Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Proposed temporary injunctions

Change template to Centrix version

Until the end of this RFAr, the status of WP:NN shall be changed to match Centrx's version. -- Chris chat edits essays 17:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

Guideline tags

1) Because of the sheer size of the Wikipedia namespace, it is useful to indicate which pages are supported by consensus and which are not. The mechanism for doing so is putting {{ guideline}} (and some variants), on pages which are consensual.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Yes, but the question is how is it determined when consensus is achieved. Fred Bauder 18:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

No legislation

2) Wikipedia cannot be legislated (at least, not below Board level). Guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. One cannot write down a rule and expect that it will therefore be followed, and if a page describes people's behavior then modifying that page will not somehow cause people to change their behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:
If the community, after discussion, comes to a consensus on a policy or guideline it becomes policy, provided it does not violate a foundational policy such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Fred Bauder 18:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
  • Proposed. It should be obvious that one cannot automatically change behavior by writing about it. >Radiant< 23:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This is exactly what Radiant! was doing, pushing WP:DDV to guideline and then using that to help him defeat WP:NNOT! -- Chris chat edits essays 16:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Incorrect. I never said that NNOT was rejected because of DDV. Indeed, DDV is irrelevant to WP:NNOT. Pages stand on their own, and it is obvious from NNOT's talk page that there is no consensus for it. >Radiant< 17:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with chris. Radiant was pushing guidelines with a mere *claim* of consensus. However, I disagree with statement 2) in some ways - guidelines can be either, hopfully both, as long as there's consensus - change comes with conesnsus, not with chaos. And anyway, guidelines can't be a full description of wikipedia becase they're 1. written by individuals, and 2. other individuals who are new or old, may not follow guidelines. Therefore guidelines can't *just* be descriptive. Fresheneesz 19:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
  • Guidelines are to some degree explanations or descriptions of fundamental principles, not necessarily only descriptions of practice. So, for example, Wikipedia:Reliable sources can explain the general kind of sources that are sufficient for Wikipedia:Verifiability and insufficient so as to violate Wikipedia:No original research, and that it is good to cite them, despite the fact that most articles (by number) have only references to official websites, if any. We also do not need to conduct a broad survey (whether a statistical survey of articles or a polling of editors) in order to know that the general idea, if not the particular form it takes one day on the guideline page, is sound for Wikipedia. (Note: for Wikipedia:Notability one can do such a survey and is hard-pressed to find a single article kept despite its subject being patently not notable.) It does so happen that current practice follows these principles so that any prescriptive part of a guideline is only a slight deviation from practice, but this may be because the people who represent "current practice" naturally follow scholarly principles and are the regular encyclopedists. To wit, if the host of Pokemon and musician articles have a certain form and the featured articles on history have another, we would not simply call the former "current practice", whatever the relative number of articles or the number of pop-culture editors passing by. A guideline is prescriptive for such articles. — Centrx→ talk • 21:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Agreed. Notability is used, loosely, to encompass the general concept of having sufficient external attention to justify or allow inclusion, and "voting is evil" is not just widely accepted, it is one of the underlying principles of the xFD process. It's rather ironic that the lack of a vote on "voting is evil" is somehow evidence that it is not consensual policy despite this... WP:NNOT was not "defeated" due to Radiant's tagging, it was defeated because it chose to assert that anm accepted community practice is wrong, rather than seeking to influence or document that practice. Guy 12:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I don't agree that guidelines are purely descriptive and not prescriptive. IMHO, they're both. If a common practice (say voting on AFD nominations without explaining your vote, or the massive creation of fancruft) is contrary to the best interests of Wikipedia, there's no need to write a guideline that says "Thousands of editors write fancruft. If the hundreds of editors opposed to fancruft can get a clear consensus at AFD, they may delete it. If not, the fancruft will stay until an editor gets around to improving it." In other words, a common practice should only be recorded as a guideline if it is also a practice that should be encouraged. TheronJ 15:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry for piling on to my own comments on this issue, but after chewing on this for a while, I now strongly agree with myself. I think that Guidelines are intended (and should be intended) to represent generally accepted best practices, not only to describe common practices. Compare Template:Guideline (Guidelines are "generally accepted among editors and [are] considered a standard that all users should follow"); Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines (A guideline "is any page that is: (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus"). I am not sure whether it is necessary for a guideline to be commonly accepted practice before being adopted, but I don't believe that it's sufficient simply that a guideline accurately reflect commonly accepted practice either. TheronJ 20:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If something is best practice there are already people doing it or something close to it, though it may be a deviation from the commonest practice. Even if no one is doing it, once people realize what is best practice they will start doing it as naturally following from the principles of encyclopedia building. On the other hand, you cannot have a policy that actually contradicts common practice and other, already accepted, policies. — Centrx→ talk • 23:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Guideline based on practice

3) Most successful guidelines are based upon what already happens. New ideas cannot become guideline until they are accepted; an idea that is already accepted (and used in practice) is a good base for a guideline. A personal dislike of consensual practice is not a valid objection against making a guideline of said practice.

Comment by Arbitrators:
There are several paths to community consensus, usual practice is certainly important. Fred Bauder 18:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  • Current practice is a consensus. It is editors acting under experience and consideration, doing and discussing among themselves separately if not in a centralized Wikipedia page. The practice of an editor may be changed by convincing him through reasoned explanation or discussion. Centralized decision-making that requires some quorum of editors does not scale on an open wiki. — Centrx→ talk • 21:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It is hard to think of a better definition of what consensus is, than describing current practice in the Wikipedia community. Supermajority emphatically is not consensus, especially supermajority of interested parties. Review any week's AfDs to see that, while there is no true consensus about where the bar to notability may lie, there is no significant informed dissent fomr the view that some subjects simply are too trivial, or too poorly covered by external sources, to be included. Guy 12:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Consensus is what the community *wants* to happen. For example, if there is a tax loophole that companies can exploit - it makes perfect business sense to exploit it. But the same companies that exploit that loophole might see that it is bad for them, and bad for the community - and thus might fight to close the loophole - for everyone's benefit. Just because we do it right now, doesn't make it the right way to go. Fresheneesz 20:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Consensus there is that people want to avoid tax. They don't want other people to avoid tax, only themselves. In Wikipedia, consensus is what happens every day. There is no significant informed dissent from the view that there must be some bar to inclusion, although debate as to where the bar lies is perennial. Guy 17:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Outcome of process

3b) The common outcome of a frequently-used consensus-gathering process is a reasonable representation of consensus, and thus a plausible base for a guideline.

Comment by Arbitrators:
I guess, but rather muddy. Fred Bauder 18:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Proposed. For instance, Wikipedia has a guideline that every village, no matter how small, deserves an article. This guideline is not (to my knowledge) specifically written down anywhere but it can be easily tested by nominating an article on a small village for deletion. Not everything about Wikipedia is written down, and an obvious outcome does not require extensive debate. >Radiant< 10:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

Courtesy

4) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. This becomes even more important when disputes arise. See Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

Comment by Arbitrators:
A basic rule for consensus decision making. Fred Bauder 18:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Consensus can not be reached if discussions do not remain civil. -- FloNight 01:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Agreed. Guy 15:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Edit warring considered harmful

5) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Agree. This is what my case is about. Fresheneesz 19:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Fresheneesz, It takes two to edit war. FloNight 19:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
FloNight, I disagree. In some cases, it can be one editor edit warring against multiple editors who themselves are not warring. In the DDV "guideline" edit war, Radiant was opposed by half a dozen editors, each of whom reverted no more than twice. ATren 21:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Also, users do not usually pipe up with empty "me-too" votes in support of something. If they see something going well and don't have objections to or concerns about it, they aren't likely to comment. Notability is a highly watched page and people are going to comment if they object. — Centrx→ talk • 23:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
You need to read 3RR policy. It does not give you the right to revert. Users are warned and then blocked, or banned from articles, for edit warring for disruptive editing with less than 3 reverts all the time. Consensus can not be achieved through reverting without discussion. Following good dispute resolution practices is the key. FloNight 21:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, I do understand the "spirit" of 3RR. The point is, there were many editors reverting one way, non of them individually warring (even by the spirit of 3RR), and a single editor reverting the other way, at least 8 total reverts just from him. And, I should point out, he was the one pushing the guideline tag, an edit that would seem to demand more consensus than the reverts to "proposed" or "disputed" - and there clearly was no consensus (yet) for guideline status, based on the half-dozen editors who disagreed with him. Look at the history - it's difficult to identify a single individual other than Radiant that was edit warring on the DDV guideline status. ATren 23:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The issue is that a change needed to be discussed, but radiant would rather edit war than discuss. Its not up to those that want to keep the page the same, to give in to change then discuss. It works the other way around - discuss then change. Fresheneesz 17:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Discussion is needed to reach consensus not reverting. -- FloNight 01:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I tried in the early days to steer this proposal towards some objective criteria rather than an outright denial of accepted practice. This was repeatedly reverted. Having seen the way it was developing, I was then content to walk away secure in the knowledge that a proposal which goes directly against community practice will never be accepted, but somewhat disappointed that some obviously motivated contributors were wasting their time in that way rather than working on clarifying what is still one of the most contended areas on WP, namely, wheat exactly constitutes encyclopaedic notability. Debate? No. Input to this proposal was always and only welcome from tose who want to remove any notability bar to inclusion, without actually tackling the problem that, for some people at least, the definition of notability does actually go to the heart of policy: is the subject covered in sufficient detail in enough reliable, independent, dispassionate sources to allow a verifiable and verifiably neutral article? The inevitable result of excluding this kind of input is a proposal which simply ignores consensus instead of trying to work with the consensus view towards a point where arbitrary judgments are less likely. Under those circumstances, closing off debate is valid. It has to close some time, since it is essentially a sterile and circular argument. Of course anybody not in favour of removing notability altogether is reverted by the remaining editors, because the rest of us have wandered off to do something more productive. The principal objection to those inputs appears to be that "we don't like it" - which is evident from the existence of the page, but amounts to little more than shouting formt he sidelines instead of getting involved in the game. Guy 12:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Ban for disruption

6) Users who disrupt editing of policy or guidelines by aggressive biased (tendentious) editing or other disruptive behavior may be banned from the affected pages if there is broad agreement from the community or an arb com ruling.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed FloNight 01:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes. Similar problems have been found with pseudoscience and other problem areas. The more knowledgable the tendentious editors become about Wiki ways, the more likely they are to try to bend policy to fit their agenda. Guy 15:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Voting is discouraged

7) Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, voting is discouraged as a mechanism for consensus building. Discussion and compromise are the preferred methods. See also the long-standing pages meta:Polling is evil and meta:Don't_vote_on_everything.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Voting is discouraged, but straw polls are not votes. ATren 14:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Voting is not evil#Voting is a tool, just saying, since we're doing the linky thing. 02:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Voting is discouraged is correct for two reasons.
  • First, polling is evil covers all forms of voting, including straw polls. A straw poll of those who are there only because they have a particular point of view will never be a valid tool in establishing conesnsus. For example, you could have a straw poll at remote viewing which I'm sure would establish that it is a valid scientific discipline, because few if any sceptics are watching the page, but that would never make it so. Above all, a straw poll will never elevate the status of something which goes against community norms as documented in practice.
  • Second, the meta page is and always has been polling is evil. So the idea that a poll is not a vote and therefore not evil is misisng the point entirely.
I suggest that whoever posted the above link review the edit histories; VINE is a recent essay, not widely edited other than by its creator and linked less than 50 times. Guy 20:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Guideline process

8) Since there is no formal process for making guidelines, a statement that a guideline was created out of process is meaningless. For the same reason, an assumption that a proposal must go through "stages" or must be "promoted from essay status" is incorrect. Similarly, since guidelines are not enacted through a vote, an objection to a guideline on grounds that it was not voted upon is groundless.

Comment by Arbitrators:
There is a process for making guidelines, community discussion which results in consensus. Fred Bauder 18:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Such community discussion with a resulting consensus never happened on WP:NN. Fresheneesz 18:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Fresheneesz, are you asking the arbitration committee to change the way that policy and guidelines are made? If you are, I do not think that is correct. ArbCom's job is to rule on current policy and guideline MADE BY THE COMMUNITY not make changes to policy and guidelines. FloNight 07:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Is Fresheneesz really proposing that we need to make fundamental changes to Wikipedia's structure, introducing codified processes for regulating the formation of policy and guideline, in order to allow him to prevent us tagging as rejected a proposal which runs counter to current commmunity norms? Guy 20:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
User:Fresheneesz is on the right side on this. The issue here is legitimacy of the claim of "consensus." Accordingly, User:Fresheneesz notes the lack of legitimacy in the false claims of "consensus" over Wikipedia guidelines. -- Rednblu 09:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Guideline rejection

9) A proposal is rejected if, after some discussion, there is no consensus for it. There does not have to be "consensus to reject" a proposal; the proposal can also fail if there is no consensus to accept it. The tag {{ rejected}} is used to indicate this fact; that tag does not in any way prohibit people from discussing the matter further.

Comment by Arbitrators:
OK Fred Bauder 19:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Taken from WP:POL with slight expansion. >Radiant< 16:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Edited. Peter O. ( Talk) 06:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • How does this mesh with number 3? In particular, what happens when there is an apparent common practice, but no consensus within the discussion to formalize that practice as a guideline? TheronJ 15:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Common practice is policy. Fred Bauder 19:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Vexatious litigation

10) If a proposal is rejected, any minor rewording of it or small variation to it is likewise rejected.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Obviously Fred Bauder 19:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
The denial that documented current practice amounts to consensus is again in evidence here. A proposal which goes against established guidelines, practice and policies is highly unlikely to be accepted, however modified, and if there is a desire to change existing policy it should be done in the way of Wikipedia:Attribution, not by simply denying that established practice is valid. Guy 13:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Consensus can change

11) Consensus opinions about both encyclopedia articles and established guidelines/policies can change and discussion aimed at evaluation or looking into alternatives is encouraged.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed -- To clarify that this policy does not only apply to the articles, but also to policy and guidelines itself. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

"Voting" is necessary

12) Although simple vote counting is not the way in which consensus is formed in Wikipedia, many processes in the development of the encyclopedia have strong characteristics of voting, e.g. WP:AFD or WP:RFA. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  • Agree, voting seems to be the only efficient way of determining who thinks what. Discussion is important for resolving a problem, but it cannot efficiently gather information - discussion is for argument, polling is for opinion. Fresheneesz 19:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
  • Proposed, because several processes use voting as a major part of reaching consensus. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "Vote" may be considered an ambiguous word. Wikipedia discussions are not ballots. An issue is discussed by reasons and evidence with reference to Wikipedia principles. Those reasons at the culmination of the discussion are the result that is acted upon. If the first AfD voters vote to delete and the last vote to keep, more information and sources having been found, a supermajority of those first deleters is irrelevant. If in a requested move there is one established user citing Wikipedia naming conventions versus several new editors voting with little explanation, the naming conventions prevail. (See also this edit which resolved a conflict over the description of RfA as a "vote" in the introduction; note that RfA is the most vote-like process and unlike the previous examples has few inexperienced voters.) — Centrx→ talk • 22:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Sure, I know all that. But this proposal states that many processes have characteristics of voting. The problem with the current system is that there is voting (what else do we call it when everybody shouts keep or delete in an AfD; not to mention the RfAs where there are even seperate sections for pros and cons and there is a more-or-less hard cut-off of 75% support), but that administrators can use the voting is evil stuff to discard a vote when they see fit, but also can use the vote results when they see fit. We could use some clarification on this matter. And acknowledging that voting is an important part of the wikipedia decision making process (second to only discussion, that is true), would be a big step forward. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree. Simple discussion, while it may take up more space on the servers, is far superior in every instance I can think of. Not only is it good for judging consensus, you can actually see what the grievances that people who oppose something have with it, rather than just seeing that they oppose it. It's much more comprehensive and is certainly a better way to improve whatever is being discussed. -- Rory096 22:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Voting on proposals is not useful

13) Because vote counting is not the way in which consensus is formed in Wikipedia, and because a vote tends to represent issues as binary, discourage discussion and preclude compromise, it is not generally useful to poll or vote on proposals.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Corollary of 8. Again, it is a common misconception that proposals must or should be voted upon. >Radiant< 10:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Another term for 'common misconception' is 'existing practice'... which is one of the ways we define guidelines and policies. Polling opinions can indeed be very problematic in some cases, but it has also always been a part of the Wikipedia process of making decisions... as will be seen again when the arbitrators "vote" on the elements of this RFAr. -- CBD 12:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • There is no contradiction here. I say it is not generally useful (not that it's never useful). You say that in some cases it is useful (not that it's always useful). So we're really saying the same thing. >Radiant< 12:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • No you're really not saying the same thing at all. Voting is a neccessary part of wikipedia - and it is beyond useful. Fresheneesz 19:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I think this is too strong. Voting (or polling, which isn't exactly the same thing under current practice) can be helpful to confirm that a consensus exists or doesn't exist. On the other hand, voting (or polling) is not helpful to form a consensus. IMHO, if you're in a situation where one group of editors argues that there is an existing consensus and another disagrees, a poll is reasonable. If both sides agree that there is no consensus and are trying to work towards one, the issue is more questionable. TheronJ 15:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Purpose of the ArbCom

14) The ArbCom exists for conflict resolution. Its purpose is not to create or decide upon policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Appears to suggest that the arbitration committee should not deal with this matter. The arbitration committee, however, can judge on how policy is made (when disputes occur over that, as is the case now) rather than make policy themselves. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Exactly. I believe that is the point of this case; however, we should not establish a system where proposals are submitted to the arbcom for approval. >Radiant< 11:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Heh, wouldn't a ruling on "how policy is made" inherently be an instance of the ArbCom 'creating or deciding upon policy'? If '8' is correct and 'there is no formal process' then how is the ArbCom to define one without violating this principle 14?-- CBD 12:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • There sure is a paradox there. But the same is true for all other cases taken on by the committee. They start (usually) off as a content dispute, leading to a tense situation, edit warring and eventually an arbitration committee decision (in which the committee does not make content, but it sure decides who was right). The same is true here, but now for policy pages rather than an article. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Since there are 2 arbitration cases about that subject (policy making), the more it is apparent that we could use some decisions on policy making. Also, indirectly the committee does decide on content and policy this way (see my reply above). -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Any good-faith edit is not vandalism

15) Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Normally, removal of talk page comments (other than users acting on their own talk page) is considered 'vandalism' by default because talk pages exist to facilitate communication towards forming a consensus and removal of comments interferes with that. An exception is sometimes made in regards to removal of personal attacks or private information, as these things can be vastly more disruptive. Unless we are to include 'polling' in the category of things which are so disruptive that they may be removed I do not see a difference between this and other cases of removing talk page content. Users who remove arguments they disagree with doubtless think they are acting to 'improve the encyclopedia', but in this case we classify that as 'vandalism' anyway because they are very wrong in that belief... removing the efforts of others to communicate towards a consensus is massively disruptive - as was demonstrated in this case. If this were meant to apply only to 'random' removals of talk content then it is identical to the 'blanking' form of vandalism and would not exist as a separate category. If it is henceforth not to apply to 'good faith' removals of the consensus building efforts of others then every user who removes the talk comments of others can credibly claim that it 'wasn't vandalism' because they believed suppressing those views/discussions was better for the encyclopedia. Radiant is correct that this isn't technically 'vandalism' by the definition above. However, it IS something just as damaging which has routinely been classified alongside vandalism for convenience, as it is dealt with in the same way. -- CBD 11:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "Talk page vandalism" on WP:VANDAL clearly documents removal of others' talk page content: "Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate...". There is no mention of an exception for polls, either on WP:VANDAL or elsewhere. What is the point of policy if it can be violated by anyone who thinks they are doing what's best for the encyclopedia? To subject a policy to such subjective qualification effectively renders the policy worthless. ATren 14:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC) From this point forward, I am classifying the straw poll removal as an act of incivility, not vandalism. See [1] reply
I would still appreciate clarification on whether or not this is vandalism in the opinion of the arbitors. ATren 03:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This is far too inclusive. For example, a well-meaning but clueless user who insists that their disruptive editing is helping the encyclopedia may still be considered engaging in vandalism in effect. I'm sure more examples could be conjured. Intent really has nothing to do with it as we can only see effects. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Removing talk comments is treated like vandalism

16) Removal of talk page comments is inherently disruptive to efforts to form consensus and thus is usually treated the same as vandalism regardless of the intent of the user performing the removal. Exceptions are made for removals of private information, personal attacks, vandalism, and other highly disruptive material.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Counter proposal to '15'. -- CBD 11:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Where 15 makes a universal statement ("all"), this one makes a qualified statement. The conflict is due to universals not admitting to exceptions. Qualified statements usually match reality more closely. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This is clearly documented in WP:VANDAL (section "Talk Page Vandalism"); From this point forward, I am classifying the straw poll removal as an act of incivility, not vandalism. See [2] I have found nothing that would justify removing a straw poll from a talk page. Whether or not this is considered vandalism is still an open question since the policy seems somewhat contradictory in that it seems to require bad faith. ATren 13:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • A poll is not a comment. Those who believe it is improper for a single editor to stop a straw poll should think about whether it is then proper for a single editor to start one. >Radiant< 17:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Polls are more than comments

1) Initiating a poll is not simply making a 'talk page comments', but is starting a process aimed at structuring discussion to further decision making.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by me, since it has been suggested that Polls are simply comments of the initiator and thus should not be closed or changed by another party.-- Doc 22:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
WP:VANDAL lists no exception for "removing polls" in its talk page vandalism section. So, from the perspective of talk page vandalism, a poll is the same as a comment. ATren 00:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC) From this point forward, I am classifying the straw poll removal as an act of incivility, not vandalism. See [3] reply
I still disagree with this proposal, since nowhere is it documented that polls can be removed if someone disagrees with them. ATren 03:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
It doesn't list that removing comments by people having personal discussions about what they did in school that day either, but those and many other kinds of comments are still rightly removed and doing so is not vandalism. See also the very first sentence, that vandalism is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia". Characterizing edits that have the opposite purpose, regardless of whether you think they are misguided, is inflammatory. — Centrx→ talk • 01:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Personal discussions are clearly covered here. This was not a personal discussion; it was a dispute between two editors, and one editor removed the other's comment. I've searched policy, and found no justification for such an action, even when the comment is a straw poll. And the section on talk page vandalism seems clear. Now, the sentence you point out also seems clear about vandalism requiring deliberate intent to harm, so there seems to be a contradiction here. On one hand, we have an editor that is obviously not compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia; on the other hand, we have an act that is clearly vandalistic by the definition of talk page vandalism.
But perhaps the intent clause trumps the talk-page vandalism section, and in that case the charge that this is an act of vandalism (even if the editor is not labelled a vandal) would be unwarranted. I've heard this from a few people now, so perhaps I have been misinterpreting the vandalism policy -- though if it is not considered vandalism, then I would classify it as an extreme case of incivility. To me, it's an issue of sematics - the act itself was disruptive regardless of how we label it.
Since it seems that the term "vandalism" is inflammatory, I will go through and strike out the term whereever I added it, in favor of the term "incivility". ATren 03:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Polls should be discussed

1) Since polls are processes that structure discussion, there should be some level of agreement about the purpose, scope and wording of a poll prior to its initiation. Polls should not be owned by any individual.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  • As above. Also people do tend to put down rules ('you shall vote like this, and put your comments here'), if that is done without some level of agreement/consensus then there is effectively a unilateral attempt to manage the discussion (see WP:OWN). Polling is also capable of distortion by creating false dichotimies or 'spinning' the questions.-- Doc 22:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I can agree with that, it makes a lot of sense. However, polls should not be squelched because of the need to discuss it. I proposed a poll, and was open to discusion until radiant an a very few others flooded the header with objections to having a poll. I would have discussed it, but didn't get much chance. Fresheneesz 20:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
First, I don't see where it says that a single editor can veto a straw poll entirely. Second, I certainly find nothing that says a so-called "unilateral" straw poll can be removed on sight. Third, an examination of the evidence shows that Fresheneesz did attempt to engage discussion on the poll:
  • Fresheneesz suggests "conduct(ing) a good straw poll... to know the thoughts of people outside this talk page, and... gain some contributors and fix some problems" [4].
  • Radiant vetos this [5] with the words "We do not vote on proposals" (emphasis mine).
  • Fresheneesz emphasizes that he is not proposing a vote [6].
  • Some discussion ensues and it is clear that Radiant is against any sort of straw poll, even a simple, non-leading, non-binding, "like it/don't like it/needs improvement" poll. (At one point, Radiant rejects the poll because it is "polarizing" [7] yet he has no qualms about the polarizing effects of removing a poll.)
  • In the meantime, two others express approval for the poll [8] [9] and even suggest wording [10].
  • At this point, no others have expressed reservations about the poll - the only objector is Radiant, who opposes all polls on principle.
  • Fresheneesz institutes the poll despite Radiant's objection [11] with very generic, non-leading wording.
  • Radiant removes it immediately [12].
It is clear that, at this point, no poll would have been acceptable to Radiant, with any wording or for any purpose. So while Doc may assert that Fresheneesz owned the straw poll, I suggest the complete opposite: that Radiant owned the right to unilaterally reject the poll. ATren 00:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, I dispute that interpretation. But 1) evidence should be presented on the evidence page not here (or shall I re-list all the diffs I presented there again to dispute yours?) 2) This is only a suggested finding of principle - it does not depend on what any party did or did not do, so your argument is irrelevant. 3) Of course no editor can veto a straw-poll, if their is a general agreement to have one.-- Doc 00:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
(1) I will move it to the evidence page. (2) You seemed to imply that the poll wasn't discussed, so I provided evidence that it was indeed discussed. (3) After three days, 3 editors (total) voiced support for the poll, one objected. That single objector (Radiant) removed the poll unilaterally. This seems to indicate that Radiant "owned" the right to conduct a poll, and vetoed it on sight. ATren 01:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
You are also selectively quoting Fresh in your first diff. He did not 'suggest' a staw poll, he inquired as to how he could start one, there's clearly a difference. But again this is irrelevant to the principle I'm proposing.-- Doc 00:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This seems to be a question of semantics. To be totally clear, here is the entire Fresheneesz quote: "Does anyone know how to organize and conduct a good straw poll? I'm interested to know the thoughts of people outside this talk page, and also to perhaps gain some contributors and fix some problems. Anyone know where to start?" Yes, it's clear Fresheneesz wanted to conduct a poll. It's also clear that he was seeking input from others on how to do it, that he was not considering it binding, that his primary goal was to bring others into the debate, and that Radiant was the only editor who had expressed objections to the poll. ATren 01:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • False. It is pretty obvious that Doc also expressed objections to the poll. Arguably, so did kevin_b_er, ptk*fgs and Teveten. I remain of the opinion that the poll told us nothing we didn't already know. >Radiant< 17:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, if polls are to be used they should be discussed, and ideally they should offer a number of options, since portraying issues as binary almost invariably sheds more heat than light on the subject. In terms of this specific issue, no amount of polling was ever going to fix the fundamental problem: Wikipedia guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive, and this proposal sought to override consensus as described in the various notability guidelines by prescribing that notability not be used as a criterion. Guy 12:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Role of the community

1) The Wikipedia community is trusted to come to a reasonable consensus on policy and content issues. It is not empowered to make egregiously poor decisions. Polls can effectively measure community opinion, but this may not be relevant, and is never the sole thing that matters.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
This, I think, captures the heart of the polls/consensus issue. Phil Sandifer 00:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Sounds good to me, although I would formulate the last sentence as: Although polls can effectively measure community opinion, they are never the sole thing that matters. The term "may not be revelant" is too broad and subject to a lot of different interpretations. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Non-notability is a valid deletion criterion

1) There is a clear consensus within the community that a lack of notability is a valid reason for deletion. However, there is no clear consensus on what defines lack of notability. Guidelines exist for specific subjects, but these guidelines do not provide a clear overall picture, and do not appear to be proportionately strict or lenient for different topics.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Possibly a finding, but I think this accurately describes the current status of notability on Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 00:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This one formulates very nicely the current problem with notability and goes to the core of this arbitration. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, this is accurate. I would go further and note that the definition of what constitutes notability is a matter of legitimate ongoing debate. Guy 12:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Consensus required for guidelines

1) Guidelines are a product of community consensus, see Wikipedia:How_to_create_policy#Guidelines_for_creating_policies_and_guidelines and Wikipedia:Consensus

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 17:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
I think the problem, for this case and in the future on many policies, may be describing what constitutes consensus more specifically, e.g. "Many eyes", no sensible objections. It is not uncommon to see someone removing changes made months ago because there was "no consensus" at the time. This may merely because the person instinctively disapproves of policy without properly explaining why, but policy formation cannot be hamstrung by requiring an RfC for every change to be made on an out-of-the-way policy page that does not have many people interested in it. If a reasonable change is made and many people are in a position to see it but do not disapprove, then that is a form of consensus. For this page specifically, it is not necessary that every one who comes to Wikipedia:Notability make a little support vote in the talk page if their reasoning is already duplicated by others; opposers can however be trusted to do so. — Centrx→ talk • 23:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Rejected proposals

2) If, after a reasonable amount of discussion, it becomes clear that there is considerable opposition to a policy proposal, active discussion of it may be abandoned and it may be marked with Template:Rejected.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 13:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  • This is certainly true as stated, but doesn't really get to the heart of the WP:NN portion of this dispute. Should this be stated as "If, after a reasonable amount of discussion, it becomes clear that there is considerable opposition to a policy proposal, the proposal may be marked with Template:Rejected notwithstanding ongoing discussion"? TheronJ 15:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The problem would arise that the proponents of the proposal who continue the discussion then come to a unanimous agreement that it should be a guideline, when that support is merely because the opponents have gone away from the page because it is clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia, that is not going to gain any widespread approval, the proponents are opposed to any compromise, etc. — Centrx→ talk • 17:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That is roughly what WP:POL says, yes. >Radiant< 16:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Revival of rejected proposals

15) Discussion may continue regarding rejected proposals and, if support develops for them, they may be revived. However, while such discussion continues, their status as a rejected proposal should be maintained. Polls would be appropriate only if substantial interest in the proposal developed and a significant number of users were engaged in the conversation regarding the proposal.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 14:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
As presently worded, this calls for polling as a way to "undo" rejection of a proposal. Rather, I'd say that revivication is only possible if the proposal has significantly changed and/or has significantly more participants in favor than when it was rejected. I would prefer striking the last sentence and adding a separate principle(s) on polling. >Radiant< 14:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I think you exaggerate, but I'll think about it. It is wordy and over-elaborate. Fred Bauder 15:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Basically what I'm trying to say is that it's not useful for proponents of a rejected proposal to keep proposing it over and over again with minor changes. For instance, Zen-master created a series of similar proposals related to conspiracy theories after his first proposal was rejected (e.g. here and two moved into his userspace). We shouldn't give vexlits additional ammo by suggesting that they can keep reviving a proposal with "substantial interest" (because any small vocal group considers itself substantial) or that they should invoke a poll if a proposal is already rejected. >Radiant< 16:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
I'd take the entire sentence about polls out. Proposals can be revived both with and without polls, the two things have nothing to do with each other. Probably a seperate statement about polls would be a good idea though. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Polling would here be another means of consensus, just like any other and does not deserve any special mention. It should also read "substantial new interest in the proposal" and "a significant number of new users". The question is, though, is a rejected proposal going to attract new random passers-by who initiate another discussion despite there being no broader community consensus, or should the page with the proposal just die down and any new proposals have to be started being substantially different and fresh. — Centrx→ talk • 17:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Community custom and practice

17) Wikipedia customs and common practices are, in proper circumstances, policy, Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Rules.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 22:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
This is understood by most experienced Wikipedians. When most policy is written on Wikipedia, we start with what is seen by the majority as the way it is usually done. FloNight 23:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Consensus is not unanimity

X) Per WP:CON, consensus is not the same as unanimity. Hence, from a statement such as "five editors disagree with Foo", it does not follow that Foo has no consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Depends on why they disagree, but generally true. Fred Bauder 15:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Proposed. ( Radiant) 14:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

Consensus is not a number

Y) Consensus is not defined in a numerical way. Hence, one cannot conclude from a certain percentage of support in a poll or vote on some issue, that therefore that issue has consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:
A little over 50% support is NOT consensus. Fred Bauder 15:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Yes, of course 100% support is an exception, and anything with a "large" percentage of support is "likely" to be consensual, but it does not follow strictly from the percentage. ( Radiant) 14:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

Voting on articles

V1) Wikipedia editing processes such as WP:AFD, WP:DRV, WP:RM and WP:FAC are discussions to gauge consensus, and their outcome is not simply determined by vote counting.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Common novice mistake. While they are usually decided in favor of the majority, a better reasoning trumps superior numbers. I deliberately left RFA out of there because some people argue that it is determined by vote counting, and besides, it's not an editing process. ( Radiant) 14:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
  • In practice, the (not a)-vote count is usually one of the factors the closer looks at when determining if there is a consensus. If there is significant number of people arguing against the deletion, the usual outcome is "no consensus" even if the closer agrees more with the "delete"s than with the "keep"s, and making exceptions, while sometimes justified and endorsed on DRV, is frequently controversial. With that said, vote counting is not and should not be the only factor in determining outcomes of such processes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Common mistake by experienced editors. All these processes have many characteristics of voting, including vote-counting. The people calling the outcome have the liberty to weigh-in the arguments that have been put forward, but a closing call totally against the majority vote is hardly ever seen. Almost all those votings will be closed as no consensus as pointed out above me. That said, an AfD with for example 4 delete, fails WP:NOT votes from registered users and 2 or 3 argumented keep votes from anonymous users will be closed as a delete, totally in contrast with this principle and everybody always saying that "AfD is a not vote". -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Please see WP:DRV for examples of closes against the majority. I would like to see some evidence of your second assertion, as in my experience such AFDs tend to get closed as a "no consensus" (which is what I would likely do as well). ( Radiant) 15:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Voting on guidelines

V2) Voting or polling is not a required part of the process to create policy or guidelines. Therefore, saying that some page is not a guideline because it was never voted upon, is meaningless.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Also a common novice mistake. You'd be amazed about how often people say "I've got this proposal here, no need to discuss, let's put it to a vote" (no, that didn't happen in NNOT, but this is a principle and not a FOF). ( Radiant) 14:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

Voting on feature requests

V3) Feature requests are implemented (or not implemented) by the developers, using their best judgment on such issues as performance. By necessity, the developers are not swayed by a majority vote.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Yet another common mistake. People tend to want to vote on feature requests under the misunderstanding that the devs are more likely to listen to a large group of people. ( Radiant) 14:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
When, in fact, they listen to no one. Fred Bauder 15:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

Voting on editors

V4) In the past, Wikipedia employed a mechanism called "quickpolls" that allowed people to make a motion e.g. to block an editor, and have it voted upon. This mechanism was disliked and eventually deprecated. In general, Wikipedia is not a system of parliament, and creating a "motion" and calling a vote on that does not work.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
History. And yes, people do try that (but are generally told not to anyway, so this isn't really important). ( Radiant) 14:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
If you include this here, RFA should also be mentioned. This also has nothing to do with editing articles. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Voting on standards

V5) Once it has been decided by consensus to standardize an issue (e.g. template layout), Wikipedia generally uses some kind of approval vote to select a standard.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
More history. Voting for standards works very well since it's a mostly matter of aesthetics. ( Radiant) 14:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

Polls and voting

1) Straw polls and voting are used in a number of situations. There is a tradition which discourages excessive voting, but no actual policy. Polls may be used when appropriate to gage opinion.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Arbitration committee

1) The Arbitration committee may determine the meaning of policy if it is disputed by users.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 20:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Methods for adopting guidelines

1) Policies and guidelines may be adopted by one of three methods: (i) as a reflection of existing practice; (ii) as a proposal to change existing practice, if accepted by consensus; or (iii) by declaration of Jimmy Wales, the Board of Trustees, or the Developers. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#How are policies started? and Wikipedia:How to create policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  • Reasonable, but it should be "Policies and guidelines ...". Jimbo et al tend to declare policies rather than guidelines. Your second point is the tricky part... we get a plethora of proposals to change practice, but I don't recall a single one of them succeeding (except for (a) creating new practice, or (b) standardizing something that was previously not standardized). While in theory we could prescribe behavior if consensus supports that, in practice it just doesn't seem to happen - in particular because you can't "magically" change people's behavior by creating a guideline against it. Do you have a counterexample. ( Radiant) 10:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks, I've made your change. As examples, for a broad change, apparently Wikipedia:Proposed deletion is fairly new. Most changes are probably more subtle, though -- for example, I think most of the topic specific notability guidelines are a combination of what already exists and what the editors agree should exist. Certainly, the debates on those pages generally take a prescriptive form (what should be notable), rather than a descriptive form (what kinds of pages have survived/not survived deletion votes in the past). I think most of the categorization guidelines are largely prescriptive as well. TheronJ 15:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply
    • PROD is a good example of creating new practice. I do believe most succesful notability guidelines are based on what happens on AFD; those that take the other approach tend to fail. ( Radiant) 10:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This sounds good. Btw, guidelines that "prescribe behavior" are adopted slowly. While not being immediately effective, their point would be to eventually be very effective. Actualy, NNOT was standardizing something that previously wasn't standardized. It tried to streamline deletion discussions by focusing (standardizing) which arguments people should use, to make it more clear and consistant. Fresheneesz 08:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. TheronJ 17:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Role of consensus in adopting guidelines based on existing practice

1) While the relevant policy and guideline are clear that discussions of new guidelines should work towards consensus, see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#How are policies started?, Wikipedia:How to create policy#How to propose a new policy, they are not clear regarding whether a proposed guideline that (1) accurately describes existing practice but (2) has failed to achieve consensus should be promoted to guideline status.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Interesting point; the issue is that, as discussed elsewhere on this page, existing practice is by definition consensual. For instance, the existing practice that it's impossible to get an article on a tiny village in the middle of nowhere deleted on AFD, is indicative of existing consensus that all villages deserve a Wikipedia article, regardless of size -- even if this consensus isn't (to my knowledge) written down anywhere, it has de facto guideline status. ( Radiant) 10:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That's a great example, but I don't think your answer follows. Let's assume, for a moment, that (1) as a practical matter, it's rarely possible to delete articles on verifiable villages[1], but (2) a firm consensus on the relevant guideline pages supports a guideline rendering villages without media coverage non-notable. (This is more or less the case with "stand-alone plot summary" articles, which are discouraged or forbidden by the guidelines but almost always survive deletion nominations). I understand that you believe that in this case the guideline should change to match the practice, but I don't think that conclusion (1) logically follows from any existing policy or (2) is a good idea. To the contrary, I think existing policy argues the opposite -- if the consensus on the guideline page is that the villages or the plotcruft is not notable, then the guideline should stay to guide future debates. (And arguably, once the guideline is in place, admins should start deleting the pages, because AFD isn't a vote, and "I like the plot summary" shouldn't carry as much weight in the debate as " WP:FOO says plot summaries need Bar to remain, and this article doesn't have Bar and can't get it.")
[1] Now I know what to name my combination parody of Wikipedia and a Series of Unfortunate Events. TheronJ 15:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. This one is a tougher issue. TheronJ 17:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Prescriptive guidelines

1) Guidelines may be prescriptive (i.e., recommend a change to common practices) rather than descriptive if adopted by community consensus or office action. Some guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep are recognized by consensus as desirable practices, even if they are contradicted by common practice.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  • See above. I believe that it's technically true but doesn't happen in practice. I think your example is not the best; you allege that instruction creep is common practice, which I doubt is true. Instruction creep is often proposed practice, and rejected as being overly convoluted. ( Radiant) 10:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Agree that guidelines may be prescriptive - in fact my opinion is that all are (perhaps in addition to being "common practice"). Instruction creep is most definately common practice. People like making rules, but it is often very difficult to make conscise and efficient rules. Thus instruction creep insues. Fresheneesz 08:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply


Comment by others:
Proposed. TheronJ 17:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Non-notability

1) The proposal at WP:NNOT is not supported by consensus, and therefore rejected.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Agree. Written rules on Wikipedia should reflect the actual practices of the community. Therefore, a proposal to make a policy or guidelines need to reflect actual practices. The proposal at WP:NNOT does not reflect reality on the ground, can not be a Wikipedia rule, and therefore is rejected. FloNight 15:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Just wondering how to fit this with your opinion that Most arbitration cases are about editor behavior. Think they will look at how Wikipedians establish policy and guideline, which you posted under Notability debate [13]. Do you, or don't you suggest the arbitration commitee should judge on policy? -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
It is consistent, I think. Arb Com can look at how policy is made as it relates to individual user behavior. One aspect of this case is deciding if Wikipedia:Non-notability can be tagged by a user as rejected based their interpretation of community consensus. This is a key point in this dispute. Hopefully Arb Com will weigh in on this matter. There is a difference betweem arb com actually writing policy themselves and arb com confirming if community consensus exists for a policy based on evidence presented to the committee? Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr), does this make sense to you? FloNight 19:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Sure, it makes perfect sense and I agree with you on those statements. However, if the arbitration committee decides on finding of fact number 1, they can also decide on finding of fact number 4. But your objection there was that the arbitration committee does not decide on policy. Yet number 1 is formulated much stronger than number 4. In fact, I hope the committee chooses to decide on either number 4 or number 5, because that way we will know 2 things:
  1. The notability page either will or will not become a guideline
  2. Indirectly, the committee does decide on policy issues, which would clarify a lot
-- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Non-notability conflicts

2) The proposal at WP:NNOT conflicts with key policy and guidelines such as such as CSD A7. .

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  • No. There is a difference between asserting notability and actually having it. If my article asserts that 30 people know me, as bad an assertion of notability it is, it is still nonetheless an assertion. -- Chris chat edits essays 16:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • No. (agree with chris). Assertion of notability is a different thing - exactly why people would use the term despite it being twice as long to write/say. Assertion of notability/significance or whatever, is basically saying that articles that don't presupose that their topic is significant or unique in any way, shouldn't be kept. Notability is far different from uniqueness. Fresheneesz 19:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
  • Proposed. -- FloNight 17:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If a subject is certainly not notable, an article about it cannot possibly assert that it is notable without misconstruing sources or otherwise being false. Therefore, any accurate article on a non-notable subject will be deleted. Any inaccurate article violates other principles or would become an article that would likewise be deleted. — Centrx→ talk • 22:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Also, as with most CSDs, this is for reducing the load on AfD in uncontentious cases. That is, any subject that is not notable will certainly be deleted on AfD, and this CSD is to instead make such deletions quick and simple, while ensuring that there is little doubt that the subject is not notable by excluding cases where there is some evidence that it is notable (such as assertions). — Centrx→ talk • 18:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
If Non-notability stands as a rule than lack of assertion of notability would not be a valid reason to delete an article per CSD A7. It is used to weed out obvious cases of non-notability for a lesser known subject of an article. If the author of the article does not present any evidence of notability, that omission is seen as a sign that the subject of the article is not notable. If the author presents the subject in a way that notability is suggested then a speedy delete is not permitted. It is possible that the subject is not actually notable per consensus of a group of Wikipedians. That will be sorted out later with a PROD or Afd. Suggesting that non-notable does not conflict with other existing policy and guidelines, I suspect shows a lack of understanding about the meaning of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the way that they must be interpreted together. FloNight 03:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no "lack of understanding" - policy and guidelines are interpreted on a personal basis, ie whoever reads a policy interprets it for themselves. Wikipedia is not a beuracracy, so this "lack of understanding" is really just a disagreement. You may see CSD A7 to imply that articles that don't assert importance are obviously non-notable - and that *that* is why they're deleted. I see A7 implying that the articles are not useful to anyone and thus don't have a place in an encyclopedia. Its not a misunderstanding, its simply my opinion. Fresheneesz 03:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Opinions are not all equal. — Centrx→ talk • 06:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The fact that articles which do not assert notability may be speedily deleted is of course an implicit recognition that notability is an essential attribute of an encyclopaedic subject. Needless to say, opinions may differ on where exactly the definition of notable may lie, but the existence of the A7 criterion is an unambiguous acknowledgement of the consensus that some subjects are not encyclopaedically notable. Guy 17:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Notability

3) The many users against WP:N makes establishing true consensus for this proposal impossible.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
-- Chris chat edits essays 17:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
There is no significant informed dissent from the view that there must be some bar to inclusion, some level of objective significance below which a subject is simply too trivial to be covered ( WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, for example). There is legitimate dispute as to where that bar lies. The way to exlore that is by debbating the existing consensus guidelines, not by starting a new proposal which completely contradicts them. Guy 14:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Chris, that some editors are raising a fuss about WP:N does not change the fact that Notability is an important concept for determining whether a subject is encyclopedic and does establish how the topic should be handled on Wikipedia. It is used routinely on Wikipedia by editors and admins. FloNight 00:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
If everyone suddenly changed their opinion and used the verifiability bar for determining whether to keep/delete articles, Wikipedia wouldn't become a dump truck. The fact that deletionists (those who frequently vote on AFDs) use NN as rationale does not make it vital to Wikipedia. -- Chris chat edits essays 03:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Notability debate

4) Although supported by many editors, the proposal/essay at WP:N is often highly debated and does not have community-wide consensus at this time.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed, the fact that there is an arbitration about this (with multiple editors on each side of the dispute) already shows that true consensus will be impossible here. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Most arbitration cases are about editor behavior. Think they will look at how Wikipedians establish policy and guideline. [14] I could be wrong, but I doubt that Arb Com will out and out declare that WP:N is not valid based on the few people that opposed compared to the large number that use it every day. FloNight 20:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply
For all we know, there could be thousands of Wkipedians against notability. It's not like people run out screaming notability sucks! or nn is king! on every AFD debate! -- Chris chat edits essays 04:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
@Flonight: certainly arbitration is officialy about user misconduct. But that is not only true for this proposal (nr 4), but for all proposed findings of fact 1-5. Unofficially, however, the arbitration committee does decide on content and thus also about policy. See this edit: [15] and the section Purpose of the Arbcom above. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Again, there is no significant informed dissent from the view that there must be some bar to inclusion, there is legitimate dispute as to where that bar lies but the way to exlore that is by debbating the existing consensus guidelines, not by starting a new proposal which completely contradicts them. Guy 14:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

WP:N

5) The guideline at WP:N is an accurate description of current practice at Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Reply to Radiant: True, but that holds for all findings of fact (1-5) at the moment. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, WP:N describes current practice as documented in numerous content-specific notability guidelines, and is also a useful adjunct to the speedy deletion policy which requires that notability of the subject be asserted in the article. Guy 17:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Fresheneesz edits policy disruptively

6) Fresheneesz edits policy-related pages frequesntly by engaging in edit wars on project pages and in incivility on talk pages. He treats Wikipedia as a battleground, and is therefore a disruptive editor of policy, guideline, and essay pages and their talk pages. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Non-Notability/Evidence#Fresheneesz_is_disruptive_on_policy_pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:
I will use this. Fred Bauder 15:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
My proposal. Dmcdevit· t 09:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Fresheneesz is bold, blunt, and enthusiastic. But edit warring? His history shows some reverts to Radiant's guideline push on Notability and DDV, but there were many others opposing Radiant in those actions, not just Fresheneesz. As for "treating Wikipedia as a battleground", the evidence is just not there. Other than his heated reaction to Radiant's removal of the straw poll (who wouldn't get riled up at an administrator removing good faith content?), and his occasional WP:OWN issues on NNOT, I see no justification for such a ban. In fact, I see more justification for Radiant getting banned from project pages, due to his insistence on pushing the guideline tag against obvious resistance (though, to be clear, I would not support a ban for Radiant for these actions, which I don't believe were done in bad faith - I'm only pointing out that Radiant's actions were more disruptive than Fresheneesz's) ATren 14:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Once more, there were more people supporting than opposing me on DDV, and you're conveniently ignoring the fact that I've been seeking compromises and addressing concerns.. You're basically asserting that something that isn't unanimous cannot be a guideline. That is false; consensus is not unanimity. >Radiant< 17:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
One can clearly see from the current status of WP:DDV and its talk page that obviously more people opposed you than you seem to want us to belive radiant. Fresheneesz 08:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply
One can clearly see from the current status of WP:DDV and its talk page that obviously more people support me than you seem to want us to believe. ( Radiant) 10:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Fresheneesz fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia policy and practice

7) Fresheneesz has shown by his comments that he fundamentally misunderstands how Wikipedia treats policy, and how it is created. He has stated that guidelines need not be reflections of common practice [16] [17], and that Wikipedia resolves discussions through the use of voting. [18] [19] This view is fundamentally incompatible with editing policy pages on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Fresheneesz, it is not exactly a stretch to believe that a member of the arbitration committee, active in the project for nearly three years and an admin for much of that time, would know Wikipedia's policies and practices pretty well. Guy 14:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
So you're saying that by default, an editor thats been on here for twice as long as I have automatically wins an argument over policy? That sounds rather closed-minded... Fresheneesz 07:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
An argument is decided by the strength of the reasons given. You should consider the reasons of a more experienced user more carefully, rather than dismissing it as vandalism, and understand that an opinion must or must not be correct not because the person thinks it is "better" in order to "win", but because it is logically sound and based on evidence and principles. — Centrx→ talk • 08:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
It's like deja vu all over again. Fresheneesz does not seem to like the idea that opinions of more experienced Wikipedians which conflict with his ideas might in fact be right. Hence the whole problem, in my view. Guy 17:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
No, actually I do think that the opinions of *ANY* other wikipdian that conflicts with mine might in fact be right - which is why I listen to their (hopfully) rational arguments. However, I'm simply not going to bow to the "more experienced" wikipedians because they have some imagined godly power over me. I think for myself JzG, and I will come to my own conclusions. Fresheneesz 08:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
  • This is, as far as I can see, the core of the problem. Guy 14:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • My first encounter with him was when he tried to admonish me for using normal threaded comments—rather than placing every single comment in chronological order. — Centrx→ talk • 16:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It's a subtle distinction, but I don't see on the basis of the second links above that Fresheneesz "stated that guidelines need not be reflections of common practice", rather than stating that he didn't believe that Radiant! was accurately reflecting common practice, particularly with regard to the WP:DDV page. I think Radiant! was probably substantively right on the underlying dispute, but Fresheneesz's insistence on straw polls, whether or not misguided, seems like an attempt to capture some kind of community input. (Granted, that's community "opinion," not "practice", but it's in the ballpark). Part of the problem is that this dispute effectively spread across three pages, WP:N, WP:NN, and WP:DDV. When Fresheneesz opposed the designation of WP:DDV as a guideline, he was arguing that DDV didn't reflect common practice or consensus, which seems at a minimum to be within the bounds of permissible argument. When he argued that WP:NN should be promoted to guideline notwithstanding its apparent contradiction of common practice, that was a closer issue. TheronJ 20:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
When did I argue that NN should be promoted to guideline? It was supposed to be a proposal for a long while until it got enough support. I'm pretty sure I never said something like "Hey this should be a guideline now". And I most defintely didn't tag it as a guideline, like Radiant did with DDV and NN. Fresheneesz 07:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Looking over the evidence, Fresheneesz, you're right, and I apologize. On reflection, although I think Fresheneesz was wrong to edit war over whether NN should be marked as "rejected," that doesn't directly relate to whether guidelines should be reflections of common practice. I've struck the relevant portion of my comment above. TheronJ 15:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure that really counts. In his first relevant edit, Fresh applied the "policy in a nutshell" template, [20], but the "proposal" template was still clearly on the page, and in his next set of edits, he fixed the template to label NN as a "proposal in a nutshell." [21] Again, I see edit warring, but not an obvious attempt to promote NN to guideline without consensus. TheronJ 19:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I agree: this charge is greatly exaggerated. Even the edit warring was mild - more of an attempt to trigger more discussion before determining rejection. ATren 22:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Fresheneesz is uncivil

8) Frecheneesz interactions with others regarding policy-related pages has frequently been uncivil and hostile. See Fresheneesz refers to others' edits as vandalism, Fresheneesz engaged in harassment, and Fresheneesz has been warned many times about edit warring and incivility.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Yup, and calling my edits vandalism was not civil. -- Doc 22:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
I have read them - they don't seem like a big deal to me. I think you are exaggerating these "attacks"... you also claimed that Fresheneesz's claim that "Radiant's eyes are sewn shut" was a "physical threat", which is an absurd charge. ATren 22:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

WP:STRAW is a guideline

9) WP:STRAW is a guideline, and has been for a year. The objection by one or two editors cannot change long-standing guidelines without a supporting consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Radiant has tried to kill WP:STRAW to promote DDV. Fresheneesz 03:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The evidence shows a dozen reverts on DDV from Radiant; each revert added "guideline" or removed "disputed". At least six others opposed this by virtue of their reverts. Several here have called into question Fresheneesz's actions for repeated removal of "rejected" from NNOT (which at worst was an attempt to keep the discussion open without a final decision), but they have neglected to question Radiant's repeated push to DDV guideline (which can only be seen as a single editor claiming consensus while the debate still raged). ATren 22:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Non sequitur. We're talking about WP:STRAW here, not WP:DDV. Besides, as has been pointed out repeatedly, there were a dozen people agreeing with me on DDV so any allegations of me standing alone there are simply false. >Radiant< 12:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
I am concerned about this as well. As it was written before, it was a guideline for how—not whether—to conduct straw polls and so wasn't in conflict with DDV at all. The given reason for demotion ("we don't vote at Wikipedia" and the like) don't seem to have any relation to the actual contents of the page. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Agreed: polling has never been endorsed as a way of forming policy, only as a way of informally gauging opinion. And polling is eveil; Fresheneesz's changing of the link from polling is evil to voting is evil is wrong. m:Voting is evil is a redirect to m:polling is evil (formerly polls are evil). It is clear from the context and history that the evilness applies to polls, not voting, and that has existed since it was created in mid 2004. Guy 14:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Removal of poll by administrators displayed lack of good faith

10) Radiant and Doc Glasgow both failed to assume good faith when removing a suggestion for a straw-poll from the talk page of Wikipedia:Non-notability [22] [23].

Comment by Arbitrators:
I think it was a bit aggressive. I see no harm in having a poll anytime someone wants to have one. In this particular case, the poll was questionable as the issue had already been decided once. Fred Bauder 15:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
  • Can't see how this is evidenced. I removed the poll because it had been started without agreement and in the midst of a discussion as to whether it was a good thing or not. I assumed that Fresheneesz was wrong to initiate it at that point, and I gave clear reasons (see my evidence). I was, and still am, assuming his edting was in good faith. He unfortunately assumed I was lying and vandalising (again see my evidence). Actually, I'm thinking that ironically it is this finding rather fails to assume good faith on my (and Radiant!'s) part.-- Doc 22:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It is evidenced by repeated removal of the good-faith straw poll I started by you (doc) and Radiant. I explicitely tried discussing the poll as non-binding. And, on top of that, there was more than a few that supported the idea of having a poll. Removing it is what moved me to arbitrate, and whether or not you think it was in wikipedia's best interest, I still conisdered bad-faith if not outright vandalism via the talk-page-comment idea. Fresheneesz 21:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • You are now (as you were then) intent on assuming bad faith. If I was acting in what I believed was Wikipedia's interests, no matter how misguided I might be, I could not by definition have been vandalising nor acting in bad faith. But, you'd rather throw arround personal attacks and accuse my of lying when I assure you I was acting in good faith. That makes it impossible to continue any type of discussion with you, so I will no longer try.-- Doc 21:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
If you claim good-faith, why did you stike my poll after I left you a mostly-friendly message noting that removing a talk page comment is considered vandalism? I was already on the verge of arbitrating, and your involvement had unfortunate timing. Fresheneesz 00:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I might have reacted differently had your message been more than 'mostly' friendly. But disagreeing with you is not evidence of bad-faith. I might equally ask why you replaced it when I'd clearly requested that we should discuss the (dis)merits of a poll. Closing a poll is not removing a comment.-- Doc 00:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I replaced the poll when you requested discussion, because its my belief that (like a talk page comment), it is not your decision what I can or cannot put up as a comment that people can respond to. A call for a poll, and explanation as to how to do it, fall under that very category - something that people can respond to. Your removal was not acceptable behavior. Thats my answer to your question. Fresheneesz 03:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed, since these deletions could clearly only lead to a more intense dispute rather than calm it down by allowing a non-binding, informative straw-poll which probably would have confirmed their views rather than the opposite. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Upon discussion, I believe this was formulated too strong, please see 10.2 -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Removal of poll by administrators was disruptive

10.1) Radiant and Doc Glasgow both disrupted talk page discussion by deliberately provoking user Fresheneesz when removing a suggestion for a straw-poll from the talk page of Wikipedia:Non-notability [24] [25].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  • Factually incorrect. I did not remove a 'suggestion' of a straw-poll, indeed when Fresheneesz 'suggested' (or rather declared) a straw-poll I engaged witht he suggestion. What I removed was an attempt to pre-empt an ongoing discussion of the merits of a poll by starting one. As for 'deliberately provoking' Fresheneesz, I would (again) ask Capt. Morgan to refrain from assuming bad faith on the part of those which whom he/she disagrees.-- Doc 22:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I really don't know about Radaint's motives, but Doc did not intend to provoke me. While his actions were unwarrented and uncivil, he did not intend them to be. Fresheneesz 21:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Stronger version of 10. Proposed, -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Upon discussion, I believe this was formulated too strong, please see 10.2 -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I absolutely agree that the poll removal was disruptive, and unwarranted. However I disagree with the "deliberately provoking" part. Although Radiant's behavior was highly suspect, I haven't seen evidence that he or Doc were deliberately provoking. ATren 22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
No credible evidence of ill-faith is presented. There was, after all, no realistic chance of the proposal reaching consensus as a guideline, so polling was arguably more disruptive, as way of gathering the village mob, than its removal. Guy 22:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
So, basically, are you saying that conducting this poll, which was initially only opposed by one editor and supported by three, was so disruptive that any action, even wiping the poll clean 3 times, was justified? This would seem to elevate a simple straw poll to something as abusive as personal attacks, would it not? Do we really want to take the "polls are discouraged" guideline, and turn it into something so concrete and uncontestable that any poll may be deleted on sight without repercussion? ATren 00:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Essentially, yes. The proposal stood absolutely no chance at all of ever achieving consensus, as evidence the numerous existing consensus guidelines and policies which it contradicts, so encouraging factionalism by polling on it had absolutely no chance of imnproving matters, and plenty of chance of making them worse. Guy 14:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
So, does this apply to any comment and any user? If I decide, in the course of a content dispute, that the good faith actions of another editor have no chance of improving matters, may I also revert their talk page edits? Where do we draw the line? Or, perhaps more importantly, if there is a line already, where is that documented? Because, honestly, I've read a lot of policy and guideline pages, including WP:DDV, and I can't see where I would have reacted with any less indignation than Fresheneesz - because I've not seen a policy or guideline where anything near this kind of behavior is justified. ATren 21:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Note that in an attempt to not make things worse, things have gotten far, far worse and more disruptive than any mere straw poll could achieve. If you're going to claim WP:SNOW-like reasons for removing the poll, you also have to recognise that any shadow of opposition invalidates invoking SNOW or SNOW-like arguments, and this is far beyond a shadow of opposition. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
No-one invoked WP:SNOW.-- Docg 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Not by name, no. But "[t]he proposal stood absolutely no chance at all of ever achieving consensus" is invoking the spirit of WP:SNOW and has been given as justification for removing the poll. All I'm pointing out is that the actions that followed from the desire to avoid disruption have been more disruptive. It may have been thought justified then, but continuing to defend it on the grounds that it would be less disruptive doesn't make any sense now—obviously it did not avoid disruption. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Removal of poll by administrators exacerbated the dispute

10.2) The removal of the straw-poll from the talk page of Wikipedia:Non-notability by Radiant and Doc Glasgow increased the intensity of the dispute rather than cool it down, something that could have been anticipated by these experienced administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  • Silly. Since the dispute discussion was over whether to have a straw poll, this is saying that the discussion would could have been cooled down had one party simply allowed the other to have its way. Whilst that's undoubtably true, it isn't very helpful. The proper way forward was not to terminate but continue the discussion, which is what I was trying to do, but which Fresheneesz made quite impossible (see again my evidence).-- Doc 12:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It obviously increased *my* dispute. Its no surprise that I agree with this - admins should be much more objective than was the case here. Fresheneesz 21:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
You have said that you would have left the poll up if there was evidence that people wanted a poll. Well, there was, but you did it anyway. Not like you have the authority to remove a talk page poll to begin with. By "being objective" I mean that you should have thought about why you were removing my poll. What was that supposed to accomplish? Fresheneesz 03:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Giving Doc credit for the remarks on 10 and 10.1, but still feeling that administrators should not have reacted like this, I propose this alternative version. It has been established in the past that adminstrators also should be able to deal with disputes rather than increase the heat. This removal, while meant to cool down the issue, could only lead to an increase in the dispute. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
@Doc:I can understand that you stand behind your actions. That is good, otherwise you should not have performed them in the first place. But please appreciate that others might think differently. And yes, sometimes it might be wise for an administrator to choose to let someone else have his or her way, especially over something silly as a poll that never was intended to be binding, only to gather opinions. You yourself have stated that at a later stage you agreed to a poll (which was started by another editors and differed only very mildy in wording and intentions from the first one in my view). I am not trying to argue that there should have or shouldn't have been a poll. I am arguing that removing that poll (not once, but 3 times in total) was a decision by 2 administrators who perhaps should have known better than to let themselves be tempted to do that. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I concur 100% with Cpt. Morgan. ATren 14:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I do appreciate 'that others think differently', that is why I believed the discussion of the merits of a poll should have continued. If you see my evidence, you'll see I kept trying further than discussion. Fresheneezs's actions were predicated on the contention that if one user starts a poll, regardless of what anyone else thinks or any discussion, then a poll must continue - the discussion can be terminated and ignored. That's simply not how a collaberative discussion functions. You seem to suggest that because Fresheneesz was insistant, impatient, and unwilling to discuss the issue, he should thus have prevailed. I disagree. When, after discussion, a better poll, which took cognance of that discussion, was instigated, I was happy to accept that as wholely reasonable. -- Doc 14:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I saw nothing "better" about the second poll. In fact, I preferred Fresheneesz' original poll, because it was more concise and to the point. See, this is the danger we get into when parties, who are already in conflict, must somehow come to consensus on the content of a poll. Polling is one form of structuring a conversation, perhaps not preferred, but certainly not banned. What we have here is a guideline ("Voting is evil") that in effect gives carte-blanche to anyone who wishes to suppress a poll, even if there is clear indication that the poll is not binding and consensus among other editors that a poll might be useful. We might as well rename "voting is evil" to "voting is forbidden" because that's the way it's being used.
And the reasoning behind this extreme aversion to polls seems flawed. Why is polling singled out? Sure, maybe some cases of polling are "evil", but some cases of threaded freeform discussion are "evil" too - it doesn't mean we ban discussion on sight. What we seem to be doing here is elevating what is at most a guideline ("discuss, don't vote") to the status of irrefutable policy that justfies the removal of polls on sight. In essence, polls are being treated as no less abusive than personal attacks and vandalism. It all comes back to my assertion that, however one feels about polling, removing someone else's poll is unjustified and overly aggressive. ATren 16:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Nope. I dislike polls (mostly) but I'm not wanting them banned. If there is a rough agreement on a page to conduct a poll, then a poll we'll have (as we eventually did). But the logic of saying they cannot be removed, is that even if all other users on a page object, if one user starts a poll, a poll we have.-- Doc 00:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
So a straw poll might be necessary to see if there's support for a straw poll? I realise you're not suggesting this, but your argument does involve an infinite regress, which is a fallacy.
Besides, why should one editor beginning a poll force people to participate? You can only "have a poll" if people participate, and if consensus is clearly against having a poll, then a poll will not be had even if the beginnings of one are sitting around on a page, and even if one "side" participates. I've seen before this argument premised on the supposed magical powers of coercion that polls have and I still find it bizarre. It seems to assume that other editors are stupid and need to be saved from themselves by not "tempting" them with a poll that someone has decided shouldn't be started. Just let the poll run—if people don't want it let it rot, and if people do want it let it become part of the discussion. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Doc: the point is, there was rough agreement on the NONN page to conduct a poll. In the initial attempt, only Radiant objected while three others approved. So, either polls are explicitly forbidden or Radiant was wrong in removing the poll. I quote your argument: "If there is a rough agreement on a page to conduct a poll, then a poll we'll have" - well before Radiant's removal there was agreement from everyone except Radiant. You can't have it both ways. Either polls can be removed on sight by anyone who doesn't want a poll (effectively giving any Wikipedia editor veto power over any poll), or Radiant was needlessly aggressive and uncivil in removing it when others wanted it. ATren 03:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Nope. The admin was trying to stop the disruption. The fact that some of the disrupters went ballistic is not the admin's falt. Polling is evil. Guy 22:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
If "polling is evil" is such an absolute, then it should be codified in official policy. And, it should be documented on that policy page that any attempt to conduct a poll is subject to immediate and uncontestable removal by any other editor, just as personal attacks and extreme incivility may be removed on sight. ATren 00:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Would it also be my fault if I "went ballistic" when someone deletes a comment of mine such as this one? Repeatedly? When other editors expressed interest in seeing it? Fresheneesz 00:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
See, it's like this. In my experience, you rarely if ever accept defeat. You rarely if ever accept that you are wrong. You rarely if ever accept that anyone else, however experienced, may have a better idea of how things work than you do. Given my past experience with you personally, I would say that the only way of stopping the argument may be to block you. Guy 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I could say the same thing about you. We're both stubborn. However, I do consider what other people say - but the length of time they've been on wikipedia does not enter into that consideration. You have to earn your respect, even if you're an admin. Fresheneesz 18:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
JzG, I agree with Fresheneesz, I could say all the same about you. Even when you were proven to be wrong in several PRT disputes, you never admitted it, much to my (and others') frustration. In fact, I've seen more give from Fresheneesz than I ever witnessed from you on the PRT pages. Is this such a bad thing? We all have somewhat of a stubborn streak, but that doesn't mean we should be banning everyone who persists in an argument. ATren 19:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with the Captain on this one. I think Radiant! was completely right to try to codify existing practice in WP:N, but I don't see the point in removing the poll. "Polling is evil" is subject to some vigorous dispute, so I'm not sure it's appropriate to edit other people's talk page comments. For what it's worth, I don't think personally polling is particularly evil, just frequently pointless. TheronJ 14:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The plain fact is that no amount of straw polling in the world would ever elevate WP:NN above the level of rejected. This was pointed out numerous times, but Fresh insisted on polling anyway. The effect of that poll would be, at best, to gather a small mob of malcontents, it would never change the status of WP:NN because WP:NN is so strongly against existing policy, guidelines and practice. Fresh and others resisted right from the outset any attempt to make WP:NN anything other than an outright denial of how things are currently done, the whole exercise was clearly from the outset a mission to try to change things, rather than an attempt to write a descriptive guideline. Had he conceived WP:NN as an essay describing his personal philosophy, and kept it as such, we would have none of this debate; the problem is entirely down to obdurate insistence on trying to make it a guideline, a status which it could not achieve (if anything the pendulum is probably swinging the other way due to the spam magnet status of the project, as witness the new WP:CSD G11). Eventually, someone had to stop the farce before it got any worse. It really doesn't matter when it was stopped, by whom, or how, because in the end somebody had to make it plain that WP:NN is not a guideline, and stands no present chance of being one, because it goes against so much current practice. I am willing to bet that whoever called a halt, we would have exactly the same outcome in the end (i.e. ArbCom) because Fresh, for one, simply does not accept it when things don't go his way. Indeed, I have a pretty strong suspicion that the only reason the disputed WP:NN exists in the first place is because Fresh did not get his own way. Guy 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Almost since the invention of the wiki, it has been known that sometimes removing particular sections can cool down a situation very rapidly and effectively ( Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages, Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks).
This can also apply to polls. In a calm discussion, straw polls can be a useful tool to find out how much work you're going to need to put into building a consensus. On the other hand, in tense situations, polls can be rather divisive, and might not help at all.
It logically follows that in the pathological situation, removing that particular bad poll before it advances too far might reduce tensions somewhat.
This doesn't always work however, it depends on the situation. For instance, if you wait too long before removing a poll and many people have commented, you can get into trouble. Sometimes it's wiser to archive, or mark as closed, or what have you. It takes some careful judgement of the situation, and sometimes an intervention will fail due to no apparent reason other than bad luck.
In conclusion, you can't categorically state that removing the poll was the right thing to do or that leaving the poll was the right thing to do. It could have blown up either way, for all we know. The best you can do is say "it depends". People tried removing the poll, it might have worked, but in the end it didn't. There's an element of bad luck involved.
Kim Bruning 23:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Ironically, I don't think there'd be much ado about the removal of a benign section of text or in fact a benign poll. It'd get sorted out quickly and quietly. Since this particular situation went all the way to the arbcom, I think possibly there might have been something wrong with that poll ;-) reply

The series of reversions was a voting process

12) The reversions giving rise to this controversy consist of a series of votes, such as in this series, "You can't hold a poll here", "all that should be needed to be determined", "Please place your vote here", "You really don't get it, do you?", "Mark it as rejected and move on", " The straw poll should not be used to determine if this becomes a guideline however, just used to gauge what needs to be tweaked on the proposal.", "Nothing needs to be tweaked.", "polls are not 'voting' methods", . . . . In that series, the voters exercised three modes of vote action: 1) expunging the votes recorded by previous voters, 2) disagreeing with the votes of previous voters, or 3) adding to what was said by previous voters. The winner in that voting process to enforce a decision was whoever shouted the loudest and the longest in the voting process.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  • I don't know how to agree or disagree with this, but I do agree with the phrase "the series of reversions was a voting process". The mere fact that there was an edit war on those guideline pages - in fact if there is an edit war on *any* page - means that *nothing* should change until further discussion. But instead of people to discuss with, I found some admins with an adgenda ready to revert me, and many others, if we dared oppose them. Discussion never really happened, agreements were never made - and yet Radiant seems to have gotten mostly what he wanted - by scaring away editors that wanted to discuss and refusing to cooperate. Fresheneesz 07:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. -- Rednblu 01:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Without a poll or some other objective measure of consensus, in the face of strong opposition, the claim of "consensus" was not legitimate. -- Rednblu 01:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Discussion of notability

13) Notability as a criteria for inclusion has been discussed at Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments, Wikipedia:Notability_proposal, Wikipedia:Non-notability, Wikipedia:Notability, and their talk pages. See also User:Uncle G/On notability.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 17:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Among others. Other places I could think of include those mentioned on Template:Notabilityguide, various talk pages of deletion policy, some of the subpages for WP:CSD/P, and WP:CENT. I've probably missed a bunch; I can try to make a comprehensive list if you think it's important. >Radiant< 12:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
There may be something important; let me explain my theory of importance: I think I have established that Wikipedia:Non-notability clearly failed to achieve consensus. The remaining question is whether Wikipedia:Notability did and on what valid basis, if any, that was determined. Fred Bauder 14:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Good point. To my knowledge, every earlier and other proposal including WP:NNOT has been an attempt to change people's behavior and modify the status quo. The current wording of WP:N is simply a documentation of the status quo, and has been reworded a bunch of times to make it a factual description. See principles 3, 3b, 20, finding 5 and your comment at principle 9 that "common practice is policy". There isn't much dissent that WP:N matches current practice (e.g. check WP:AFD or Template:IncGuide); most objection has taken the form of "you can't just base guidelines upon existing practice", "it's practice but I don't like it" or "it wasn't voted upon". This is most succinctly explained by Pascal here. >Radiant< 15:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
There are also all the deletion discussions related to notability on AfD. While most of them are merely uses of notability, that is important, and many others do have mini-debates about notability, though sometimes that only happened because someone would cry "but notability is only an essay"—and then the article would be deleted. — Centrx→ talk • 17:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

Wikipedia:Non-notability

14) Wikipedia:Non-notability clearly failed to achieve consensus and was appropriated tagged "Rejected,", see Wikipedia_talk:Non-notability.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 14:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
  • I completely agree that WP:NNOT did not, and does not have consensus support. However, to say that it "failed" to achieve consensus is to say that the proposal had a short finite amount of time to gain that consensus. To me, everything on wikipedia works in such a way that things are improved an expanded on over time - not in a matter of weeks or months - but over years and years. I disagree that the the "Rejected" tag is appropriate - simply because of what it says.
The rejected tag says that the proposal was "rejected by the community" which implies that there was a consensus to mark it as rejected - and I simply don't think thats the case. If there was a "lacks consensus" tag, I would not object to putting it on WP:NNOT, but the rejected tag simply doesn't fit. Fresheneesz 18:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Support. This says it well. FloNight 17:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Fresheneesz

15) Fresheneesz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) failed to recognize or accept the failure of Wikipedia:Non-notability to achieve consensus. Following the recognition by other participants that the proposal had been rejected, he continued to vigorously agitate for it, going so far as to edit war over placement of Template:Rejected on the page and initiate a straw poll regarding the rejected policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 14:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
  • As stated in the above header, I don't dispute that NNOT does not have consensus. But there is support for it, and support will either wax or wane over time. Despite the label on the tag, the rejected tag most definately will curb discussion for the page - its a tag that makes a harsh judgment on the page. Is there really a great danger in letting new proposals continue on when they have some sort of support? Fresheneesz 18:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
If there was community support for it, that tag would just be a fart in the wind. Fred Bauder 22:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Fresheneesz, it possible that your way doing it might work in some instances but not here because your policy is in direct conflict with existing policy. If this policy was something new we were trying to use to fix an accute serious problem or such, then your idea of letting it grow might be valid. Be we need to work on the nobility issue in one place. An it makes sense for that to be the Wikipedia:Notability policy page not the Wikipedia:Non-notability. -- FloNight 21:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Well the very thing is that I *don't* think it conflicts with existing policy. We've discussed this on its talk page, and theres dissenting ideas about what does and does not contradict. I have said once or twice that i'm fine with merging the work to one page - but i don't think radiant would be very happy about it. The problem is that the two sides of the argument are flush to the wall, and compromise will be very difficult. I find it funny that both NNOT and NN do not have consensus, yet one is tagged guideline and one is rejected. Am I the only one that smells something fishy there? Fresheneesz 07:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Two things: first, WP:CSD supports the speedy deletion policy and explicitly accepts that articles must assert the notability of the subject; the term notability is used in policy and is defined, as usually understood and applied, in WP:NOTABILITY. In as much as the core premise of WP:NNOT is that notability should not be used as a basis for inclusion, it clearly conflicts with policy, guidelines, and current practice. Second, whether or not you think it conflicts with existing policy is irrelevant - a significant number of others agree that it does conflict, and have therefore chosen to reject it as being beyond hope of fixing to the point where it reflects consensus (or if it did it would be redundant per other guidelines). Guy 08:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
NNOT specifically endorsed keeping up with CSD and deleting based on lack of "assertion of notability". Beyond CSD A7, absolutely no policy *contradicts* NNOT by saying that "notability should be used to argue for or against the deletion of an article". Once again, no policy contradicts NNOT in that way. The mere fact that policy pages use the english word "notability" is complete irrelevant unless those pages *acutally* contradict NNOT.
While many people might thing that NNOT conflicts with policy, many others think otherwise. The entire issue at hand is that admins like you think that a contention in your favor wins, but a contention in my favor loses. You say many people disagree with my view. Well I say many people disagree with yours. But that doesn't get us anywhere, does it. Fresheneesz 09:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Yes, that is the problem here. -- FloNight 17:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Agree completely. Guy 08:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Give it time

16) By definition, a guideline proposal will not have consensus immediately. Therefore it does not make sense to mark a proposal as rejected until a consensus has been determined to do so. Lack-of-consensus is what makes something a proposal, not what makes it rejected.

Comment by Arbitrators:
After a while it is possible to tell if a proposal lacks support. Fred Bauder 22:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Funny, I thought you called that wikilawyering (as a bad thing). I should point out that POL contradicts itself - it says that a proposal "is any suggested guideline, policy or process for which no consensus has been reached, as long as discussion is ongoing." So.. if something is a suggested guidline without consensus for which discussion is ongoing, does that make it a proposal or rejected? Not only are the definitions not mutually exclusive, but the definition for "rejected" covers all "proposals" - thus one could say (based off those definitions) that any proposal is a rejected proposal. Hurray for due process. Fresheneesz 07:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm just curious here: how long do you think a proposal which is clearly rejected and goes against existing policy, guidelines, and practice, should be allowed to stand before it's marked as rejected? This one had been going over four months, which to my mind is plenty of time to establish that it is goign nowhere, I'd be interested to hear how long you think it would need before you personally accepted that it's rejected. Guy 07:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, it's clear that notability is not a guideline, and voting is not evil. In my mind there's no point in debating over WP:N or WP:DDV any longer because it's obvious they are going nowhere.
See how easy that is? I just copied various phrases from the last two responses and created my own little decree. The point of this exercise is to show that consensus is not something that can be declared unilaterally. It needs to be discussed, debated, maybe (gasp!) voted on. Declaring the discussion over even when there is continued dissension only creates more dissension.
As for JzG's complaint that it had gone on for over four months, I might remind him of an essay someone once wrote about Wikipedia not working to a deadline. :-) ATren 15:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Irrelevant. This proposal clearly did not have consensus behind it. JoshuaZ 19:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Be aware of the implications for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy which is next up at bat. Thatcher131 23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
That is why we do not recognize precedent. Decision making processes which do must always carefully examine such questions on pain of being logically forced into absurd decisions. Fred Bauder 14:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Notability

17) Wikipedia:Notability is a restatement of existing practice, see edit by Radiant! ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adding Template:guideline, edit by Centrx, and also Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Rules.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 19:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
An additional diff might be [26]. Everyone seems to agree with this description of the page, as description, but the disagreement about the tagging seems to be that the {{ guideline}} tag somehow gives additional authority and that the lack of that tag makes Wikipedia:Notability stand out as being something different from a normal guideline. Insofar as it is an accurate description, even accepted as accurate by parties that oppose the guideline, it is evidence that Wikipedia:Notability is existing practice. — Centrx→ talk • 23:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The guideline tag has recently been replaced with a custom messagebox which essentially says almost the same thing. The tag implies additional authority, but its real authority comes from its sustained and determined use at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Fred Bauder 14:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote

18) Wikipedia:Polls are evil, copied from m:Voting is evil by Radiant! on January 20, 2006, has been moved to Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote. Radiant! has maintained that it is a guideline [27]. Others have maintained it is an essay [28]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 19:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
It was actually copied from m:Voting is evil. My opinion is backed by about a dozen editors on DDV's talk page. I maintain that it is common practice on Wikipedia that voting is discouraged (not, of course, forbidden). Some people object not to the idea but to the wording; a draft is being written to address those concerns. Most other objections are that 1) Wikipedia should not have a formal policy forbidding voting (which nobody is proposing anyway), 2) since we have voted in the past we must keep doing so, 3) we should design more structured mechanisms such as voting because discussion doesn't scale, or 4) that AFD (etc) are or should be determined by strict vote count. I consider these arguments not very strong, and again the draft is an attempt to clarify that as well. >Radiant< 23:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't think much of the slogan. I like to use straw polls, just so everyone can see how the wind is blowing (that is what the Workshop page is all about). This has to be combined with an opportunity to explain and discuss. However, this procedure can break down in formal meetings with Roberts Rules of Order in full effect. Those Rules require such things as a motion on the floor, etc, when what may be required is tossing alternatives around. Fred Bauder 14:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Point of information: the meta page is m:Polling is evil, and a core reason is given as: Polling encourages the community to remain divided. This proposal seems to me to be a perfect example of that. No amount of polling will ever fix the fact that this proposal runs counter to current policy, guidelines and practice, and if it was rewritten to fix those problems it would be redundant to the notability guideline. Guy 08:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This is what baffles me: we've elevated "polling is evil" to such an absolute that it's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. Here we had one editor suggesting a non-leading, non-binding straw poll after a very long debate that had not reached consensus (in other words, the rift was not closing any time soon), and the reaction against the poll was so absolute that we ended up in arbitration. I submit that, even though the word "evil" has been removed from DDV, people continue to treat it as an absolute evil; i.e. something to be deleted on sight, something to be avoided at all costs, something that can never have any value to anyone. We seem to have elevated polling to the be just a notch below vandalism and personal attacks in terms of "evilness", which in itself is probably more polarizing than any individual poll would be. ATren 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Response to point of information: Neither will any amount of polling make a giant space monkey appear in the sky. Thats simply not the point of polling, and stop pretending that "fixing a proposal" or "fabricating consensus" is. Fresheneesz 06:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

Existing practice != consensus

17) While common existing practice is important for determining policy, it does not equate to consensus, and thus cannot be the sole reason for creating policy or a guideline. Current practice might be practiced by *many* people, but need not be practiced my *most* or *all* people. Also, common practice is different in different areas of wikipedia, where different types of editors are attracted. Lastly common practice is difficult if not impossible to gauge, because of selection bias, and thus cannot and should not be used to determine consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:
The Arbitration Committee may use existing practice as a basis for making decisions, see Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Rules. If there were no consensus there would be no identifiable common practice. In this context, policy is not created, just recognized. I don't find it too difficult to recognize. All you have to do to test it is to do something different and watch the reaction. And it is nicely illustrated here. After a policy had been rejected, Fresheneesz refused to recognize it, and look at the reaction. Fred Bauder 13:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
If current practice is not measured by what the community does every day of the week, then what would it be? This also begs the question; actually there is more to the status of the notability guideline than simply current practice - it is also reflected in WP:CSD and numerous subject-specific notability guidelines. Guy 08:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Um.. i was talking about consensus, not current practice. The definition of current practice is what we do, the definition of consensus is what we think. Fresheneesz 06:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, and since what we do is by definition based upon what we think, current practice is by definition based upon consensus. Therefore one can infer consensus from current practice. ( Radiant) 13:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply
What we *think* is best is not always what we do. And what we *do* is most certainly not always what we think is best. As a matter of fact, people don't usually think very hard about what they do. Have you ever taken a psychlogy class radiant? What people do is based on routine. This is why we have schools, government, unions - its because what we do is not very intelligent. Discussion and decision are what make good policy - first-hand accounts make terrible policy. Fresheneesz 07:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Actually, I'm a psych minor. Regardless, I assume that people on Wikipedia do what they think is best. And Wikipedia is not a government; there are fundamental differences between governmental policies and Wikipedia guidelines. I think the core of the issue is that you made some erroneous assumptions about how Wikipedia works or should work, and have been unwilling to reconsider them. ( Radiant) 12:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Good job at being vauge. You know as well as I do that I'm right about people's actions. While wikipedia is not a goverment, we need some way to decide how to run it. In other words, wikipedia needs a type of government, just as all organizations do, to help it function in the best way possible. I could say the same thing about your erroneous assumptions and non-negotial self-consenses. Fresheneesz 08:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply
If you believe Wikipedia needs a more clearly defined government, feel free to propose one. Until and unless such a proposal reaches consensus, the simple fact is that Wikipedia does not have such a government. ( Radiant) 10:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Oh but we do. The government is us, and while we are not very organized, we have the duty to keep wikipedia from straying on the wrong path. That is why coming to a clear and undisputable consensus is crucial, and is what I brought this arbitration to clarify. Fresheneesz 12:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive

17) Wikipedia guidelines are descriptive guides to current practice, not prescriptive rules. They are not set in stone and are expected to develop as current practice develops.

Comment by Arbitrators:
From time to time policies are developed from scratch. Fred Bauder 13:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Yes, that's pretty much the point. Guidelines aren't legislation, they show the result of earlier discussion so that we don't have to discuss it again. This essay gives a pretty good explanation of how that works. ( Radiant) 13:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply
A first hand account of what people do on AfD is clearly *not* a discuscussion of policy. Fresheneesz 07:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy 13:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

17.1) Wikipedia:Notability is a descriptive guideline which documents existing practice. It supports the deletion policy (specifically the criteria for speedy deletion) which requires that articles must assert the notability of their subject. It is supported by numerous content-specific inclusion guidelines such as WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, WP:CORP. It is traceable back to core policies of verifiability and neutrality, and what Wikipedia is not (e.g. a directory, an indiscriminate collection of information).

Comment by Arbitrators:
Yep Fred Bauder 13:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy 13:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

17.2) Wikipedia:Non-notability is a prescriptive document which, rather than describing existing practice, asserts that existing practice is wrong (see Nutshell box in this version).

Comment by Arbitrators:
It could have been adopted. Fred Bauder 13:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
By the time a "new idea type policy" becomes an "official policy", likely it had a trial run; perhaps as a guideline or maybe informal use by clueful users. Since admins are not required to police users, unpopular or unknown policy (like ArbCom remedies) will not be enforced and has little meaning. FloNight 14:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
  • Maybe if it was allowed to develop for more time, it would have become descriptive. By marking the proposal as rejected, you *made* it so that it would never gain steam. The action of marking it 'rejected' disallowed the proposal from becoming descriptive. Fresheneesz 06:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy 13:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Although I could of course be wrong, it seems clear to me that most guidelines are a combination of descriptive and prescriptive. As an example, most of the discussion in Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) would be irrelevant if the only issue were describing what the existing practice for deleting articles about non-notable books is - instead, the editors clearly understand themselves to be discussing, at least in part, what the book notability standard should be. TheronJ 14:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Other policy pages at issue

17) The status of other policy pages related to this dispute are also at issue: Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote, Wikipedia:Straw polls.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 14:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
There does not appear to be a dispute over WP:STRAW. It was claimed it's not a guideline by Alphax, Brenneman and Dmcdevit (and arguably, Tony Sidaway and Kim Bruning, among others, on the talk page) on grounds that straw polling isn't usually a part of dispute resolution or guideline creation, and reverted by Fresheneesz three times, apparently on the bureaucratic grounds that a guideline tag may not be removed. ( Radiant) 14:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Excuse me, but my argument was not beuracratic and it was not that "a guideline tag may not be removed". It was that it was removed for *no reason* *without discussion* after that page had been a *long term guidline*. It made no sense to me that there was no discussion, and still doesn't. Fresheneesz 06:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Considering Alphax, Brenneman and Dmcdevit all gave clear reasons for the removal, and considering there was debate on the talk page (started by Tony Sidaway) for several days before the first removal, I fail to see what your point is. ( Radiant) 13:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply
People removing the guideline tag does not constitute a discussion and/or consensus to demote a year-old guideline. Show me where these people actually discussed their motives. Fresheneesz 08:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply
In the edit summary and on the talk page, obviously. ( Radiant) 12:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Thats not a good discussion... Fresheneesz 08:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

Doc glasgow

18) Doc glasgow ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) actions, while a bit aggressive, violated no substantial policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 15:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
I've already conceded this much in my evidence. Although 'aggressive' isn't the word I'd have chosen, more like 'lame' - I should have unwatched the page and moved on.-- Docg 20:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:

Radiant!

19) Radiant! ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) actions, while a bit aggressive, violated no policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 15:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

17) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

17) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Fresheneesz topical ban

1) Fresheneesz is banned from editing policies, guidelines, essays and related pages and their talk pages for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
I don't think even this is necessary. Fred Bauder 22:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
The evidence against Fresheneesz does not point to anything more than heated debate, followed by an angry reaction to administrators removing his straw poll (an overly-aggressive move that would anger even the most patient of editors). Also, there were many editors who disagreed with Radiant's actions on Notability, NNOT, DDV, and straw polls - if Fresheneesz is to be banned for his actions, then certainly Radiant deserves a ban for acting against consensus on multiple project pages. Personally, I think neither deserves a ban - this arbiration would best serve the community by clarifying policy with regard to guideline process and straw polling, not by banning users. ATren 15:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
ATren, engaging in high intensity uncivil debates to the point of disruption is the problem. I'm not sure that an out right ban from all policy and policy talk pages for one year is the right solution, but there needs to be a remedy that addresses Fresheneesz behavior. IMO, this is one of several options that need to be considered. FloNight 15:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
FloNight, I've looked every piece of evidence against Fresheneesz, and frankly the charges of incivility and disruption are greatly exaggerated. Up until the straw poll removal, it was little more than a heated debate that probably would have died down eventually, without incident. The removal of Fresheneesz's poll was the most disruptive event in this case, by far, and most of Fresheneesz's alleged "incivility" occurred after this. If we are to ban Fresheneesz for disruption, then certainly Radiant should be banned for his disruptive removal of the poll, as well as edit warring with other editors on DDV and other project pages. ATren 16:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Exaggerated, perhaps, but greatly exaggerated? Fresheneesz is one of those editors who will never stop arguing until you either agree with him or get bored and walk away. Even when you obviously agree on something, or when he accepts that the current version is fine, he still manages to keep up an argument! Guy 14:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Look at the evidence against him. Many of the cited cases were after the repeated straw poll removal, which obviously provoked him, and even then most of them were borderline incivilty - certainly nothing Fresheneesz said or did was nearly as disruptive as removing an informal straw poll. According to policy, removing another editor's non-abusive talk page comment is clear-cut vandalism an act of extreme incivility, and we're admonishing Fresheneesz for borderline invicility in reaction to this aggressive and unwarranted act? Something doesn't add up here. As for your claim that "Fresheneesz is one of those editors who will never stop arguing until you either agree with him or get bored and walk away" - the same can be said about thousands of users, many of them admins. You and I had fierce debates on the PRT articles, and neither of us "walked away" until Stephen finally intervened. Perhaps all that what was missing here was a good moderating force, but once the straw poll war began all attempts at moderation were lost... ATren 14:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
You are ignoring (again) the facts of that situation: there was a heated debate between you two and someone else; I settled that but (since Fresh and you did not get your way) the debate continued. Stephen "settled" the articles much as I left them because in the end policy is as I stated, that content must be neutral, verifiable, and give appropriate weight. I still think we should not have an article on SkyTran, as it is essentially a fictional concept, but given that we have one, at least it is not a PR piece any more. Guy 20:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
See this is what I'm talking about: JzG says "I settled that", even though there were four editors who disagreed with his version of "settled" on the PRT page. It seems that some experienced editors have a habit of acting as if their final word is the final word. In the case of the PRT article, JzG acted as if his edits were final on that page, despite the fact that several of us objected to his edits almost immediately, and despite the fact that JzG had an admitted affection for the single editor on the other side of the debate. In fact, it's my opinion that it was JzG's attitude at the PRT that started this whole mess, because Fresheneesz became active in the notability debates soon after JzG's arrogant attitude on those pages, including his persistent argument that notability was a justification for suppressing factual, published information about PRT in favor of non-factual anti-PRT content from a blogger/cartoonist. ATren 23:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, then allow me elaborate: for most of the dispute, JzG was the only editor on the other side of the debate. He removed a bunch of verifiable information supporting the PRT concept, and retained some less verifiable anti-PRT material. When several of us reinserted the verifiable material, he repeatedly reverted us with little discussion. When he did provide explanation, he mainly focused on two justifications: (1) we were POV pushers (which was absolutely not true, especially in the case of User:Skybum), and (2) the verifiable information should not go into the article because of "article balance" - i.e. the lack of notability of PRT meant that the tone of the article should be skeptical, even though there was much verifiable evidence (journal articles, textbooks, news articles, fully functional prototypes) that PRT was not the "Quixotic dream" that JzG claimed it was. It was soon after this that JzG nominated the Unimodal article for deletion, seemingly at the behest of the user that started this whole fight, a POV pusher who has staged an obsessive anti-PRT smear campaign for over three years. Again, notability was at the forefront of that deletion debate, and by that time we already had a bad impression of notability from the PRT "article balance" contention.
So you might say we all got a pretty rude introduction to notability, and specifically, how notability can be used (misused?) to suppress verifiable information from an otherwise factual article. ATren 15:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I do not know how uncivil he was, but if someone is going to keep pushing a peculiar, contradictory conception of Wikipedia, disallow unapproved changes to it and any reasonable discussion or compromise, and then rush to a bogus Arbitration case after refusing to accept the results of his own repeated spurious straw polls, there is no reason to allow him to continue doing so. He is free to create non-consensual essays about Wikipedia in his userspace. — Centrx→ talk • 16:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "bogus Arbitration case" - the main crux of his case is the straw poll removal and Radiant's status change wars, not the status of NNOT.
  • "repeated straw polls" - "repeated" only in the sense that he repeatedly re-posted his poll after others deleted them. ATren 17:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Straw poll foolery and changing the status of a Wikipedia page are not reason to directly elevate a situation to Arbitration.
  • By repeated, I mean the second straw poll, [29], in which he lays out exactly how he wants his poll to go on his proposal. (To clarify an ambiguity in my first comment here, this second poll was posted after the Arbitration case had been filed.) — Centrx→ talk • 19:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This remedy seems too harsh to me. (1) I don't think there's cause to ban Fresheneesz from policy talk pages (2) If there is a talk page ban, a year seems long for taking the wrong side in an edit war, even granting that F was substantively wrong. If it were up to me, I would say either 1 year for the policy pages, 1 month for the talk and related pages, or 1 year for the whole thing, but with an explicit understanding that the arbcomm will accept a request for reinstatement if F can behave for a few months. TheronJ 16:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
A too harsh remedy. There was edit-warring from two sides in all of these cases, so banning one side in the dispute from editing these pages is an unfair remedy. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Too harsh. Fresheneesz has helped with policy and guidelines issues before. While it might make sense to put him on some sort of policy/guideline-editing probation, an outright ban is unecessary. JoshuaZ 17:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't think so, look at his Wikipedia namespace contributions, specifically the policy pages (Village pump, etc. would not be covered by this ban). The only thing he has done aside from pages related to this case has been to add these policy and guideline list templates to all the policy pages—which is insubstantial and could have been done by anyone, even if I thought it were a good idea. He has a couple of random other grammar-type edits, but those look to have actually all been reverted. — Centrx→ talk • 17:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Demotion of Radiant

2) Radiant be permanently demoted from administrator for his consistently abusive actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Nonsense Fred Bauder 22:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
  • Please don't take this as retaliation (I actually put this up on the wrong page 5 hours before proposed remedy 1). I feel that such a ruling as this would show Radiant that he cannot simply ignore consensus and rudly conduct himself wherever he pleases - therefore I don't think any sort of block or ban is neccessary. His recent personal attacks against me and ATren on the evidence page clearly show that Radiant is not the sort of person that should be holding the powers of an administrator. I believe an admin should be patient and willing to discuss - rather than blunt, uncompromizing, and unhelpful. Fresheneesz 05:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Evidence of what? Fresheneesz 03:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Personally I find it very obvious that Radiant thinks his views and his supporters make him a higher authority. He often talks about people who disagree with him as "not undestanding" how wikipedia works - as if he has omnipotent understanding of it himself. And he always implies that consensus is behind him, never acknowleging any contention. It is one thing to vigorously argue, but it is entirely another to ignore discussion and act assuming that consensus is what you wish it to be. Fresheneesz 09:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
Fresheneesz, your insistence on continuing your dispute with Radiant is largely the reason that I am leaning toward supporting sanctions against you. (Unclear what type yet) From the beginning of your conflict with Radiant, you have made it personal against Radiant instead of a disagreement about policy. And instead of following the dispute resolution process, you have turned Wikipedia into a battleground. You did not make any good faith effort that I can see to resolve the dispute. No RFC. No attempt at Mediation. Instead you jumped straight to Arbitration in order to get Radiant demoted. Radiant tried to make the RFAr something positive that would bring resolution without sanctions against parties. IMO, that comes closer to the spirit of the Wikipedia community, than your insistence on a draconian sanction. I strongly urge you to settle your disagreement with Radiant. Perhaps mediation would help you focus your complaints into issues that can be resolved through civil discussion. FloNight 18:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
My arbitration is largely about many many abuses Radiant has inflicted - much less on me than on the wikipedia community. Its true, I don't like Radiant, but I'm trying my best not to let that cloud the issue. I truely think that Radiant cannot handle administrator powers. Why are you telling me that *I* am proposing uncalled for measures? I'm not proposing a year-long ban on radiant, as is proposed against me. I am not using off-topic ad hoc attacks against others to futher my cause like Radiant is doing. My problem is that Radiant ignores policy, and creates his own without consensus. I'm sure you can agree that if that were true, it is a very dangerous thing indeed. Fresheneesz 03:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Fresheneesz, so are you out and out rejecting my suggestion that you use mediation to solve your differences with Radiant? I think it is pretty unlikely that Radiant will be desyop over a single incident where no administrative tools were used. I suggest that you consider another method for resolving your issues with Radiant. Perhaps you need to start at the beginning of the dispute resolution process. FloNight 21:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This arbitration does not cover a "single incident" - it covers a wide range of incidents, and its on that basis that someone would be desysoped. We're mediating right now, other mediation can happen later (after this arbitration ends). One of my points is that administrative tools should not have been neccessary to communicate with Radiant. It really doesn't matter how unlikely it is tho, I think its part of a solution, and so I proposed it. If it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass. Fresheneesz 04:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
So, are we speaking in generalities here or are we going to treat this particular case on its merits? I don't know whether Radiant's actions merit desysopping, but to write this off as just another "tendentious editor" following the "tendentious editor pattern" is not only an implicit indictment of Fresheneesz, but it also ignores the very real evidence of overly-aggressive behavior on the part of the admin in question. And, by the way, perhaps you consider Fresheneesz tendentious because you've been on the opposite side of debate with him for 10 months? In such an extended debate, is it any surprise that one side would consider the other to be "tendentious"? ATren 16:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
In general, admins are not desysopped over editorial actions. In specific terms, Radiant is very unlikely to be desysopped for pointing out that there is widespread consensus regarding a anotability bar, even if debate exists as to where that bar might be. It is a silly suggestion and I would be stunned if ArbCom did not simply reject it. Guy 12:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Although, as I explained above, I also considered some of the actions taken inappropriate, this is obviously a way to harsh remedy. There was no abuse of sysop powers and there was edit warring between two sides. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It would help if ATren stopped using loaded language like "aggressive" and his accusatory tone all the time. As I recall, he is upset about my single removal of a poll that he wasn't involved in; so far, he has made dozens of accusations of vandalism (now mostly withdrawn), aggressiveness, provocation etc. That strikes me as overreactive. >Radiant< 17:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
OK, Radiant, which word would you prefer? "Inappropriate"? "Unwarranted"? Whatever you want to call it, removal of the straw poll was by far the most disruptive event in this dispute. ATren 22:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Radiant does not seem to have abused any admin tools. Presumably therefore any sanction on Radiant should focus on civility or other concerns. JoshuaZ 17:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

All parties leave WP:N alone

1) All parties in this debate should agree to restore Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments with the Centrix boilerplate text used before Radiant changed it to Guideline again. No one shall be blocked or banned.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
added by me. -- Chris chat edits essays 04:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Ridiculous. 1) Whilst arbcom can compel people not to do things, it is beyond their amazing powers to compel people to 'agree' to things. 2) I'm a party to this case (I know not why) and I don't recall ever having edited this page - so an injunction on me regarding the page would be without merit.-- Doc 23:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Ahem, you're party to this case because you decided to remove my talk page poll. I still hold that, that is vandalism, and thats why you're party to this case. Fresheneesz 18:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
You consider it vandalism? Please assume good faith. Anyway, it is beside the point. I did not edit the page (or talk page) mentioned in this remedy. Thus the remedy is too broad.-- Doc 08:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Assume good faith? Policy is clear on this matter: removal of non-abusive talk page comments is considered vandalism. What good faith intention could justify what is almost univerally considered a vandalistic act? From this point forward, I am classifying the straw poll removal as an act of incivility, not vandalism. See [30] ATren 03:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
In fact, if you are to justify the removal by claiming that the poll was abusive, then it is you who are assuming bad faith on the part of Fresheneesz, because there is nothing inherently evil in conducting a straw poll, only in abusing the straw poll to e.g. assert consensus. In other words, removing the straw poll could only be justified by an assumption of bad faith on the part of Fresheneesz - that his intent was to abuse. ATren 15:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I've replied to the removal=vandalism accusation before. I have never claimed the poll was 'abusive', nor that it was 'evil'. I assume Fresheneesz ment well, but was misguided. Frankly, you seem intent on taking this arbitration down into the gutter of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. Please stop it.-- Doc 01:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Though this appears (to me) originally appeared to me to be a clear cut case of talk page vandalism, the WP:VANDAL policy page seems contradictory (see [31]) and therefore I am striking all vandalism allegations. In any event, I still believe this was an act of incivility, and was based on the assumption that Fresheneesz was going to misuse the poll - because if there wasn't an assumption of abuse, then what other justification would there be to removing the poll? ATren 03:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
You are still saying that my edits 'appear' as vandalism. Readjust you perspective to 'good faith assuming' mode. If you are unable to do that, I suggest you don't share your perspectives with us, as they fail to meet Wikipedia's requirements for its editors.-- Doc 08:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I have edited my comment to make it clear that I've backed off my initial classification as vandalism. And I respectfully ignore your request that I leave Wikipedia. :-) ATren 14:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I didn't ask you to leave. I suggested that if you were unable to avoid assuming bad faith, then you didn't bother telling us how things 'appeared' to you from that assumption.-- Doc 22:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I might point out that I have nothing to do with that page. Dmcdevit· t 22:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
No thanks. It makes obvious sense, especialyl since we have numerous content spacific guidelines and at least one policy which refers to the term notability, we need to have a guidline on what that is, and a version based on current practice is the logical choice. Finally, ArbCom are being asked again to endorse one side's preferred version of a piece of disputed content, in this case a guideline page, against the consensus which is currently prevailing. Guy 22:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Community asked to better codify principles of notability

1) The community is encouraged to offer a broad-based guideline for determining the notability (or lack thereof) of a given article. The community is reminded that guidelines ought be flexible, avoid instruction creep, and avoid unnecessary process.

Comment by Arbitrators:
It is common sense: reference works contain important information. Why something is important varies. Fred Bauder 22:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
Whilst I appreciate the sentiment, I think this is invalid. There is a lack of consensus, yes, but creating a guideline will not create one. Guidelines record what is, so they can't record what isn't. There are thousands of people participating in deletion debates, each with their own views of what belongs in an encyclopedia - the consensus is the net result of what actual happens. A guideline page cannot change that, it could at best only try to record it (and I know not how). Perhaps: 'Notability - to understand how the community defines the concept, see the encyclopaedia's contents and the deletion logs'.-- Doc 00:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Perhaps. My point here is twofold. First that there currently is not a clear consensus on notability (Which can be problematic, as many editors act as though there is in one direction or another). Second, that the community needs to work seriously on these issues in a non case-by-case fashion. Phil Sandifer 01:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, I see no way other than case-by-case. AfD is a mechanism whereby those that 'vote' in that case determine the result. Let's say we manage to draw up a guideline which has 70% support. Are the others, who disagree, prevented from 'voting' for the deletion of things that see meet it? Will their opinions be discounted? Will users who have never heard of the guideline be expected to conform to it? Can we really have a guideline that states that people will express these opinions, and use these criteria, in a debate? I suspect you are treating the community as being more corporate than facts justify. All a guideline can do, is like a law of economics, describe what happens and record our idiosyncrasies: 'we tend to keep schools, delete micronations, merge .. etc.'. -- Doc 01:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
No, but we could consolidate the guideline pages somewhat and make them more rigorous and less bloated. — Centrx→ talk • 01:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
There are commonalities in the several sub-guidelines, for example "...subject of multiple non-trivial published works..."; but they add specifics like "was charted on a national music chart" and merely vary somewhat. These commonalities follow from the basic content policies, which we can make reasonable deductions about and may be able to develop a single page on. See also Wikipedia:Notability#Rationale. Also, there is a symbiotic relationship between the creation and development of policies and the common practice; see my comment under proposed principle No legislation on this page, above. — Centrx→ talk • 01:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The problem occurs comparatively. As it stands, a non-notable band can be more notable than a notable porn star, to my mind. This sort of disjunct may be acceptable and even desirable, but I find myself unnerved by the fact that it arose through a series of ad hoc committees ruling on small subject areas, but no real thought about notability as a whole, since that discussion has tended to turn into an "is notability a valid deletion criterion." (Which, notably, I tend to think it shouldn't be, but I also think it's clear that it is.) An attempt to formulate a general case seems to me very important, and very needed. Phil Sandifer 15:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

A question, if guidelines simply record what people already do, whats the point of having them? If they are simply a record, then one can't give them any sort of authoritative significance. I maintain that guidelines and policies are *not* simply what happens on wikipedia, but they are an attempt to describe what *should* happen on wikipedia. They are codes that in general should be followed to ensure that wikipedia runs efficiently and smoothly. It makes absolutely no sense at all to let anarchy dictate what our policies and guidelines are.' Fresheneesz 03:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Community custom and practice is policy, see Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Rules. Fred Bauder 22:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
It is more subtle than that. A guideline cannot possibly describe what all people in all domains on Wikipedia do, but it can authoritatively and accurately state, for example, that articles on non-notable subjects will be deleted, despite dissenters and despite some variations in what exactly is considered notable. That description is helpful, for example, for the dozens of people on- and off-wiki that I have directed to that page to explain why an article was deleted. While guidelines do have a somewhat prescriptive capacity, that capacity is a conservative, slight tendency and still based on description of common if not supremely dominant practice, and fundamental principles. There is not a guideline on the wiki that contradicts established practice. See also my comment under section No legislation above. — Centrx→ talk • 19:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
There is insufficient consensus in the community to make good rulings on these subjects, leading to unfortunate and destructive debates. The arbcom is not the place to establish this consensus, but it ought point out its lack. Phil Sandifer 00:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Fresheneesz

1) Fresheneesz may be placed on probation if he continues to disrupt policy pages or discussion. Such action shall be by motion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motions_in_prior_cases by any member of the Arbitration Committee after complaints received from one or more users.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 15:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This remedy gives Fresheneesz a chance to quit disrupting policy pages now rather than face further action. Fred Bauder 15:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Up to now Fresheneesz has not been willing to signal that s/he will lay off Radiant. In a terribly misguided way, Fresheneesz initiated this case to get Radiant demoted after making many highly uncivil comments/personal attacks against Radiant on various talk pages. I requested using mediation but Fresheneesz declined (rather stated this was mediation). This is my biggest remaining concern. Could we please address this now? FloNight 19:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
You want us to require mediation? Fred Bauder 19:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Want to send Fresheneesz in the direction of Wikipedia's Dispute resolution process for remaining and future issues. A remedy suggesting mediation as well as following the other steps of dispute resolution process might have a positive effect. Not sure that mediation is effective by mandate but Fresheneesz needs to change their way of dealing with Radiant for sure or understand that sanctions will occur. FloNight 20:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I'd like to point out that the purpose of this arbitration was *NOT* to demote Radiant. For god's sake, it was a remote possibility. I suggested it to see if others thought it was neccessary. The purpose of this arbitration is to save wikipedia's policy pages from being mangled without consensus. Consentual mangling notwithstanding. Fresheneesz 07:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by parties:
  • I reverted large irregular, irresponsible, and undiscussed edits to policy pages. I wanted to discuss these changes before they were made. If that is more of a disruption than removing peoples talk page posts and editing policy based on things you *declare* to be consensus, well i must have vastly misunderstood how wikipedia works. Fresheneesz 07:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment by others:
I still fail to see what was so disruptive about Fresheneesz's edits. I've looked through all the evidence, and aside from a some reverting of "rejected" to "proposed" on NONN, I see nothing as disruptive as Radiant's removal of the poll, nor Radiant's 10 reverts of 6 other editors on the WP:DDV guideline tag. I fail to see how Fresheneesz's action merit probation while Radiant's actions get nothing, and if the committee finds this way, I would hope they would provide a detailed explanation of why Fresheneesz's actions are punishable while Radiant's are not. Especially since it can be argued that some of Fresheneesz's missteps can be written of to inexperience, while Radiant cannot realistically make that claim. ATren 18:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
ATren, nothing to do with punishment. It has to do with removing the user that is most likely causing the disruption. I agree that there was mildly aggressive action by other users. But these actions would not have happened without Fresheneesz in the situation and likely will not happen in the future if Fresheneesz stops editing in an disruptive manner. FloNight 19:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
We as a community are in the position of allowing the society to label Rosa Parks as the one disrupting policy pages. User:Fresheneesz is right here. In the absence of civilized rules for defining "consensus" and other legitimate measures of status quo, Wikipedia policy pages are merely the turf in an honor battle where the faithful band of tenacious reverters can quash any improvement. I say this only to make an explicit model of our situation at this point and make no value judgment of any culture, whether Southern, Honorarian, or Wikipedian. -- Rednblu 20:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Just curious: if the situation were reversed, and Fresheneesz was the one who edit warred with 6 other users on DDV, and then unilaterally removed Radiant's attempt at a poll, and if, in turn, Radiant reacted angrily to Fresheneesz and took him to arbitration, would we then single out only Radiant for disruption? I'm skeptical that we would. I think what we have here is people reacting to Fresheneesz's reputation, not (only) his particular actions in this dispute. And I would further submit that his reputation was tainted by his involvement with JzG, who continues to insinuate that Fresheneesz is a problem editor and is only doing this because his page was deleted (which I believe is not only an exaggeration and a distortion, but also inherently assumes bad faith on the part of Fresheneesz). Once you get on the bad side of an otherwise respected admin, no matter whether you deserved it or not, it seems you're tainted for good. ATren 23:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
ATren, I want to assure you that I evaluated the situation based on Fresheneesz actions in this case. I had no idea about any prior disputes. IMO, the culture of Wikipedia community is quite forgiving so I really think that you are barking up the wrong tree here. We are interested in settling disruption so we can write the encyclopedia. That is what the remedies are suppose to do. FloNight 15:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

What does this mean? Fresheneesz

This part is more for banned users... Like "any user breaking a ban will be blocked" and stuff. -- Chris chat edits essays 22:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Non-Notability/Workshop&oldid=1063318748"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE