Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

If I understand the ArbCom's comments correctly, this case focuses on the process (or lack thereof) for establishing guidelines and forming consensus. This would be a more elegant approach than focusing on accusations of misbehavior and possible grudges against editors. I hope we can keep all dialogue aimed at constructive solutions.

Intent of WP:NNOT

As I understand it, WP:NNOT has been a proposal to change the way Wikipedia presently works, specifically to prevent people from using the term "notability" as an argument for article deletion. I question the practicality of such an attempt to legislate editor behavior. The proposal has been advertised in the usual spots as well as many user pages. Reactions were not enthousiastic. As the proposal is in contradiction with several established policies and guidelines, several editors have pointed out there will not be consensus for it. Also, several people expressed disapproval of the proposal on its talk page.

WP:NNOT was rejected

According to WP:POL, a proposal which has no consensual support is "rejected", regardless of whether discussion is still ongoing. As such, this proposal was marked with {{rejected}} a couple of times. This was met with strong opposition. Upon one editor's insistence, a straw poll was held. As expected, this showed a majority (approx 71%) opposed to the proposal. After the poll closed, it was nevertheless denied that it was rejected, and a new poll was opened on the subject. This new poll has so far been ignored by the community. The page is at present marked as "rejected", and debate has died down.

Discuss, don't vote

It is an old practice to discourage voting on Wikipedia. The argument that the related page on meta is not marked "guideline" is irrelevant since meta doesn't use that classification. The notion that this concept is a guideline is backed up by, among others, Dmcdevit, Doc Glasgow and Extreme unction. Most of the objection to this guideline is (1) a claim that it was "promoted out of process", (2) based on a misunderstanding of current practice, (3) based on the false assumption that the page would forbid voting entirely, or (4) based on a personal dislike of current practice.

There is a dispute over the wording of the page, which was deemed inappropriate by some, and the wording is being changed by, among others, me.

Radiant! using disputed WP:DDV to justify removal of Fresheneesz's straw poll

(in response to ATren's assertion below) This is simply false. Yes, I removed a straw poll. No, I never said that that action was justified by DDV.

Dispute at DDV

While there is a dispute at Discuss, don't vote, Radiant (me) has taken an active role in resolving this dispute by changing the page in response to comments, and creating a new draft in order to reach compromise on the wording. [2] [3] [4] [5]

WP:NNOT was intended as policy

Regardless of what people now say about its status or the point of the poll, the page WP:NNOT was intended to be policy by several people, including Fresheneesz. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Note

In spite of my earlier request to focus on the process of guideline-making, some editors appear to think that this RFAr is better used as a merry game of whack-the-Radiant. I find this unfortunate, but in light of those remarks I feel the ArbCom should be aware that I was being harassed earlier by one of those editors. I had thought it had died down, but the remarks made in this case make it clear to me that he has no intent to stop.

ATren engages in personal attacks

This includes many spurious accusations of vandalism, and several indirect attacks using the fallacy of many questions, or using weasel clauses like "if I were suspicious I would accuse you of so-and-so; but I'm not suspicious so I didn't just say that". [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

ATren (formerly User:A Transportation Enthusiast) and Fresheneesz share an interest in transportation articles (e.g. here) and have a history of "teaming up" against others, such as in meditation, deletion, the admin noticeboard and on articles ("I'll continue to revert the deletion").

Fresheneesz is a tendentious editor

Wikipedia:Tendentious editors cites four characteristics of such problem editors. One is about citing sources and thus does not apply since this is not about articles. The other three are:

• Continuous pushing for a certain goal despite opposition
• Rejection of community input, resists moderation, ignores an opposing consensus
• Campaigning to drive away productive contributors through incivility, personal attacks etc.

Tendentious editing

Fresh is opposed to the concept of notability. Other than through the proposal WP:NNOT, he has tried to push his opinion by

• Removing links to WP:N [17] [18] [19]
• Removing references to the term in general [20] [21]
• Querying whether "notability guidelines" are in fact guidelines [22] [23] [24] [25]
• Removing the guideline tag from existing notability guidelines [26]
• Including an essay against notability on a "list of popular essays" to increase its apparent status [27]
• Stating that when people talk about notability, they don't mean Wikipedia:Notability [28]
• Creating an additional classification of "guides" as opposed to "guidelines" [29] [30] [31]

Ignoring an opposing consensus

After the poll on WP:NNOT made it abundantly clear that the consensual view does not match Fresh's opinion, he nevertheless reverted the "rejected" tag on WP:NNOT [32] and started another poll on the same topic [33]

Fresh's crusade against notability appears to have started at this AFD. Not accepting the closure of the AFD, Fresh took the issue to the talk page, RFPP Deletion Review (closing note), mediation against the closing admin, and the admin noticeboard, and made a rewrite in articlespace of the deleted article.

Driving away other editors

Fresh tends to characterise edits, from many different users, that he disagrees with as vandalism, e.g. [34], [35], [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]

Additionally, Fresh has made many personal attacks against a variety of editors; also, he tends to assume bad faith on people's motives and accuse them of intentional wrongdoing.

• "acting like wikigods ... it's appalling" [42]
• "stop harassing me" [43]
• "his posse are trying to bully their ideals on the rest of us" [44]
• "I find your actions to be in bad faith" [45]
• "OH you're f**king kidding me ... You are abusing your administrative powers" [46]
• "this is beyond improper ... I urge you to explain yourself" [47]
• "setting up a straw man ... on purpose" [48]
• "suggests another agenda ... that you fear the proposal might actually go somewhere" [49]
• "He seems unwilling to discuss his actions anywhere but in his edit summaries." [50]
• "you're just making up your own rules" [51]
• "don't be presumptuous with your edits" [52] and [53]
• "what are you implying...?" [54]

Harassment by Fresheneez

Fresh has made a campagin of harassment against Radiant (me), telling many different editors (including Jimbo) that Radiant is abusive, or otherwise calling his motives into question, and calling people to "fight" against him. This includes a variety of user talk pages, as well as wikipedia_talk and a process log page. [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]

Fresheneesz has canvassed this arbcom case

Fresh spammed many talk pages regarding this arbcom case, contacting only people who would side with him (apart from the participants in the case), and including some people (e.g. User:Ephilei) who were not involved in the dispute. The messages vary but most are non-neutral and accusatory in tone, making this part of his harassment as mentioned above. [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]

Physical threat by Fresheneesz

Fresh has threatened to sew this editor's eyes shut. While this arguably wasn't meant seriously, the tone of the remark is appalling, moreso in light of his earlier behavior. [84]

Fresh admits to acting in bad faith

• "I was being a jerk" [85]
• "I'll gladly stop [making false accusations and personal attacks] if you find a way to be more diplomatic" [86]

I like Radiant's idea that we might be able to keep all dialogue aimed at constructive solutions. However, I believe serious offenses were made by those that should be an example for others - namely administrators. I started with accusations, and I will support them. However, I do support, in full, coming to some sort of solution for all the problems I brought to the table.

Talk page comments were wrongly and forcefully deleted

Doc_glasgow has twice removed (and once striken) a talk page poll I set up at Wikipedia talk:Non-notability to gauge peoples feelings on the proposal. User:Radiant! removed it once before this. Here are the edits: [87] [88] [89] [90]. Radiant is of the opinion that "A poll is not a comment. Removing polls is common practice."

It is my feeling that we should establish that removing polls is in bad faith, and thus should not be either done, or allowed.

WP:Non-notability was not rejected

There has been some harrassment at Non-notability where these same editors (radiant and doc glasgow) have marked the page as rejected or historical, when there was ongoing debate on the talk page, and editing on the main page: [91] [92] [93] [94] [95]. Here doc changes a "disputed" tag to "rejected": [96]

Radiant asserts that "a majority (approx 71%) opposed .. the proposal according to Wikipedia_talk:Non-notability#Information-gathering_straw-poll the straw poll. How he comes to the number 71% is beyond baffling. The poll never asked about the proposal, and thus one can't draw a number that are opposed from such a poll. What the poll does show is people do not think notability is implied from the core policies nor from "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information". However, Radiant seems to be vote-counting - something he is usually ademantly against. This poll was written in a way that does demonstrate the various views out there - but the way it was written (without headers for "neutral" comments) does not really allow accurate non-subjective vote counting.

Radiant is correct that WP:POL says "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present" - but then what the hell is a proposal?? Obviously proposals begin with little or no consensus. Perhaps we should go over how a proposal becomes rejected.

WP:Notability was not accepted

Radiant and Centrx have pushed Wikipedia:Notability as guideline when there is no consensus to do so. They cite that it is "current practice" and thus doesn't need any more discussion: [97] [98] [99] [100] [101]

People have tried[102] [103] [104] to demote it back to proposal, place a "disputed status" tag, and the "factual accuracy" tag. But Radiant and Centrx have repeatedly demonstrated that they *are* a consensus of two, and that the less-than-a-month-old proposal doensn't need anything more to be a guideline - despite heavy opposition and controversy.

I myself have not involved myself in edit warring at WP:NN since I started this arbitration - but I find it appalling that Radiant is being allowed to push his proposal with a proverbial "consensus of 1".

WP:STRAW was not rejected

User:Radiant!, User:Dmcdevit, and a couple others have tried to change the status of guideline pages and proposal pages, claiming that they know what consensus is (but won't show us where to verify that consensus). WP:STRAW has been guideline for a year, yet radiant has been pushing WP:VIE and WP:DDV on that page enough to be considered POV pushing. Dmcdevit has recently demoted it without consensus : [105]. A simple look at the history shows that there has been much opposition to this unconsentual change.

More edit warring by Radiant

I'd like to add the history of Wikipedia:Spellchecking to the list of edit wars Radiant has undertaken. He seems unwilling to discuss his actions anywhere but in his edit summaries.

Radiant's attacks at me *on this evidence page*

See talk page for my response. Fresheneesz 05:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am not siding with anyone against anyone. I am presenting evidence that I have directly observed (Radiant!'s editing at WP:DDV) that I believe is relevant to the assertions made in the Request.

Radiant! has engaged in edit warring related to voting

At Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote (the page formerly known as the essay Wikipedia:Voting is evil) Radiant! has engaged in edit warring to keep the {{guideline}} template on the page: [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116]

Fresheneez also engaged in edit warring early in those diffs, as have others. Nore was Radiant! the only editor replacing the guideline tag. However, Radiant! was the primary edit warrior from the beginning of the edit war up to page protection.

Radiant! has asserted they may remove straw polls unilaterally

I don't use the term "unilaterally" lightly. I do think it's accurate, as Radiant! has expressed that their judgement is sufficient to remove polls in order to influence the discusssion.[117] [118] Note that the intention expressed is benign and to improve discussion, but is nevertheless to shape the discussion according to their own judgement.

That the entire concept was rejected by principle

A Man In Black rejected the entire effort as a "silly crusade", although they have been faithful in discussing their position throughout. [119]

The idea that the page is damaging, as "and it's a pretty blatant attempt to do an end-run around the long-standing consensal view that there is some information which is simply too trivial to include," [120] The idea that things cannot be developed because the current consensus seems to be one way, and hence making things concrete goes against the wiki model WP:CCC.

That Inclusionism vs Deletionism is an accepted principle of Wikipedia

Although in most matter POV's are referred to in strongly anti-crusading terms. The idea that one is "either an ultra-inclusionist" or deletionist [121] [122] meta:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians, although not strictly in black and white terms, is harmful for Wikipedia and should be looked at.

Wikipedia being an encyclopedia...

Claims that wikipedia is an "encyclopedia", which has been interpreted to mean that it can only contain things that would be put in paper encyclopedia's, completely against the provision in Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia leads to people using the term "encyclopedia" both in favour or notability and against it, which inherently causes people to talk past each other.Wikipedia:Non-Notability#Non-encyclopedic

See Jimbo's statements from 2004 about the issue, and I doubt they would have changed, although that is possible. Wikipedia_talk:Fame_and_importance#Discussion_of_Jimbo.27s_no The current consensus on wikipedia however does not reflect those points, as "the idea that we shouldn't ever worry about importance isn't very popular." User_talk:A_Man_In_Black/Archive12#Wikipedia:Non-Notability

Apparently Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia is only relevant at deletion time, and consequently we can have an entire page for the "terminally stupid" (as uncivil as that may be) [123] (Although I do not agree that is the point of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia)

Ansell 02:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Radiant! using disputed WP:DDV to justify removal of Fresheneesz's straw poll

Radiant! copied WP:DDV from meta and called it a guideline here: [124]. Another editor changed it to an essay due to lack of consensus: [125]. It remained this way until Radiant! changed it back to a guideline here: [126]. Then, he edit-warred on the guideline and disputed tags, even though (at least) 6 other users reverted his edits and debate was still active on talk (see evidence presented by Saxifrage). During this time, when DDV was under dispute and several others were clearly against calling DDV a guideline, he used DDV as part of his justification for removing of Fresheneesz's straw poll here: [127]. It should also be noted that the disputed DDV, regardless of its status as guidline, essay, or whatever, contains no language that indicates or implies that removing straw polls is justified.

In response to Radiant!'s denial of this claim, please see the cited diff [128]. In response to my comment about him removing Fresheneesz's poll, his direct response was "Removing polls is common practice because polls are generally considered a Bad Idea (needlessly polarizing, not conductive to consensus and inhibiting creativity; see also WP:DDV)." The implication is that DDV justifies removal of the poll. When I visited DDV and saw that it was a guideline, I was inclined to back off of my initial statement, until I realized that the article had just recently been tagged a guideline by Radiant!, even though at least six other editors disagreed with this tag. It was then that I became concerned about Radiant's reference to DDV in the cited diff because it appeared that he was using a guideline he himself created in order to justify an act that would otherwise be considered talk page vandalism Replacing vandalism with incivility, see [129] a case of extreme incivility (removing someone else's comment). ATren 20:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant! counting votes in straw poll

Above, Radiant wrote: "As expected, this showed a majority (approx 71%) opposed to the proposal...". The purpose of the straw poll was to gauge consensus, not to count votes. Radiant! himself has been quite vocal in his opposition to polls, and should not be presenting a raw vote count as evidence. He justified removing Fresheneesz's straw poll under the assumption that it would be misused to gauge consensus, and yet here he seems to be misusing it to gauge rejection. ATren 15:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to JzG's questions below: Fresheneesz proposed a poll to "to know the thoughts of people outside this talk page, and also to perhaps gain some contributors and fix some problems." [130]. He never proposed it as a "vote", and I found no indication that he was going to treat the results as binding. On the other hand, once the poll was allowed and a simple vote count supported rejection, Radiant! was quick to quote the vote tally as evidence that Non-notability was rejected. I found no evidence that Fresheneesz was going to do anything with the straw poll other than what he stated, but there is clear evidence on this very page that Radiant! is doing exactly what he didn't want Fresheneesz to do with the poll. There is no contradiction in my statement. It is my understanding that polls are discouraged but not forbidden, and the evil of polls is not the poll itself but the temptation to use the poll as a binding vote, which is what Radiant! seems to be doing here. ATren 16:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Radiant's accusation of Personal attacks

I wish to respond to Radiant's assertion that I engaged in personal attacks on a point by point basis:

• "This includes many spurious accusations of vandalism" - the only accusations of vandalism I made were in response to Radiant's removal of Fresheneesz's straw poll, which seems to be an act of extreme incivility, if not vandalism. , which seems to be a clear case of talk page vandalism. Policy seems quite clear on this: except in extreme cases of incivility or attacks, removing talk page comments is considered vandalism. Replacing vandalism with incivility, see [131] I made this point on ANI because it appeared that nobody was considering Radiant's role in the escalation of this debate, and the consensus seemed to be that Freszheneesz was the only editor guilty of transgressions here.
• "...and several indirect attacks using the fallacy of many questions" - I questioned Radiant's use of DDV to circumvent policy, which I thought was inappropriate because he was actively warring on the DDV guideline tag at that time. I asked him if he was claiming that removing good-faith talk page content was not vandalism, he responded with the "many questions" fallacy (I still cannot see how "many questions" applies here)
• "...or using weasel clauses like 'if I were suspicious I would accuse you of so-and-so; but I'm not suspicious so I didn't just say that'" - Radiant! posted a comment that appeared to be a blatant personal attack, but which was, in fact, an obscure reference to the "many questions" fallacy [132]. He posted the comment without a link to "many questions", so someone unfamiliar with the reference might assume it was a personal attack. I myself did not get the reference, but I assumed good faith and politely (but firmly) asked for clarification. Once I made the association with "many questions" I put the matter aside. But, to me, it seemed like incredibly poor judgement for someone to post such an antagonistic comment, one that could easily be misinterpreted to be a vicious attack, without any clarification whatsoever. The exact quote of my "suspicious" line was [133]: "If I were a suspicious person, I might think you intentionally didn't link the reference, in order to bait me into over-reacting. But I am not a suspicious person so I didn't over-react, and I now consider the matter closed." I was only pointing out that posting that unlinked comment was ambiguous and needlessly aggressive, and could have easily caused a heated argument if I hadn't assumed good faith.
• "ATren (formerly User:A Transportation Enthusiast) and Fresheneesz share an interest in transportation articles (e.g. here) and have a history of 'teaming up' against others, such as in meditation, deletion, the admin noticeboard and on articles ('I'll continue to revert the deletion')" - Fresheneesz and I were involved in a contentious, six-month long content dispute on the PRT article. We were mostly (though not always) on the same side of the debate, which was very intense at times, and which may have given the appearance of "teaming up". In fact, we've rarely crossed paths after the PRT debates died down, and I was not at all involved in any other Fresheneesz dispute until this one. Radiant! refers to us "teaming up" on mediation, deletion, ANI and articles, but neglects to mention that these were all related to the long PRT debate. The specific example Radiant cites came just after JzG was unilaterily removing content against our objections and without discussion, and Fresheneesz and I were discussing how to address this situation. Note that even though we talked about reverting JzG's changes (which wouldn't be considered a violation anyway unless we exceeded 3RR), we didn't act on it.
• In response to the other links Radiant! supplied as evidence:
  • [134] - this comment was directed at an editor with whom I've had a long contentious relationship with, due to his POV pushing on the PRT pages and his relentless misinformation anti-PRT campaign outside of Wikipedia. He claims to have left Wikipedia and has actively attacked Wikipedia and Jimbo (after his POV push failed), yet he occasionally shows up again to antagonize me when I have a dispute with another editor. My response was directed at this editor, and in any event is not a personal attack.
  • [135] - I am simply questioning his position on removing Fresheneesz's straw poll edits. How is this considered an attack?
  • [136] - This was my response to (apparently) being called a wife beater by Radiant (see discussion above). Before I understood the reference to the many questions fallacy, I firmly asked him to strike what appeared to me to be a blatant and completely unjustified personal attack on me. How is this edit considered an attack?
  • [137] - This was continued debate on Radiant removing Fresheneesz's poll. I pointed out that Radiant's "removal of his (Fresheneesz's) comment was unjustified, uncivil, and can even be construed as vandalism." I am questioning Radiant's actions, not Radiant personally. How can this be considered an attack?
  • [138] - once again, I am questioning the relative "evils" (a direct reference to "polling is evil") of polling versus removal of Fresheneesz's talk page edits. How is this considered an attack?

On the status of "voting is evil" and notability

• Wikilawyering about the precise status of the "voting is evil" article is missing the point. AfD, specifically, but also other processes, explicitly endorse the consensual view that discussion, not voting, is the way we do things here. Staw polls may be used in certain limited circumstances to establish a rough head count or to choose between a number of variations on a particular theme, but there is no significant informed dissent among established Wikipedians from the view that this is ultimatley a Clue-based project, not a democracy. Supermajority of interested parties on a single article does not and never will equate to consensus.
• Changing links from m:polling is evil to m:voting is evil is wonrg because (a) the latter is a redirect to the former and (b) it seeks to obscure the intent of that meta page, which is that polls (not voting , polls) are divisive where we should be collaborative.
• As such, no amount of straw polling will change the fact that WP:NNOT is fundamentally opposed to a significant number of consensual guidelines and policies (e.g. WP:CSD) which accept that there is some level of objective significance below which we should not attempt to cover a subject. Most of the content specific inclusion guidelines specify some variation on has been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. It is not clear to me how we can ever cover a subject within policy absent such coverage.
• I am at a loss to understand what point ATren is trying to make above, since he appears to be simultaneously arguing that straw polls are OK, that supermajority in straw polls can be ignored if it goes against what you want, and that the burden is on those who state that a proposal does not have consensus rather than on the proposers to show that it does. I'm sure this can't be what he means.
• To state that notability has no formal standing is also missing the point, as well as ignoring a massive amount of precedent. The problem is not that notability is not accepted, since even the most ardent inclusionist recognises that some things genuinely are too trivial, the problem is varying standards of notability. We have no assertion of notability as part of the WP:CSD policy, which is deliberately restrictive. The shorthand term notability is widely (if inconsistently) understood and used throughout the project on a daily basis, it is pretty futile to try to prevent this, much better to work for an objective definition of what constitutes notable - this may be situational, of course, hence the numeorus content-specific guidelines.

On new processes

• Thus, and without doubting the good faith of those who contributed to NNOT, it should never have been created as a separate proposal, the discussion should have been held at WP:NOTABILITY and the consensusal view of what constitutes encyclopaedic notability should have been explored and clarified there. Working on existing guidance is good, setting up forks which head in the opposite direction is pointless at best and disruptive at worst. Recent work at Wikipedia:Attribution is an excellent example, it clarifies policy in a way which is consensual and not divisive, drawig together those core principles which have consensual support; WP:NNOT does the opposite, aiming to introduce a competing guideline which plays to the (often false) inclusionist / deletionist dichotomy. As such, it is not a helpful way of resolving this tension and in fact it's hard to see how it could do anything other than increase the tension.
• It is not uncommon to find aggrieved editors doing their best to change the policies which they perceive as having discriminated against them, or to propose new policy to support their endeavours (cf. User:Jon Awbrey and others). It seems to me that there should be a presumption that things in project space should have wide consensusal support, and if that support, or significant progress towards it, cannot be demonstrated after a certain period, then they should be moved out of project space and into user space. That includes all my nice essays and the others like them. We should make a clear and unambiguous distinction between:
  • What one or two editors think (personal essays and illustrations)
  • What a few editors think (still essays and illustrations, might be mentioned in the clarification on a guideline)
  • What most people accept with perhaps some caveats (guidelines)
  • What is accepted by consensus (policy and maybe soe guidelines)

The existence of competing articles in project space serves, in my view, to obscure where we should be clarifying. A lead from ArbCom here on what should be retained, and what members of the community, including admins, should do to curtail pointless and divisive debates, would be welcome.

{Blanked due to errors. -- Chris chat edits essays 12:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)}

Fresheneesz is disruptive on policy pages

One should generally not edit policy pages without consensus. there is room for boldness, but once reverted and informed that one's edits are against current practice or consensus, continuing to revert, edit warring, is disruptive. This is why Fresheneesz (talk · contribs)'s edits have been disruptive. See also this discussion about his behaavior on ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive139#Tendentious_editor_on_policy_pages. All of the following are reverts (and their initial provocative edits reverted to).

Wikipedia:Notability

• [139]
• [140]

Wikipedia:Non-notability

• [141]
• [142]
• [143]
• [144]
• [145]
• [146]

Wikipedia:Straw polls

• [147]
• [148]
• [149];

Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote ("Voting is evil")

• [150]
• [151]
• [152]
• [153]

Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline

• [154]
• [155]
• [156]
• [157]

Fresheneesz refers to others' edits as vandalism

This is uncivil.

• [158]
• [159]
• [160]
• [161]

Fresheneesz engaged in harassment

• [162]
• [163]
• [164]
• [165]
• [166]
• [167]
• [168]
• [169]

Fresheneesz has been warned many times about edit warring and incivility

• [170]
• [171]
• [172]
• [173]
  • [174]
  • [175]
• [176]
• [177]

Fresheneesz fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia policy

Policy is not what's written down; it's what's done. What's written down should emulate common practive as closely as possible. Policies are changed through discussion and consensus, not voting.

• "these people all agree that guideline is basically someones description of what already goes on. Personally, I find that view of guidelines to be very inefficient" [178]
• "No matter how hard you push on this, AfDs use voting"
• "I don't care whether you like polls or not, I want one, and I want anyone who wants to give their opinion to give it - CONSCICELY. So i'm going to make a section below this one, for a straw poll. If you comment on how "we don't do that", i'm going to move your comment up here, outta the way."

I will seek to provide evidence this weekend if it has not already been included above and if I am able to break away. I wanted to post this note so that all are aware that further information may be forthcoming prior to review and deliberations. If I am unable to post my evidence in a timely manner I will remove this comment and section. --Blue Tie 12:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have been unable to get the time to compile my evidence properly. If Arbcom has not begun deliberations by Saturday, I will do so, but I do not want to hold things up. --Blue Tie 11:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement in this issue is minimal

• Firstly, and it is hard to produce a diff for a negative statement, I've never edited most of the pages in this dispute. (I edited 'discuss don't vote' once, and it wasn't a revert of Freshaneesz[179] ). My involvement is limited to the talk page Wikipedia talk:Non-notability (I've only once edited the project itself, and that was again not a revert of Fresheneesz [180]. Thus I am not involved in any type of campaign or conspiracy against this user. We had once short dispute on the talk page, and no other interaction (that I can recall).

Freshaneesz started a straw poll process without consensus and whilst a discussion on its merits was ongoing. He is unwilling to enter into discussion, but enforces his views with threats and personal attacks.

• My objections to Fresh's poll were not driven a partisan dislike of his policy stance, to which, as I informed him, I am actually sympathetic [[181] [182]. My objection was a) we don't create policy pages to legislate for practice- but to reflect consensus and practice. b) Whilst straw-polls can have merit, they need to have a degree of prior agreement as to their value, purpose and scope. We are a collaborative project, and polling should be collaboratively discussed.
• 25-09-06 18:25 During a discussion over the 'policy' (in wich I was not involved) , Fresheneez declares intention to begin a straw poll and asks for comment on the means. Note that this is a declaration of action and not a suggestion for discussion.
• Over the next number of days a discussion ensues about the point and value of a straw poll. There is some support for it, but also objections. (My basic objection is that the policy is trying to say that notability should NOT be a deletion criterion, but multiple polls every day on AfD indicate that many wikipedians think it should be. That is stronger evidence that the policy will never gain consensus than any one single poll. A poll result that supported it would be quixotic.)
• 30-09-06 21:32 Fresheneesz open a poll, in an attempt to terminate the discussion on the merits of one, and without any discussion as to possible wording.
• 30-09-06 21.40 I remove the poll - discussion of a poll is on-going and we haven’t get got a consensus.
• 30-09-06 22:32 Asserting that his poll is a 'talk page comment', on my usertalk page Fresh accuses me of 'vandalism' for removing it, and he threatens arbitration if I do so again. I reply immediately [183] suggesting he needs some consensus for his poll. He replies saying he'd rather use arbcom than discuss its merits [184]. He is allowing no scope for dialogue here.
• 30-09-06 22.33 Fresheneesz reverts me, restarting the poll without any explanation or further discussion of its merits.
• 30-09-06 22.52] I close the poll 'for now' by striking it through, giving a clear explanation as to my reasons.
• 01-10-06 00.37 Fresheneesz accuses me of 'vandalism', and threatens that he will take 'the necessary action' if I continue to ‘vandalise’.
• 01-10-06 00.40 Fresheneesz reverts my striking-through and restarts his poll.
• 01-10-06 00.50 I remove the poll altogether. (Ok, this is a bit lame, I should have let another do it - but I'm angry, Fresh is insisting in having it his way, he’s not open to discussion, he’s issuing threats, and he's already assuming bad faith and calling me a vandal (see above) and a liar [185].
• 01-10-06 00.54 (also) I again explain my objections to his unilaterally starting a poll.
• 01-10-06 22.47 After further (sensible) discussion, on the page, GTBacchus starts a better constructed 'information gathering' straw-poll. I raise no objections.

• Just more peculiar behavior by User:Fresheneesz: [186] (poll), [187]. —Centrx→talk • 22:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]