Wikipedia talk:Supervote

Usages

AfD Closings

"super-!vote"

[the closer] violated one of the most important rules in closing an AFD: He cast a super-!vote. The closing admin's job is not to review the arguments someone else made but to judge what consensus is about those arguments. What they personally think about those arguments is irrelevant and if they let their personal opinion influence the close, as [he] obviously did here, they become involved and thus are disqualified from making a call on the discussion. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_December_27 --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocking

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship&action=historysubmit&diff=409036898&oldid=409036651 An administrator "super-vote"d on a WP:AN/I block discussion by unblocking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Answer to SilkTork's "clarification" tag

The point I was trying to make is that while AFD is not a "vote", the !vote count is not completely meaningless. If you have an AFD where there are 5 arguments to keep and 3 (plus the nom) to delete but the deleters make the stronger argument, it is well within admin's discretion to close "delete". It's not the same for an AFD with all "keeps". Punch that one "delete" and you will be defending your "supervote" at DRV.

I can give 2 AFDs I have closed as an example. King Mondo (DRV) and Jerry D'Amigo (DRV). If I were to have closed the former as "delete" (which I couldn't at the time) or the latter as "keep" it's all but likely the closes would be overturned. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the line that says it's not a "supervote" to close in accordance with the minority opinion to it's not a "supervote" to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion. I hope this clarifies things. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two kinds of issue in an AFD. Some points simply cannot carry weight, no matter how many people say them. ILIKEIT is one, so would attempts to present as "evidence" material that is unable to carry evidentiary weight (blogs, self promotion, notinherited, etc), misread evidence (!votes based on web hits that when checked are all links to MySpace, Amazon, iTunes, and nothing more, etc) or !votes that don't actually say anything. Unfortunately we do get these and at times a significant number of users present them as arguments.

An argument that fundamentally contradicts or breaches policy falls within the terms of the closer's judgment to exclude (AFD is not a vote count - if something would obviously not be policy based or contradicts usual AFD norms (eg ILIKEIT) without a good reason then it cannot be a valid AFD view). If this means a surprising result (compared to !votecount) then the closer should explain the logic very carefully.

The other kind of issue is where the point could be valid but needs consensus. canonical example, "is this coverage in the media enough to show notability or is it NOTNEWS". These kinds of questions where there is a genuine question and it would not be unreasonable to conclude eiuther way, the closer should pay close attention to, and be guided by, consensus.

$0.02. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A valid supervote?

I just exercised what could I think be regarded as a valid supervote. [1] (In hindsight I should have provided an edit summary, and I apologise for that, but that's not the issue here.)

There's certainly no consensus to move... proposer and one Oppose. I would also oppose the move, and had I done so formally there would have been a rough consensus not to move.

But I closed it, and that could also have been a valid close as no consensus. I don't think under WP:SNOW there was any need for me to vote, or any reason not to close the RM.

But it isn't really a no consensus close. It's far better seen as a rough consensus not to move. Had I assessed the request as valid, I would have supported and probably relisted the RM, not closed it. Had I been in doubt, I would have just relisted and commented.

Which essentially makes my close a supervote not to move. Comments? Andrewa (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• I see no supervote. I see an easily defended call of rough consensus against the move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick reply! I'm confident my close is easily defended, but in order to claim a consensus I think we need to take my opinion on the validity of the arguments into account. And I think we should do that. That's what I'm exploring here. Andrewa (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    • The small number of participants, and that it was essentially a weak nomination rebuffed, means that the discussion must be considered shallow. Your finding of consensus against would normally mean at least six months before a second attempt, however, a substantially more thorough nomination sooner should be welcome. I don't see your opinion that could have been called a !vote or !supervote, but if you have in unstated considered opinion, you may as well record it now, post-RM, in anticipation of a new nomination when you may not be available to comment.

Certainly there was nothing improper in your close. In fact, your recent contribution to the RM at Talk:Kosovo (region) is an exemplar of what this essay recommends. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think (except for the brain lapse re edit summary) that the close was entirely proper. That's part of the point. And I think what the essay says is valid and important, and I try to abide by it. Andrewa (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPV shortcut

Hi SmokeyJoe. I saw your reversion and your edit summary. My thought is that it wasn't useless clutter, but a helpful addition so that new users (and experienced users alike) know that a shortcut exists that they can easily use to navigate back to the article. It appears that we list the shortcuts on other Wikipedia pages, so I thought that I'd add it here. I just wanted to get your in-depth thoughts about it. Also, it's good to see you again! Hope you're doing well :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• The shortcut is not helpful, it instead obscures the page being linked. There are already way too many shortcuts, they are bamboozling. Shortcuts that are uncommon abbreviations are jargon, and like all jargon they create a barrier for newcomers to overcome. References to the essay should simply use the title. "WP:Supervote" is not so long, and references to it should never be so frequent that a shortcut is really needed.

I am doing well, thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe - Thank you for taking the time to explain your thoughts further in-depth here. I very much appreciate it. My thought was that adding these shortcuts would help editors to find these articles, but I can also see where clutter can chase new editors away. The addition obviously wasn't die-hard (lol); I'll yield my thoughts and agree that it shouldn't be added. Thanks again, man. I'm glad you're doing well. I've been busy myself, but hey... that's life. See you around -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice chatting. I think the link box short cuts have a life of there own, a it like weeds, and I try to fight their proliferation. Good of course to see you around, and to know that old Wikipedians continue to hang around. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Relist supervote

Here's a proposal of another type of supervote, or if not exactly a supervote, a very close analogue:

• Consensus-obfuscating supervote (relist supervote): A discussion has already developed naturally, with ostensible consensus pointing to a given change, but opponents take a view that there is no consensus. It is supervoting to take such procedural action (e.g. to relist citing a need for "clearer consensus") that is engineered to induce a bias toward a no consensus finding, and effectively "reset" the discussion back to starting positions, when it is more or less apparent that a rough consensus is already present.

While writing, I found an essay similar to this Wikipedia:Relisting can be abusive. What do you think? — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Non-prejudicial supervote subsection

I would like to change some text in this subsection that permits closing against consensus.

A "non-prejudicial supervote" is when an XfD is closed either against the consensus in the discussion or where there is no clear consensus, though the closer has left a closing rationale that the close is an "editorial decision" and states what the actual consensus is (if there is one).
— Added in 2011 amid major revisions

I propose removing against the consensus. Acceptable closes are generally not against the consensus.

Consensus split between	Result	Acceptable	Notes
Keep, merge	Redirect	N	Consensus to keep the content, not blank it
Keep, redirect (article)	Redirect	?	May aggravate the dispute, prudent to close as consensus against deletion and suggest a talk page discussion without taking an action
Keep, redirect (recreated)	Redirect	?	Only if longstanding state was a redirect, better to close as no consensus, default to restoring prior state
Merge, redirect	Merge	Y	Consensus against standalone article, can be redirected if merge is not implemented within a reasonable time
Merge, redirect	Redirect	Y	Consensus against standalone article, merge can be implemented from page history

An example would be an AfD discussion where the consensus is towards deletion, but a bold, non-controversial redirection can be made.
— Added in 2015

I propose this replacement: For example, redirect is an acceptable compromise when consensus is against a standalone article but split among merge, redirect, and delete. If the consensus is delete, the AfD should be closed that way.

Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Seeing no objections in a few days, I replaced the redirect sentence. Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)