Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Proposed decision

Removal of poll by administrators exacerbated the dispute[edit]

Fred has suggested the following: 4) 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.

I've conceded that edit warring over this was a bit lame, so I'm not objecting to FoF #10 (although, it seems too trivial to merit a finding). However, I'm a little concerned by the above. Leaving aside the minor point that I wasn't in the dispute prior to the poll, it is factually correct. Indeed it is almost tautologous to say that if you revert someone, it tends to increase the dispute. But, what is the implication? That if one user, perhaps totally unilaterally and perhaps in the teeth of objections, initiates a poll it should never be removed? Now, in this case, it will be argued that that's not what happened. But that aside, I'd ask arbcom to clarify the implication. It tends to imply that polls are like talk page comments, which, if made in good faith, should not be removed.--Doc^g 16:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I'm not losing any sleep over this, either way.--Doc^g 14:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second this request (and the not losing sleep :) ). Also, I am curious why my actions are found to be more aggressive than Doc's, considering the disputed action for both of us is removal of the poll. (Radiant) 13:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who coined this finding of fact, I just want to point out that the main intention was to stress that administrators, as is often stated, have the responsibility to try to cool down disputes, rather than heat them up. Repeatedly removing any users comments on a talk page (being a poll or not) will never cool any dispute down (which was the good intention of Doc, as he stated elsewhere), but will only increase the tense and the heat. There are other ways of stating you disagree with a poll, for example by making a statement at the top of the poll. Finally, revert-warring over such a thing is a garantee for an intense dispute, which both of these editors could have (and should have) seen coming. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Kim Bruning writes (on the Workshop) that some situations can be calmed down quite effectively by removing bits from a talk page, and that therefore one cannot a priori assume the opposite. (Radiant) 12:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Although that might be true in some cases, I consider it obvious to anyone that the initiator of the poll did not want it removed when he replaced it on the talk page after the first removal. Removing it 2 more times was bound to lead to an intensification of the dispute and anyone could (and should) have seen that coming. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but you are still begging the question. Of course, I knew the initiator of the poll didn't want it removed. He also knew I didn't want it there. So we should have continued to discuss it, and seek other opinions, not continue with one man's poll. As for 'intensifying the dispute' certainly by continuing to reject his poll that was what was happening. That always happens when you disagree with someone. You are continuing to disagree with me, that is intensifying this dispute. So, should you just let me have my way? --Doc^g 22:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no logical fallacy here. For this to be a case of begging the question I must assume a priori that the removal of the poll would have exacerbated the dispute. Nowhere in this statement you will find that assumption. It is merely an observation of what happened (a finding of fact). That you consider it a trivial finding of fact does not make this a logical fallacy. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't say it was a fallacy. I said it was a near tautology. Of course, removing the poll exacerbated the the dispute over whether their should be a poll. However, the question it beggers is the question of whether that was a bad thing. One can always cool a dispute by simply allowing the other party to have their own way. But that's not always a good thing to do.--Doc^g 14:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly, and that is precisely where we disagree. In my opinion it would have been better to let the other party have his way in this case (when the poll was replaced after the first removal). With regard to tautology/fallacy, begging the question is a specific type of logical fallacy, which I assumed you referred to, but apparently you used the term differently. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        This is tedious. I'm unwatching.--Doc^g 20:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

I would recommend splitting principle 4 ("Revival of rejected proposals") because revival of proposals is unrelated to polling on proposals. It would be clearer to have one principle on revival, and one on polling. (Radiant) 13:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, those two things would be better dealt with seperately. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose[edit]

It is my understanding that the purpose of this arbitration was "to address the questions of how policy is made and what consensus means". I believe that the proposed decision could address these questions better by incorporating some more principles from the workshop page, e.g. Vexatious litigation, Consensus is not unanimity and Consensus is not a number. (Radiant) 13:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another angle on polling[edit]

I'm concerned that the current proposed decision lends too much weight to polls, which, while they have theoretical use, suffer such disdain in the community that it is difficult at best for them to actually be representative of anything, little yet of consensus. Phil Sandifer 19:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The solution, however, it no to condone unilateral removal of polls and revert warring over that by administrators. If a poll is unwanted, everyone is free to state that on any talk page. Repeatedly removing a poll can never do any good and will in all cases only make the dispute worse. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly - I'm not defending the edit war on the poll. But I don't think a set of principles that tacitly endorses the general use of polling is necessary to note that edit warring is bad. Phil Sandifer 20:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, are you criticizing Fred's proposed principle 6? I think that's an accurate summary of current community practice and the existing policies and guidelines. (I don't know how we test for "disdain in the community" without, well, a poll, but my perception is that there are several people who very vocally oppose polls, and a lot of people who use and vote in polls when they think it's appropriate. I would be hard pressed to say that there are more people who oppose polls than, say, there are people who oppose the use of citation templates). TheronJ 12:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

m:Voting is evil[edit]

m:Voting is evil is a redirect, the meta page is m:Polling is evil. This difference, though minor, is in my view significant enough to warrant a correction in the text. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant is not alone[edit]

Radiant is not the only person who thinks "Discuss, don't vote" is policy. There are many supporters of that view, including myself. -- Samuel Wantman 01:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Many supporters" is not the same as consensus. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this quote:

9) Wikipedia:Polls are evil, copied from m:Polling 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 [1]. Others have maintained it is an essay [2].

The way it is stated makes it sound like Radiant is alone in his view. All that is is needed is to say "Radiant and others have maintained...." And to be even clearer it should say that "Radiant and others have been trying to build consensus for making it a guideline." -- Samuel Wantman 09:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misunderstood. Yes I agree that are more people who feel the same way. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the entire finding-of-fact #9 is now moot, since WP:DDV has been rewritten from scratch and no longer even remotely resembles m:voting is evil. (Radiant) 09:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]