systems communities, I doubt Schulze could say the same. (Not that he would think in those terms anyway; again, I'm sure he honestly believes that peer reviewed articles is the only metric that should matter here.) But, taking off my activist hat for a moment, I can see Stalwart's point. I think it's clear that this article does meet WP:V, but WP:GNG is honestly a bit of a stretch. I've made the best arguments I can (for now), and I'm pretty sure that if nobody was motivated to take the other side, they would have been enough; but since somebody is, it seems that there's a good chance I'll fall a few centimeters short of clearing GNG. I'm not giving up, mind you; but I recognize that my case is a difficult one. Still, I can imagine a compromise that I hope might satisfy all sides. WP:GNG states: "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article." It seems to me clear that this material is at least at that level; easily passing WP:V even if you think it strains at WP:GNG. Thus, I would accept defeat on this article (until, of course, a clear-cut peer-reviewed citation appears) if Schulze would agree to allow the FBC to be covered in the appropriate section of Voting systems (including the table there). But given how Schulze has persisted in this fight in the past, I don't know how I could trust such a truce to hold unless there were a binding RfC. And I really don't want this to just turn into a slow-burning edit war over there, even though in the end I'm pretty sure my side could muster more bodies to such a war, without even needing to play loose with WP:CANVASS. What do others think about this? Herr Doktor Schulze: how do you respond? Experienced admins: Would enforcing a truce like that be a valid use of the RfC process? Homunq (࿓) 12:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC) I want to be clear about something. I think that the FBC (that is, this article) meets the GNG, though I admit it's a squeaker. I also think that it quite clearly meets the criteria not to be UNDUE as a part of voting system. I realize that these are separate questions, and that the latter does not precisely belong right here; but I think that both questions are likely to need some attention beyond just Schulze and myself, in order to come to a stable resolution. Thus, I bring up the latter question here not because I think that possibly giving ground on the former question would entitle my point of view to any special consideration on the latter one (it doesn't), but rather because, now that we have some other people helping us work this out, I think it would be best to resolve both questions if possible. Homunq (࿓) 16:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Frankly, you would get more external input if you didn't post a massive wall of text after every comment. This kind of uber badgering is very offputting and discourages other editors from commenting. Spartaz Humbug! 17:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC) (Note: Spartaz was right, above; so I collapsed the comment just above and trimmed the others down: [7]) Homunq (࿓) 12:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC) OK, thanks. I'm sorry for badgering; my intent was only to take a reasonable look at both sides, but without giving ground... heh, now I say it that way, I see what a bad idea that was. To summarize my point: Nobody here has disputed that the favorite betrayal criterion (FBC) is WP:V; as far as I can see, the debate is only on notability. I don't want this dispute to morph into an edit war about whether the FBC merits mention on voting system ("If a topic does not meet (GNG) but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.") Thus, ideally I'd like a ruling strong enough to prevent such an edit war. I realize this isn't exactly the place for that, so I was asking if an RfC would be (and now, before such an edit war starts). Homunq (࿓) 19:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC) The consensus is pretty strong that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC) The article subject should be left deleted until such as as very substantial coverage in very reliable sources emerges. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC) temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review . I've done this previously. It would be good to have it settled, but the two principal disputants seem unlikely to settle it between them, and as far as anyone else goes, the arguments seem equivocal. Personally, I think we'd be best served to settle it by having a modest article. It wouldnt be undue promotionalism, or anything serious, just borderline notability. Including it is less trouble than arguing about it. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Note: If additional expert voices, besides Schulze and myself, are wanted, I'd say the best place to get them would be by posting on the Electorama mailing list. This is a discussion list open to anyone interested in voting systems, and participants have a diversity of views; for instance, both Schulze and I participate, and are welcome there. Traffic is not too high, and I estimate a post there would get a response here from only a handful (say, 0-4) of more-or-less experienced wikipedians; not an unhealthy tidal wave of new users. Obviously, any notice there should be careful to stress that this debate should cleave to wikipedia policy and avoid WP:OR. I'm not going to post anything there, but I'd consider it healthy if a neutral admin were to do so. Basically, the sad fact is that these days, since so many people have drifted away from the project over the years, it's easier to get the attention the average experienced wikipedian off-wiki than on-. Homunq (࿓) 20:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Stop. What we have here is a procession of poorly attended AFD and DRV discussions, neither of which has definitively answered the question of whether we ought to have an article on this topic. I really think the best way forward might be to have an RFC, as widely promoted as possible, to attempt to come to a decision one way or another, that most importantly, should be made binding for a lengthy period of time (say, 1 year). Otherwise I fear this is going to continue showing up at AFD and DRV and continue wasting the community's time. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC). I'd be happy to accept a 1-year binding decision, if Schulze would. I'd be even happier if the decision also (temporarily) stopped any edit warring over mentioning this criterion in voting system. (But not just by freezing at an arbitrary version; I mean, some principled choice over whether inclusion in the table there is or is not WP:UNDUE.) Obviously, part of the reason I'm agreeing is that I hope to win on the merits (on WP:GNG here, but especially on WP:UNDUE there). But even if I lose on both... well, I think that the situation with citations will improve over time, but not so quickly that a year is an unreasonable period to wait before coming back to the issue. So if an RfC is the only way to have a binding answer... who should start that, and how? Homunq (࿓) 13:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC) endorse I see nothing wrong with the decision, or any other way it could have gone, and no valid reasons have been given to overturn it. Hardly poorly attended, it was better attended than many if not most, and many editors don't bother with decisions with enough !votes and discussion to establish consensus (the discussion has been viewed 400 times, so was hardly overlooked).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC) To head off the possibility of edit-warring on this topic, I've started an RfC on the issue of whether the FBC deserves mention on voting system.Homunq (࿓) 14:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Overturn because favorite betrayal is the strongest strategy under Condorcet and approval methods. EllenCT (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC) I would rather say that burying and compromising are the strongest strategies under Condorcet and approval methods. Markus Schulze 07:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Is there a source to back up that assertion Ellen? Spartaz Humbug! 09:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Delete Homunq writes: "I think that even Schulze wouldn't deny that the FBC is a well-defined criterion." Actually, I do deny that the favorite betrayal criterion is well defined. I have made the observation that, whenever I ask one of the few supporters of this criterion a non-trivial question about this criterion, he modifies the definition of this criterion a little bit so that this definition answers this question, but simultaneously opens many new questions. The current version of the "favorite betrayal criterion" article says: "A voting system satisfies the favorite betrayal criterion if there do not exist situations where a voter is only able to obtain a more preferred outcome (i.e. the election of a candidate that he or she prefers to the current winner) by insincerely listing another candidate ahead of his or her sincere favorite." Example: Suppose in a concrete situation a concrete voter can, when voting system X is used, obtain a more preferred outcome only by insincerely listing another candidate ahead of his sincere favorite. Suppose in the same situation the same voter can, when some other voting system Y is used, obtain the same more preferred outcome by insincerely listing another candidate ahead of his sincere favorite and also by some other strategy that doesn't require that he lists another candidate ahead of his sincere favorite. Then, voting system X violates the favorite betrayal criterion and voting system Y satisfies the favorite betrayal criterion. So, according to the favorite betrayal criterion, voting system Y is better than voting system X. But this is not only in drastic contrast to the consensus in social sciences, it is the exact opposite of the consensus in social sciences, which says that a voting system is the better the less manipulable it is. The consensus in social sciences would be that voting system X is better than voting system Y because in voting system X the outcome can be manipulated only by insincerely listing another candidate ahead of one's sincere favorite. When you promote an idea that is in drastic contrast to the consensus in your academic field, you need good sources that support your idea. But there is not a single reliable source that focuses on the favorite betrayal criterion. Markus Schulze 06:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC) You made the same comment on Talk:Voting system; I've responded to it there. Homunq (࿓) 13:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Comment In my opinion the criterion is not yet fully well-defined, or else it is not yet clearly explained. (How can Approval voting pass this criteria when that method makes it impossible to "[list] another candidate ahead of his or her sincere favorite"?) I am in favor of using the Election-Methods forum (on which both Homunq and Schulze participate) to better define the criterion where it can be peer-reviewed, and I regard that process as fully authoritative for peer-review purposes. (In that forum, as Schulze has pointed out, another supporter of this criteria keeps changing his version of the definition; in that forum I haven't yet seen a non-ambiguous definition of the criterion.) I have no strong opinion one way or the other about whether the article should be restored or not. VoteFair (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC) To respond to your question: in approval, if I prefer A>B>C, yet approve only B, that would constitute "[listing] another candidate ahead of [my] sincere favorite." Such a ballot might be strategically "inadmissible" in approval, but it is still perfectly valid. This criterion states that there in approval, there is no possible election where all of my strategically optimal votes (in a von-neumann-morgenstern sense) would be of this form, holding everybody else's votes constant. For approval, a slightly more general property than this is proven (without, sadly, mentioning the words "favorite betrayal") in Endriss, U. “Vote Manipulation in the Presence of Multiple Sincere Ballots.” In Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, 125–134, 2007. From the result there, the consequence that approval and the principal rated/graded systems (median- and mean-based, without abstention/quorum rules) all pass FBC, is trivial. Homunq (࿓) 18:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Acoustic harassment – Speedy deletion overturned. Consensus is that the article is sufficiently distinct from the previously deleted one to make it escape speedy deletion. This does not prevent a regular deletion discussion. –  Sandstein  18:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Acoustic harassment (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) This article was speedily deleted by Dennis Brown moments after I had posted a discussion to ANI about the subject (because it kept getting redirected by someone who seems to have thought it was the previous article). Dennis speedily deleted the article with the rationale "G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (ie: Voice to skull)" but this was a completely new article that I had written from scratch based on reliable independent sources. I am working on the article in my userspace at User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment. And for those claiming that this is some sort of completely made up nonsense fringe (which is irrelevant if it's covered in reliable independent sources, because it would still be notable) aspects of this subject are already covered at articles including Microwave auditory effect and sonic weapon. The previous article that was deleted had to do with mind-control, an aspect I didn't find in the sources I found. I did find lots and lots of magazine articles, newspaper sources, and books with substantial coverage of acoustic harassment and acoustic weaponry in reliable sources of this subject. For example here are the Google Books results of a search for "Acoustic harassment". Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Comment The AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice to skull, the MFD is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Voice to skull and, since this DRV has been opened, User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment. The ill-tempered ANI discussion is at WP:ANI#Voice-to-skull – the evil microwaves have been effective in harrassing everyone. Thincat (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC) I'm hesitant to ask for this to be restored for the purposes of this discussion and I'm also not sure whether it would do us any good given the "previously deleted" content was under a different title again. So we'd have to have both temporarily restored so that we could consider whether they were sufficiently similar to warrant G4 speedy deletion. But I'm still a bit confused. The author claims this is a different article about a different subject with different content under a different title. I fail to see how such an article would qualify for G4 in the first place. Again, not an admin; can't see the two deleted pages. Maybe I'm missing something but the accepted standard would normally be to allow an editor-in-good-standing to create an article and have it judged on its merits. If someone wants to take it to AFD (which seems likely given the day-old userspace draft has already been taken to MFD) then so be it. Stalwart111 10:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC) temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review I suggest looking through all the history and checking he various redirects. I think the cvoice-to-skull"version is included, but if not , let me know. DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Keep/allow G4 seems inappropriate and the title obviously ought to be a blue link because there are numerous variations on this — see Acoustic harassment devices reduce seal interaction in the Baltic salmon-trap, net fishery. The page ought to start as a general survey of related topics in the style of a dab page. Examples would include bird scarers, white torture and music in psychological operations. The microwave technology is covered at microwave auditory effect and seems to be a well-established phenomenon. Andrew (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC) I would note that this article was named Voice-to-skull (similar to the previous Voice to skull) then renamed to the current title at 17:56, 13 April 2014‎ only after people complained it was a recreation at ANI, seemingly a failed attempt to bypass AFD or G4. The rest I will for others to sort as my opinion should already be obvious. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Overturn and Restore Additional sources have been added, this is a contested G4 and should be ripe for restore. Valoem talk contrib 15:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC) "Userfy", or something. I can't make out what two versions of what were judged to be "substantially identical" so as to justify WP:CSD#G4 – but never mind. I don't think the speedied page met the notability criteria so if it is undeleted it could very reasonably be sent to AfD immediately. However, the only problem with it being made a userspace draft is that it is one already. If Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment (a very unfortunate nomination) results in delete we should userfy the article. However it would be best for the present draft to be allowed to remain and let this page be deleted. Complete deletion of both is inappropriate. Thincat (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Overturn  I don't know, but I'd think that acoustic harassment would be like playing Frank Sinatra music at the end of a rock concert to drive off the hip crowd, or the loudspeakers set up at the Vatican Embassy in Panama in 1989.  As for G4, if it is a new article, G4 does not apply.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.