Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Evidence

General

JzG raises several arguments that I would like to respond to on the Evidence page, but I thought the Evidence page was for evidence only, not discussion...? ATren 20:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is as good a place as any to respond. For my own response to JzG's (very good) points, I want to be clear that the evidence I presented is independent of the status of DDV and that I have no interest in wikilawyering about its status here. They didn't specifically direct those points at my comments/evidence, but I also don't want their consideration to be diminished by superficial association with an argument I am not putting forward. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that the point of this case was "to address the questions of how policy is made and what consensus means", the "status" of DDV isn't really relevant in the first place. >Radiant< 13:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant for two reasons: (1) you referenced DDV in the process of defending your removal of Fresheneesz's poll, so the controversial status of DDV is certainly something that should be presented as evidence, (2) DDV is evidence that you have also been overzealous with adding the guideline tag, even though there was clearly no consensus because 6 other editors reverted you. If there is to be a ruling against Fresheneesz for tagging NNOT "proposed" and removing "rejected", then certainly your tagging of DDV as "guideline" and removing "disputed" is also under question. ATren 14:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So what was the arguments you wanted to respond to Atren? One that I would like to respond to is his continuous allegation that I proposed a binding vote. This was never the case - yet JzG continues to insist that polls are not binding - despite the fact that *noone disagrees with that*. JzG is effectively setting up a straw man, whether it be on purpose or because of his lack of understanding. Fresheneesz 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that what JzG and Radiant are trying to say about straw polls is that no matter what consensus is gauged from a straw poll, it doesn't change the fact that we know what consensus is . These editors continue to baffle me by acting as if they are wikigods who can know all consensus, and create all consensus if they want to. Its appalling really. Fresheneesz 21:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please point out any place where I said that you proposed a binding vote, or where I made the above quote above straw polls that you attribute to me. You're jumping to ungrounded (and incorrect) conclusions. >Radiant< 08:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I found two examples where you implicitly assumed a binding vote was being requested. In this edit [1], in response to another editor asking why you refused to allow the straw poll, you indicate that you "have no problem with information gathering (as opposed to a vote to turn this into policy)". The "as opposed to" clause seems to be referring to Fresheneesz's original straw poll - and the implication is that you rejected it based on your assumption that it was a vote on policy. Fresheneesz never said anything like that. The second example is more clear [2]: "I'm afraid that opening a straw poll leads to all new kinds of drama, such as what we're polling on, what %support is required to "pass", what quorum is supposed to be necessary, etc." - why all the concern about percent support and quorum for a simple non-binding straw poll? Again, you are responding as if Fresheneesz was requesting a formal vote on policy, even though he asked for anything more than an informal straw poll. ATren 11:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• You are forgetting that Fresh's original intent was to make WP:NNOT policy, and some claims have been made that it already had consensus for being such. >Radiant< 14:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of this claim; where did Fresheneesz try to claim NNOT was policy? The most I saw was him claiming that proposed should be kept instead of rejected; please point me to the edits where he claimed consensus on NNOT so I can catch up on the full history of the debate (I didn't get involved until recently). ATren 14:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the status of DDV has nothing to do with my evidence, so your reply seems a non-sequitor. Regardless, as all well know behaviour of parties to Arbitration are subject to review regardless of its relevance to the decision on the central issue. Fresheneez was even warned about this in the initial accept votes. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea.. I never proposed NNOT as a policy - always as a guideline. And while of course my goal was to get it to be supported as a guideline - one would be stupid to think a single editor can *make* it a guideline.. or policy for that matter. Whatever my intent was, a straw poll is a straw poll - and I was very careful about my wording. I used the word "vote" only when refering to someones actual vote in the poll, and I never refered to the poll as a vote. Despite the care I took, some people (ahem..) misunderstood me - or rather, had their own adgenda. Fresheneesz 19:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Radiant's "WP:NNOT was intended as policy"

What kind of evidence is this? First of all, its incorrect. While I might have said policy in one or two places, I meant that as purely hypothetical. In my view - something must become guideline before it becomes policy, far far later. Second of all, is there something wrong with a proposal being intended as policy? I think not. This is simply filler material, and you're wasting space putting it in the evidence page. Fresheneesz 04:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

On Radiant's "ATren engages in personal attacks"

This ad hoc is completely uncalled for. I did not ask for ATren's help on this matter until he came to Radiant's Administrators message board thing (or whatever) out of his own volition. He's a good editor, and it true that we have fought abusive editor activity before. Radiant as decided to bring up an edit of ATren's relating to User:Avidor. This has *absolutely* nothing to do with this arbitration - Radiant is simply attacking below the belt everywhere possible. Avidor was an editor that made mostly disruptive edits which were supported by JzG (guy, just zis guy). I *really* don't think we should be bringing up completely off topic things like that. Fresheneesz 04:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Radiant's comments against Fresheneesz

On Radiant's "Fresheneesz is a tendentious editor"

Just pointing out, I could say that Radiant does every one of his bulleted points. And I would say I do push for goals despite oposition, but other than that - I don't reject community input and I don't drive away helpful editors. Where have I driven away helpful editors? Fresheneesz 04:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

On Tendentious editing

• I removed links to WP:N on policy and guideline pages because WP:N was not guideline. It was being used as if it was on par with *policy* which I still don't think is right.
• I asked about whether people thought notability guidelines were guidelines because I was not sure about their tag - which was different from the general {{guideline}} tag.
• Oh for god's sake the Warhammer 40,000 guideline is instruction creep. Fresheneesz 05:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• The essay I added directly related.
• "Stating that when people talk about notability, they don't mean WP:N" - thats obvious, not everyone even knows about the essay. Some people decided that because people use the word "notability", that somehow validates WP:N as a guideline. I disagreed.
• My classification as "guides" was.. mis..guide.. ed : ) . I *very* much dislike that you keep bringing it up. I *already* said it was a mistake. IT WAS MY MISTAKE. OK? How many fucking times do I have to say it? Fresheneesz 05:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

On "Ignoring an opposing consensus"

The straw poll did not show consensus for notability, nor for non-notability. Why then does NNOT get "rejected" and NN get to be guideline? Who's *really* ignoring consensus?

The AfD Radiant cites is *not* relevant to this arbitration - Radiant throws another off-topic low-blow at me, since he can't defend his own actions. The article on UniModal was deleted, wrongly. After a lot of work by me and a few other exemplary editors, we managed to come to a stable consensus on what should and shouldn't be on that page. That was what should have been done in the first place - not a delete. What about a new guideline - DDD, discuss, don't delete? Fresheneesz 05:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

On "Driving away other editors"

Other than my rude exasperated reply to FloNight, and the non-violent "what are you implying" to Steve Block - all of those responses were to people who I bring up this arbcom to deal with. I really don't have much respect for abusive admins - is that a flaw? Fresheneesz 05:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

On "Harassment by Fresheneez"

I have said Radiant is an abusive editor. I will stand by those comments and show his past and current actions as proof. Fresheneesz 05:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

On "Physical threat by Fresheneesz"

"Fresh has threatened to sew this editor's (Radiant's) eyes shut.

No. No I didn't. What I said was that I thing that your eyes ARE sewn shut, metaphorically. You don't see whats going on around you. You act on your own without the input of others. Thats what that meant. Please don't blatantly lie. Fresheneesz 05:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

An outside view by the guy who supposedly came up with "notability"'s taxonomy

1. The idea of notability is not fame, but rather whether a topic is appropriate for discussion.
   1. Is it a thing that is unique enough to discuss?
   2. Will readers need the discussion?
   3. Will the discussion of the topic illuminate other topics more central to culture?

   Notability is a set of questions, not an inherent quality. Therefore, there is no way to say that something is or is not inherently notable. Instead, there is only a judgment that a topic cannot answer all of those questions with a "yes." Hence, no one can "vote" with "not notable," as that very "vote" implies a judgment.

2. Notability asks us to decide whether we are talking about something that is merely an example or a type, whether something is an original or derivative, whether something has achieved distinction from all others or not, and whether something has affected the rest of the world. Therefore, it is a single-word way of saying, "appropriate for an encyclopedia." It is, therefore, central to include/exclude arguments.
3. I am personally dismayed by anyone saying, "Nn delete" on an AfD. Anyone who has asked him or herself all of the appropriate questions and made a judgment can explain in what way a topic fails to be encyclopedic. Therefore, it's contrary to the spirit of the notability portions of the deletion guidelines and policies to toss it out as a blanket, reflexive "vote." We do have to discuss. We must, indeed, rationalize and show that we're thinking and breathing.
4. Finally, I worry that trying to correct the improper use of the word "notability" and improper voting on AfD can lead us to undercutting the proper philosophy of include/exclude. There would be an easier time of swatting down proposals like NNOT if people employing the word "notability" also employed the discursive demands of it. As for the proposed NNOT, there's pretty much no justification for it that I can imagine. The aggravating behavior of some voters is not a justification, and notability is pretty central to encyclopedias, whether paper or pixels. Geogre 12:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)