Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop: Difference between revisions

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. 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:

Request for Clarification as to scope of Arbitration

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. What is the exact scope this Arbitration? Is it purely limmited to parties involvement in CxB Nightmare VfD? Or does it extend out to the parties involvement in web comic VfD's and related mattors (such as stealth editing of policy to support the VfD)? Dformosa 07:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

An issue occurs when non-Wikipedians create new accounts specifically to influence a particular vote or discussion. This is especially common in deletion discussions. These newly created accounts (or anonymous edits) may be friends of a Wikipedian, or may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion.

These accounts are not actually sockpuppets, but they are difficult to distinguish from real sockpuppets and are treated similarly. Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community. The reason behind this is, for instance, that an article about an online community should not be kept merely because all members of that community show up to vote for it. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. In my opinion: I don't think the AC is in a position to judge how this applies in practice to AfD. It is at the discretion of the closing admin and should continue to be. If there is significant evidence that an admin has consistently gone aginst community feedback on closings, that is. Still, we're not looking at the supposed meatpuppets themselves, but on the behavior of the active editors involved. (Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting this.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

1. From my perspective, at least, you understand perfectly - the issue is not how to count "meatpuppets." It is how to respond civilly, respectably, and in a non newbie-biting way to people who express concern about something. Phil Sandifer 08:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Definitely. There is something to be said about giving newbies a bad experience on their first foray into Wiki, thus resulting in them never becoming regular users. Arguments for Deletion are often the first exposure new users have to Wikipedia, and if they are given the impression that they are not welcome, the community spirit is damaged. --Rosicrucian 22:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Whoa! Are you really suggesting that we should treat meatpuppets on the assumption that they are one user with sockpuppets? Or did you not mean to quote that portion? Phil Sandifer 19:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

   Considering that this is from the official policy page WP:SOCK, I think that the official policy is to treat meatpuppets the same way as a single user with many socks. I guess that means the answer to your question is "yes". Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

   That must be a mistake - there is no way that can be policy - it doesn't even make any sense. Indeed, it's a relatively recent addition to the page, coming in on June 14th. I've asked the person who added it to clarify their intent. All the same, it seems clear that these are most probably different users - has anyone actually suggested they are all the same user? Phil Sandifer 08:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

   The most important part is of course the sentence "an article about an online community should not be kept merely because all members of that community show up to vote for it." That is a pretty close analogy to the webcomics debate I think. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. I am suggesting that this principle taken from the Wikipedia:Sock puppet page be upheld by the ArbCom. It is relevant to the events of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checkerboard Nightmare, on whether Aaron Brenneman's tagging of several votes was good or bad. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Meatpuppets are definitely an issue on AFD's that the arbcom has to should deal with since in the case of the Checkerboard Nightmare AFD (mentioned abover) an entire online community voted to keep the article solely due to a thread on their site asking them to, I can try to find the link to the thread in my archives if anyone thinks it would be relevant. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• That's not quite accurate. [1] is the Websnark post you're talking about - it does not make any calls to go vote for the article. In fact, it calls for giving up on Wikipedia entirely. Phil Sandifer 21:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• I apologize your quite right that the majority of the discussion was people lobbying to have everyone who read the post to move away from wikipedia and to possibly engage more of their time in comixpedia, however when posted in an outside forum it has bene proven inevitable that meatpuppet voting will occur. 22:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Indeed - I just think it's important to note that the bulk of Websnark contributors give every appearance of good faith and interest in expanding coverage on the field of webcomics with good and well-written articles. That said, I'm not sure the arbcom is in a position to "rule" on the validity of "meatpuppets" - it seems to me a largely unsettled policy issue that is left to discretion. On the other hand, they ought not be confronted with an assumption of bad faith. Especially when their source is clearly not calling to "flood" Wikipedia or anything of the sort. Phil Sandifer 22:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

1. The argument that members with low edit counts should not be listened to is a form of Ad hominem. As long as the arguments made by the so called "Meatpuppets" is rational and based on principles held by the wiki community, that argument should be considered. Also in this case I feel that this principal does not come into play as meany of the people marked as meat puppets had differing edit histories, so there was no uncertainty as to who they where. Dformosa 00:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

   Well put - I'd go one step further. Wikipedia exists primarily for its readers. When those readers suddenly show up in open revolt, this is not an occasion to erect the barricades - it's an occasion to try to figure out what you did that got them so mad. Phil Sandifer 19:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does exist for it's readers yes but not to the point where one group of readers can overhwelm the community and the process. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Of course - I'm not saying the votes should have been indiscriminately counted. But the wholesale dismissal of outsiders is troubling. Phil Sandifer 22:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Assuming that we are still talking about the Checkerboard Nightmare AFD, I take offense to the inference that I wholly discounted outsiders, I followed standard procedure in terms of discounting votes, which was discounting those with very few edits and IP votes, only after the closing was I informed that I made one or two mistaken discounts and had it been a matter of keeping or deleting based on those two then I would have revisited the AFD. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

We are still talking about the Checkerboard Nightmare AfD, but not about your conduct - I disagree with how you counted your close, but we got to the same conclusion (Keep). I do object very strongly to the entire rhetoric and approach Aaron Brenneman used in approaching the Websnark voters. Phil Sandifer 03:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I would consider the population of readers who do not write (lurkers if we borrow from Usenet terminology) as a part of the Wikipedia community. While I would not suggest that people blindly accept input from new members, I do think that they should have an influence in concensus building operations such as VfDs esp where meaningfull arguments have been made. Dformosa 08:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

1. I am not suggesting that users with a very low number of edits should simply be ignored. However, almost all of the regular closers of AFD debates are concerned in maintaining the integrity of the AFD process. When a flood of "keep" votes starts turning up on an AFD debate from users with very few edits, it is not at all far-fetched to suspect that something is wrong. A large number of "keep" votes added to a debate because of a posting at a webforum skew the debate unfairly towards "keep". A large number of "delete" votes added because somebody starts campaigning on user-talk pages for "delete" votes skews the debate unfairly towards "delete". These are real problems of the AFD system, and AFD closers are sometimes hard pressed to find ways of mitigating the ill effects of such skewing. We do listen to arguments presented by everyone. If someone argues that the content was unverifiable, and then a newbie editor turns up with some references to show that the content is true, almost all AFD closers listen to it. However, when there are too many votes from very new accounts, the integrity of the AFD debate is brought into question. We are forced to compensate in some way, either by raising or lowering the bar for deletion from the usual two-thirds guideline, or by discounting the votes which look suspicious. It is tricky to do sometimes, sometimes we discount the vote by a new, inexperienced, but sincere contributor, and that is very regrettable. But simply counting all of the votes will make it way to easy to game the system. In the end, articles need to stand or fall on their merits, judged by people who come along on their own accord to read and evaluate it. They should not be allowed to stay simply because someone takes the time to "get the vote out". Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

   And this is a reasonable point of view. Slapping an offensive box at the top of an AfD and edit counting everybody without context (Thus suggesting that users like User:Eric Burns are newbies) is not, however, what you've described here. Phil Sandifer 08:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

   The Guide to Deletion says "Unfortunately, (vandalism aside) such cases are notoriously hard to distinguish from good-faith contributors writing their first article or from anonymous users who finally decide to log in. If someone does point out your light contribution history, please take it in the spirit it was intended - a fact to be weighed by the closing admin, not an attack on the person.". Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

   User:Eric Burns has been a registered account for over a year. There is no standard by which he is a meatpuppet. Furthermore, as I have said, it is not just the edit counting I object to - the text of Aaron's box, particularly the summarizing of the alleged meatpuppets views as "OMFG Don't delete" is equally, if not more, disturbing. Phil Sandifer 08:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Motion to add User:Jtkiefer to the listed defendants

1) I am proposing that Jtkiefer be added to the case as a nominal defendant since even though the general string of behavior and such does not involve me much of this debate will undoubtedly will fall in regards to my actions as an administrator in closing the Checkerboard nightmare AFD and the ensuing debate regarding it's closing both on Wikipedia and on Websnark as can be seen by the evidence already presented on the evidence page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Indeed, this isn't a court of law. If you see problematic behavior surrounding this issue by someone not named, add it to the evidence and it will be given appropriate consideration. I don't think Jtkiefer's peropheral involvement warrants adding him to the listed defendants. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. I don't actually see this as necessary - while I think you discounted some votes incorrectly, I see no problems at all in your close as a whole, and certainly don't have any claims I intend to make about it. Unless someone else wants to argue that the close was improper, I don't think it's at issue. Phil Sandifer 22:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. Ok, just wanted to bring it up though since from the evidence page it seems that the Checkerboard Nightmare AFD is a part of the issue. When I get the chance I'll be adding the discussions on my talk page regarding it as part of the evidence. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Defendants? Is this then a court of law? I don't think so. Add whoever you like, the arbitrators will no doubt make their own decisions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

no it isn't a court of law but in many ways it resembles one and many people treat it as it is one. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. I remain concerned that Jtkiefer:

• disregarded the input/votes of some people incorrectly, and could not or would not answer what the cutoff or threshold was
• could not remember why he discounted some votes (such as my own, a user who I think clearly is not a meatpuppet, although I am not a heavy user) when repeatedly asked about it
• used strikeouts, which carry a strong negative connotation to some, as a notational device, potentially leaving a bad impression with future readers and potential editors.

and I remain concerned that a bad precedent might be set for future admins by some of those things, I nevertheless do not think Jtkiefer ought to be a "defendant"... he's just the admin who was dutiful enough (or unlucky enough) to be the one that had to try to make the best of a bad job, and count votes and determine consensus. I do not think he acted in bad faith. ++Lar 21:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Policy formation

1) In determination of specialized areas of policy, discussion on the talk page of the relevant project page plays a central role. It is important that sufficient interest be generated in the discussion to formulate a valid consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If in doubt, don't delete

1) If in doubt, don't delete.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Too glib for a principle, and too much like ruling on policy. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. We don't ever delete an article unless we have a good reason. A good faith difference of opinion on deletion should send a clear message to all parties, leaving them in no doubt as to the role of consensus in deletion matters (copyright deletions are covered by a separate, overriding policy, not the deletion policy). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. I agree with this principle, but as Aaron is not an administrator, I don't see how it might have been violated - a more relevent principle might be one against stealthily trying to change policy, misleading edit summaries, or respect for longstanding consensus. Phil Sandifer 03:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
   2. In response to SCZenz, this is long-established Wikipedia policy and part of the problem is the prolonged war of attrition waged by one of the editors, against established consensus, to change policy in such a manner as to create a presumption for deletion. Removing "If in doubt, don't delete" is one example, removing direct quotations from the undeletion policy from VFU is another. The apparent intention is to either traduce or ignore longstanding policies that he seems to find inconvenient. The arbitration committee, as a committee and as individuals, can make up their own minds on this. This is a discussion page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
   3. On whether the committee should make a pronouncement on policy, this is a matter for the committee. It has not shied from clarifying important policies in the past, nor from adopting as principles some of the more sensible guidelines. This seems like a reasonably sensible guideline to me. Should we be deleting articles when people who are experts in their field are telling us of their importance? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

      The community, to my knowledge, has chosen to listen to expert opinions in every AfD individually. But whether a guideline is sensible not at issue; I personally agree with the presence of "If in doubt, don't delete," although I think it's vague enough that I interpret it differently than you do. What I object to is this RfAr's apparent simltaneous goals of correcting users' allegedly incorrect behavior and stifling those users' ability to meaningfully contribute to policy discussions. I think it is unfair to pursue both goals at once. -- SCZenz 05:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

      I don't want to stifle anyone's expression of views, but I think most people can agree that "if in doubt don't delete" is a reasonable summary of Wikipedia's cautious approach to article deletion. We must remember that we're here to build an encyclopedia. To that end, we should have basic policy statements that people are expected to adhere to in the course of editing Wikipedia, whether they personally agree with them or not. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

      I think I'll drop this proposal because I don't think it's going anywhere. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. This was accepted by the arbitrators to investigate assumptions of good faith, and explicitly not to resolve a policy debate. What's this doing here? -- SCZenz 04:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The contention seems to me to be "this is policy, despite Aaron's insistence that it is not." That is not resolving a policy debate - this has been policy for years. The objection is not to Aaron's disagreement with policy, and of course anyone is welcome to try to change policy. But sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "lalala the policy doesn't exist" is not the way to do it. Phil Sandifer 04:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

As this is currently phrased, ArbCom is not being asked to state that lying about policy is wrong; rather, it's being asked to reaffirm a policy whose violation has not been alleged, and that's inappropriate. This arbitration should be a vehicle to deal with policy violations, not a vehicle to stifle dissent to policy. -- SCZenz 05:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, Phil, as I seem to recall reading on your own ArbCom candidacy page, ArbCom sets precedents in its findings of fact. I myself quoted a finding-of-fact in a clarification of WP:NPA a couple months ago. For them to state, "If in doubt, don't delete" would be an effective policy ruling that would stifle further debate. If it's relevant, they could state that, "at this time, 'If in doubt, don't delete' is policy, and so-and-so was dishonest about that." But the difference between that and the current wording is important. -- SCZenz 05:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia and deletion

Second draft

1.1) Wikipedia has a longstanding policy of conservatism towards deletion of articles. This has been expressed, from the earliest days, as "If in doubt, don't delete." Unnecessary deletion of articles tends to degrade the usability of the encyclopedia, and may alienate good editors whose work is subject to deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I still think this gets too much into policy; I would reject this in favor of "deletion process" as proposed below. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Hope this clarifies the principle. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. In response to Sjakkalle's comment, I'm sure that the arbitration committee can recognise the egregious assumption of bad faith that underlies the recent aggressive attempts to delete webcomics articles. This goes against the principles of our deletion policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. ArbCom clearly said when they accepted this case that this was not supposed to be a case over the deletion policy. I think that passing this will fly in the face of that statement. Strongly urge the ArbCom to reject this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

1. I would hope that the arbcom's objection to the deletion policy was over the larger issue of "notability." This is such an established part of our deletion policy that I am unable concieve of serious and rational objection to it. Phil Sandifer 08:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

2) Wikipedia editors are strongly encouraged to assume good faith in the absence of any evidence to the contrary in keeping with our long-standing tradition of being open and welcoming.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Standard principle, yes, and I believe it applies to the case. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. From Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. In response to Sjakkalle, this is just a bit of boilerplate we use in cases where Assume Good Faith is involved. We discuss whether Good Faith was breached, and when, in the Proposed findings of Fact section. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. There was certainly "evidence to the contrary": There were a ususually large number of very new accounts on the AFD debates regarding webcomics. Suspecting that meatpuppetry was taking place was definitely not a far-fetched suspicion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. Examination of the everdence however indercates that the new users where acting in good faith. There goal was not to promote CxB Nightmare but to ensure the Wikipedia's coverage of webcomics was encycolpedic. Dformosa 23:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion process

3) Adminstrators are tasked with using their best judgment in handling articles that are nominated for deletion. This includes the determination of rough consensus as well as appropriate weighting of opinions by users who have come from outside the community, neither of which have hard and fast thresholds.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. (as added without comment by Mindspillage)

Comment by parties:

1. Okay. Needs more cowbell; otherwise fine. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Treatment of new contributors

4) New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. AfD is a bugger for newcomers. Baptism of fire. This need not be the case, and it seems to me that we have failed newcomers on this case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. AfD is a bugger for newcomers, because it requires a knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Although I agree with the statement above in its entirety, I'd like to point out that contributors who make their first edits on an AfD put us in a very difficult position, especially because they are likely to feel passionate on the subject of the AfD. It's hard to maintain the integrity of the process and make them feel included at the same time. Thus I would not characterize edit-count notes, or requests that new users sent from a webpage not participate, as "hostility or elitism." -- SCZenz 00:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Consensus

5) Wikipedia works by consensus. Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting is not the key part of the interpretation of a debate; the points made in the discussion itself are more important than the statistics involved or the persons involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Changed in response to Snowspinner (unsigned below): not just the newness, any aspect of the persons involved; this includes reputation. Point thrown out for discussion: if someone is an expert on a subject or an experienced Wikipedia editor, s/he should be able to use that expertise to provide a strong argument for a position, rather than relying on reputation to carry a discussion. (This seems to me to be one of the points that allows for the open editing of Wikipedia.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

   In most cases I would agree with you - however, I think deletion debates pose a special problem because they are based on a deadline. When we are talking about how experts can provide citations for an article, this fact is based on a commitment to eventualism. We are content to let an expert deal with other aspects of their life, go to the library, dig up the source they read many years ago and can't, off the top of their head, recall the name of. But deletion debates happen on a deadline - one has five days to show that the article is notable, after which there is no more time. For this reason, I do think that verified experts need to be given weight in deletion debates - there's just... not always time. And the consequences of not getting around it it are severe. Phil Sandifer 19:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. I would propose changing the end of this "than the statistics or the newness of the person making the case." Phil Sandifer

Comment by others:

Opinion on specialist subjects

6) When considering an article on a specialist subject as a candidate for deletion, the opinions of established, well qualified, independent experts on the subject should not be dismissed without good reason, although opinions are always subject to challenge on reasonable grounds.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. No one's opinion should be dismissed without good reason. Citation of an independently verifiable expert source contradicting it is a good reason, whether the citation is done by an expert or not. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. I hope that we can all agree on this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. In response to Filiocht: I think you're being far too lawyerly. All principles on Wikipedia should be interpreted with commonsense, and there may be competing criteria for deciding who is and is not an expert in a given instance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. See the debate on the question of expertise below. I'd like definitions of the following terms; established, well qualified, and independent, along with guidelines on how such experts can be positively identified beyond all reasonable doubt, while retaining the right to anonimity of users who edit using nicknames. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia

7) "Our fundamental goal here is to write a comprehensive high quality encyclopedia, and our social rules are in service to this mission." (Cyrus Farivar AfD). See Signpost report at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-08-08/Greenlighting_Cyrus_Farivar.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Well, yes. This is the easy part. It's when interpretations of what's best for the encyclopedia disagree that the real trouble arises. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Compromise in the interests of consensus must always be grounded in commonsense. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

   The Farivar case suggests that common sense tends to prevail when wise heads can agree. It's part of the reason we have an arbitration committee, although in this case the appeal was made directly to Jimbo Wales. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Conduct of editors when policy is ambiguous

8) In instances where policy is ambiguous the solution is more discussion, not struggle through revert wars, assumption of bad faith or personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Relevant to conduct during the discussions on webcomics and to the attempt to change deletion policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Civility

10) Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I agree. Breaches are especially worrying in a policy discussion, particularly wholesale dismissal at policy level of arguments that have proven decisive at the level of an AfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Straight from precedents, and quite relevant. -- SCZenz 02:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Use of edit summaries

12) Edit summaries are permanent parts of the history of an article. It is especially important to remain civil in edit summaries and to use them for informative purposes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Keep your emotions in check. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Use of html comments in discussion is deprecated

13) The use of html comments to conceal part of what one is saying in a discussion is deprecated. Wikipedia is a wiki, and if something is to be said it should be made visible to the casual reader as well as someone who edits the discussion to add a comment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. New one, this. As far as I'm aware only Aaron Brenneman does it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Playing to win

14) While a measure of passion in one's viewpoints regarding Wikipedia is to be expected and encouraged, it is important to avoid letting that passion turn into a desire to "win" debates - particularly when doing so involves ignoring consensus, abusing official processes, or alienating other contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties:

1. This one is going to bite me in the ass some day... Phil Sandifer 05:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is for readers

15) The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information to its readers. Although Wikipedia has a strong community of editors, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is still primarily for its readers.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties:

1. Relevant largely in terms of the "meatpuppet" controversy and on how to respond to external criticism - or, really, the entire idea of "external" things to Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 05:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Deletion is aggressive

16) Deletion of content that someone contributed, although frequently necessary, has to be understood as something that will offend people.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties:

1. This is a basic courtesy that we all too often forget. Remember that a revert has been compared to a slap in the face - complete deletion is, then, akin to a kick to the groin. Like reversion, it is often necessary, but we ought not relish it. Phil Sandifer 05:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Particularly given the wide range of alternatives to deletion, it is often not only likely to offend, it is frequently unnecessary where the article in question is a substantial piece of work about a successful, often award-winning webcomic. That both Elf Only Inn and Checkerboard Nightmare were even considered for deletion is unfortunate. That the bloodlust for Elf-Only Inn extended to not just one but three AfDs is an indication of a serious problem. That Wikipedia has still not woken up to this problem is worrying. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. In response to Pilatus, I don't think this has anything to do with newbies. Could you explain how your comments relate to the point, which is that deletion, though often necessary, is aggressive and must be handled with care. I've been around for yonks and I know the rules, but you know how I reacted to the deletion of Albert M. Wolters, and hooray for me. I saved a good article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Wikipedia exists for its readers. As in any other community, contributors are expected to be familiar with its processes and guidelines whose purpose is to provide a standard for the readers and a framework for the contributor. Newbies are not exempt. Pilatus 06:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Policy formation

17) In determination of specialized areas of policy, discussion on the talk page of the relevant project page plays a central role. It is important that sufficient interest be generated in the discussion to formulate a valid consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This is relevant to Aaron Brenneman's attempt to pack the debate on syndication by only contacting his mates. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. I was going to contact some other editors to have them take a look at this section, but then I realized I might be pilloried and criticized for trying to involve potentially interested parties in the discussion - obviously, anyone I contacted might be considered my "mate", and I'd be accused of "packing the debate." So I decided not to. I hope that's OK with everyone. Nandesuka 06:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Aaron Brenneman's approach to deletion policy

1) Aaron Brenneman has treated established deletion policy as an obstacle to be overcome. Rather than adhere to the policy, he has made many attempts to change that policy, often in the face of clear opposition (See evidence offered by Tony Sidaway for an example).

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. As per SCZenz. Policy is mutable, and wanting to change it is no offense. If other problematic behaviors come up as a result (for example, attempting to force a change without consensus, or using misleading edit summaries), then those should be targeted, but not the attempts to change policy themselves. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. This follows directly from my evidence. It's difficult to get a fellow to adhere to deletion policy when he's prone to editing it and then jumping in and says "no it doesn't say that." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. Or, for that matter, altering it, often stealthily (As with the "removing anonymous addition" edit summary) to suit his own purposes. Phil Sandifer 03:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
   2. To clarify for SCZenz once more: the issue is not disagreement with policy, it's attempts to "win" arguments by editing out statements of policy that he finds inconvenient. Brenneman simply deleted the section in the first instance, and it was only when he finally disclosed its new contents in the course of "correcting" me that I became aware of what he had done. Subsequently he attempted to get the policy changed by starting a debate on another talk page and then editing the policy with a reference to that debate, after the debate on the talk page of the deletion policy page left him in no doubt about the opposition to his attempts to change it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

      In that case, the above shouldn't say what it says, but instead say that he has allegedly manipulated policy to influence ongoing debates, and been misleading in his efforts to do so. The statement at the top of this section is that he has made attempts to change the policy in the face of clear opposition—and nothing's wrong with that. (It was done recently at WP:CSD, in fact, and the reason that wasn't a problem is because the editors involved were forthright and honest about what they were trying to do.) -- SCZenz 05:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. If he is edit warring in an unacceptable way, that is one thing. But the fact that Aaron Brenneman disagrees with current deletion policy, and desires to change it, is not wrong, and it's not what this RfAr was accepted to investigate. Policy changes are always contentions, and there have been a number of attempts by respectable users to make significant policy changes without consensus by direct editing; although this is not the best way to edit anything, this is a wiki. If your issue is "misleading edit summaries," so be it (although I thought this was about webcomics AfD's, not policy pages); but if your issue is "trying to change a policy" then I don't see how this statement (or the associated evidence) has any place here. -- SCZenz 04:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
2. I completely concur with SCZenz. The ArbCom should not start sanctioning people because they have different views on what is, and what is not encyclopedic. If the ArbCom places any sort of sanction on anyone becuase they argue for the deletion or inclusion of things, or because they have slightly differnet interpretations of how the Deletion Process works, it will set a very poor precedent. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman's approach to deletion policy

Second draft

1.1) Aaron Brenneman has treated established deletion policy as an obstacle to be overcome. Brenneman simply deleted one policy section in the first instance, and it was only when he finally disclosed its new contents in the course of "correcting" another editor that others became aware of what he had done. The debate on the talk page of the deletion policy page left him in no doubt about the opposition to his attempts to change it. Subsequently he attempted to get the policy changed by starting a debate on another talk page and then editing the policy with a reference to that debate. (See evidence offered by Tony Sidaway for this example).

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. My objection to the above holds here; makes it appear that the issue is with his trying to change policy (and deletion policy in particular, no less) rather than the general behavior involved (what I gather from this and the above: attempting to change any policy without consensus, and potentially through problematic methods, it appears here: this is not based on my own analysis of the evidence). Also, the language would have to be revised to be less loaded. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Fixed with thanks to SCZenz. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. In response to Mindspillage, I'll try to revise the language and see how it goes. I can't parse a lot of your objection. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Aaron Brenneman edits deletion policy

Third draft

1.2) On 7 October, without discussion, Aaron Brenneman removed a longstanding section containing "If in doubt, don't delete" from the deletion policy, with the edit summary "Removed material added by anonymous user" [2]. On 17 Oct, Aaron Brenneman told Tony Sidaway that the deletion policy did not contain this phrase. Tony Sidaway then started a discussion on the talk page of the deletion policy, and restored the section. Aaron Brenneman's response in edit summaries and talk page comments was uncivil. On 8 November, Aaron Brenneman again removed the section, with an edit summary that referred to a discussion elsewhere [3]. On this occasion he did note this on the talk page. On both occasions there was substantial opposition to the removal of the longstanding policy section.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. An attempt to delineate the bare facts of Aaron Brenneman's conduct. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. In response to SCZenz, I'm sure that if this adopted by the committee they will pare it down to something more in keeping with their house style. Here in the workshop I find it useful to give lots of detail to reduce ambiguity. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. You could pare this down to "Aaron Brenneman has made edits to Wikipedia deletion policy, without consensus, in an effort to manipulate the outcome of ongoing discussions of Articles for Deletion" or something similar. The point is for it to make clear that it is the way that policy was edited that was the problem, not the proposed changes. But I don't think all the details above are necessary, at least given the usual style of ArbCom decisions. -- SCZenz 01:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Assumptions of bad faith by Aaron Brenneman and Dragonfiend

2) During the course of policy discussions on Wikipedia talk:Websites, Dragonfiend and Aaron Brenneman and others made frequent recourse to assumptions of bad faith and personal remarks [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] . --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Some of these remarks are by neither Aaron Brenneman nor Dragonfiend; a one-off remark by Cryptic [22] in particular. My take on most of these is that they are disagreement, and vehement disagreement, but are not all examples of verging into the inappropriate or uncivil. This is a particularly acrimonious area of policy, one of the deepest rifts of opinion on Wikipedia; both sides have gotten a little short with each other.

Things like "I know that WP:V is ... difficult for you [23]" are snide and should be avoided; this accusation [24], speculating on Snowspinner's motive, was unhelpful. However, I think it's important not to mistake strong criticism for attack. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

There is only one point in there that I consider to be a personal attack, and I'll be clarifying it on the evidence page shortly. Phil Sandifer 17:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Follows from Phil Sandifer's evidence. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. Give me a few days and I'll present copious volumes of evidence of Aaron Brenneman's habitual resort to snide, uncivil behavior and his almost constant imputations of bad faith to those who disagree with him. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
   2. Second thoughts, I'd rather concentrate on how his conduct here, particularly the campaigning and the discounting of other opinions, has tended to degrade the process. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
   3. Aaron Brenneman has now falsely accused me of engaging in mudslinging. I will adjust my focus accordingly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Webcomics community, Wikipedia, and alienation

3) The conduct of Wikipedia editors with respect to webcomics articles has alienated some prominent members of the webcomics community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Though it's unfortunate if subject-matter specialists leave, the only thing I think we can go by here whether the associated conduct is acceptable on WP regardless of who it has offended. I don't know that the wording of this implies that. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Eric Burns has become disillusioned, as Phil shows. There is also strong evidence that the formation of Comixpedia was a direct result of alienation due to the inconsistent treatment of webcomics on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. I'm not really satisfied with the wording here, but I feel that we must recognise that this kind of behavior has ramifications beyond Wikipedia and hurts our reputation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
   2. In response to Sjakkalle, this is a finding of fact and it says nothing about any one person's involvement, but rather about the effect of our behavior on the wiki on the public reputation of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
   3. In response to Mindspillage's suggestion that "the only thing I think we can go by here whether the associated conduct is acceptable on WP regardless of who it has offended," I have to say that I cannot agree. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a private wanking club. What we do here does affect the reputation of Wikipedia, and we should never accept bad conduct merely because it doesn't offend against written rules. We're playing calvinball. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. AFD can be a rough game. Many people have left because of frustration, it is their own choice. Eric Burns was the one who chose to leave, it was his decision. Trying to make Aaron Brenneman or Dragonfiend responsible for this is something I would recommend that the ArbCom reject. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
2. I think this goes to the core definition "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", it is apprently the concensus of the webcomics community that on the subject of webcomics Wikipedia is not an encyclopedic resource. Aaron Brenneman or Dragonfiend are responcible for Wikipedia ceasing to be considered such . This proccess is a visious circle, a community becomes disillusioned, they no longer make contributions to the wiki, and then it becomes less encyclopedic on this subject. Dformosa 09:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
3. I feel it is, at the very least, a bit disingenuous to describe this as just a finding of fact. For one thing, the word "alienated" is hardly emotionally neutral. For another, the statement that this alienation is the result of editor behaviour begs the question "which editor(s)?". Given the overall context, the finger is clearly, if implicitly, pointed at Aaron Brenneman. Indeed, one might feel free to ask what possible other reason for raising this "finding of fact" might exist. Besides, if it is the case that some people have decided to leave the project, who amongst us can judge their true reasons for so doing? A judgement here based on hypothesis would be a very bad thing. Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
4. This is the only instance of actual "harm" presented in this case, and it's of gossamer. We can take a look at other website and special purpose articles on Wikipedia and examine how dedicated their authors became. In general, they leave anyway after their article (and this is especially true of vanity articles, which, I would argue, this is very near) is up. The reason is that the sudden "keep" voters on AfD, like the authors suddenly lured in, simply aren't interested in Wikipedia to start with. It's not their thing. If the AfD is distasteful, they might leave. If it isn't, they still might leave (most often do). However, this complaint requires 1) assuming this reason is the reason, 2) assuming that the harm ("he left!") wouldn't have occurred anyway, 3) the harm ("he left!") is more important than the regular functioning of AfD, 4) the harm ("he left!!") is so great as to constitute a matter for sanction against administrators and long term (proven) users and editors of Wikipedia. To me, it's absurd. Every Wikipedia editor can face AfD: it's part of the price of admission. Geogre 12:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Question regarding Mindspillage's comment: did Eric Burns ever actually edit here? Or is the issue only that an external expert doesn't like us? -- SCZenz 18:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

   User:Eric Burns is a Wikipedian. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

   I just realized that a short while ago, but I guess I'm too late to strikethrough my question. ;-) Thanks for your answer. -- SCZenz 00:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Webcomics community opinion

Second draft

3.1) Influential voices in the webcomics community have expressed disquiet about Wikipedia's handling of webcomics articles. Eric Burns, on seeing that Checkerboard Nightmare had been listed for deletion, wrote on his blog, Websnark: It's official. Wikipedia is officially worthless for webcomics. I can't speak to any of their other subjects, but if you ever hear of someone going to Wikipedia to look up webcomics information, gently redirect them to Comixpedia.org.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Focussing one one relevant fact. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. In response to Filiocht, this proposed finding of fact makes absolutely no reference to people ceasing editing of Wikipedia, so it wouldn't really be an alternative. I've tried to remain as neutral as possible in the above, but I'll give it another go. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
   2. In response to Geogre, I've no idea who Nyoder is. I have no idea whether his opinion makes this an "oh well" matter or not. I do think we should be concerned that our approach to Webcomics is making us look pretty silly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. I propose as a neutral-tone alternative wording "Since these events, a number of users have ceased editing Wikipedia." Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
2. The revised language in 3.1 is, if I understand it: A person popular among web comics authors has expressed his opinion that Wikipedia's coverage of web comics is "worthless." This is a matter for arbitration, but, for example, Njyoder saying that our gender articles were POV, is not? I.e. the regard that some hold for this particular voice is turning this from an "Oh, well" to a matter of arbitration? Is it mandatory that our coverage of web comics be something that the web comics community regards highly (and unanimously so)? It seems like one must already have decided that web comics are central and that this particular author is correct and that deliberating on articles is not allowed if he disagrees with it to find in these actions a cause for arbitration. Geogre 01:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Webcomics community opinion

Third draft

3.2) At least one influential voice in the webcomics community, Eric Burns, has expressed lack of confidence in Wikipedia's handling of webcomics articles. On seeing that Checkerboard Nightmare had been listed for deletion, he wrote on his blog, Websnark: It's official. Wikipedia is officially worthless for webcomics. I can't speak to any of their other subjects, but if you ever hear of someone going to Wikipedia to look up webcomics information, gently redirect them to Comixpedia.org.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I've tightened up the wording and moved "disquiet" to "lack of confidence". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Eric Burns

4) Eric Burns is an established writer on Webcomics, a graduate Cum Laude in literature who has a history of published writing in comics, short fiction, role-playing games, magazines, and poetry. Despite his career being hampered by ill health, he is a columnist for Comixpedia and an occasional writer for the Webcomics Examiner, and runs his own comic-oriented blog, Websnark.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. We're not dealing with trolls here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Campaigning to delete articles on webcomics

5) Aaron Brenneman and Dragonfiend are consciously involved in an overt campaign to delete a number of articles on webcomics from Wikipedia, sometimes going to the lengths of planning a second AfD before the first has been completed. Dragonfiend compiled a list of webcomics by Alexa rank on her user page, and moved the contents into her user space [25][26] after being advised to do so by Aaron Brenneman because " it does give the appearance of a purge" [27].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Follows from the evidence. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. I think there is something to be said for this. Certainly deleting webcomics, nominating webcomics for deletion, or even nominating lots of webcomics for deletion is not itself a problem. What is a problem is if/when this becomes a "campaign." When a campaign begins, it serves as a "keep out" sign, engenders an us vs. them mentality, and fosters bad faith. I think the more important finding here - or perhaps the principle - is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game that you play to win. My concern is that Aaron and Dragonfiend are playing to win, and that this is becoming more important to them than being open to the possibility of error or to the consequences of their actions. Phil Sandifer 18:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
   2. In response to a number of comments below, I'll point out that this is a finding of fact, not an accusation of wrongdoing. I want to the committee to consider that Aaron and Dragonfiend are engaged in a campaign, and to judge their actions in the light of that, because it enables inferences to be drawn on their motives. Involvement in Schoolwatch would be a relevant finding of fact in a case involving alleged wrongdoing in relation to school deletion debates. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
   3. I fully agree with SCZenz that "Good faith efforts to remove what, in a user's honest opinion, is detrimental to our encyclopedia and its mission, whether these efforts are organized or not, cannot possibly constitute wrongdoing." But this is a finding of fact, not an accusation, and establishes a motive that may shed light on Aaron Brenneman's sometimes quite puzzling vehemence. When we campaign on an issue as Aaron and Dragonfiend so, we must be wary lest our biases influence our perception of others, and our behavior towards them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
   4. I'd like to remind Nandesuka that civility is always a good idea in an arbitration workshop. And that little thing about not putting words into people's mouths... --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. So? If this is actually something you want considered as a point of fact, then you're going to have to after the Schoolwatch pages. You do want all authors on that page to be arbitrated, don't you? Then go for the meta page listing deletionists. Then go for the page listing Australian topics on AfD. There is no point here for ArbCom to fix, as it requires ArbCom to take a position on a highly pernicious but longstanding practice of developing hitlists of delete/keep articles. If this particular instance, whether on a user page, a namespace page, or a meta page, is considered grounds for injunction, then ArbCom will be announcing a brand new policy and will have a very, very, very full docket. Even asking this to be considered as evidence is dangerously ill considered. I would love to see hitlist pages outlawed and made proper for speedy deletion. I have quite a few that I'd like to nuke. However, I've refrained in the past. Geogre 13:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Absolutely nothing unacceptable with this. Just as valid as wanting to delete elementary schools. Just as valid as wanting to delete fancruft. Just as valid as wanting to delete articles on local politicians. I will repeat what I said at Kappa's RFC: "...taking formal action against people because they interpret the "not encyclopedic"-rule of deletion policy different from oneself is very bad" Cannot see why this finding of fact should lead to any sanctions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Why should I add anything here when Geogre and Sjakkalle have said what I feel? Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Good faith efforts to remove what, in a user's honest opinion, is detrimental to our encyclopedia and its mission, whether these efforts are organized or not, cannot possibly constitute wrongdoing. -- SCZenz 01:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
5. I think, based on Snowspinner's comment, we can rewrite this finding of fact. Here, let me try: "Aaron Brenneman and Dragonfiend are consciously involved in an overt campaign to take steps that they believe will improve Wikipedia. They must be stopped." Hmmmm. No. it somehow lacks punch. And it would, as Geogre and Sjakkalle point out, put nearly every conscientious editor who keeps a list of things they could be improved at risk of arbitration for the crime of Conspiracy To Edit. Nandesuka 05:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

   And I'd like to remind Tony that civility is always a good idea, all the time. Nandesuka 05:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Dismissing contrary opinions of outsiders and newcomers

6) Aaron Brenneman has frequently been dismissive of opinions expressed by non-regular editors on deletion discussions when they disagree with his, referring to such debates as "contaminated" [28], "foaming at the mouth" [29], accusing Eric Burns of participating in "the mugging of an AfD" [30]., describing them as "a sock puppet invasion" [31]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Follows from the evidence. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Unreasonably dismissing reasonably argued expert opinion

7) Aaron Brenneman has been dismissive of reasonably argued expert opinions expressed on deletion discussions when they disagree with his, claiming for instance that they constituted claims made "without providing anything resembling a testable rationale", [32]. He was in fact referring to this argument presented by Snowspinner, in which the latter gave a reasonable, verifiable argument which was subsequently cited by over a dozen editors who voted to keep the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Follows from the evidence. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. In response to Filiocht, your concerns are answered in the proposed finding of fact. In rejecting the argument, Aaron Brenneman asserted that Snowspinner hadn't provided "anything resembling a testable rationale". This was certainly dismissive of Snowspinner's opinion, which involved a fairly lengthy and detailed rationale and is eminently testable. Snowspinner's opinion can be (and was) challenged, but it's another matter to pretend that it isn't presented in the form of a rational argument.
   2. On the distinction between experts and enthusiasts, point (8) is intended to find that Snowspinner has presented some credentials and that his arguments are very influential on the subject. Thus we have a kind of consensual definition of expert--paradoxial as that may seem. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
   3. In response to Filiocht's second point, no and perhaps the wording does need tightening up to make this plain, The opinion was subject to challenge, certainly, but the claim that it wasn't "anything resembling a testable rationale" was dismissal, and an attempt to represent Snowspinner's opinion as if it had been presented with no reasoning at all, rather than a reasonable challenge to that opinion. This is what I'm trying to get at. Not that he said "your reasoning is flawed", but that he pretended that no attempt had been made to support the opinion with reasoning. So it's about complete dismissal, not an honest expression of a difference of opinion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
   4. None of this requires anyone to reveal his real life identity. I have a feeling, however, that an editor who revealed himself to be a professor of physics at Cambridge might tend to find his opinions on quantum electrodynamics given more weight than, say, Tony Sidaway's. I don't see any problem with this. If the professor prefers to be known as User:Fluffywuffybunnikins and completely conceal his identity, that's okay too. He'll probably *still* whup Tony Sidaway on theoretical physics. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Not necessarily directly relevant to Snowspinner's expertise, but a few general points: first, we need as a rule to make a clear distinction between an "expert" and an "enthusiast", the first being knowledgeable and objective, the second being knowledgeable and subjective (to simplify somewhat). How we make this distinction is a much bigger question. Secondly, we need to be clear that there is no policy that states that expert opinion cannot be questioned or even challenged or rejected. Any such policy would be, IMHO, a BAD THING. People should consider expert opinion carefully, as it is likely to be well-informed. However, it is, at the end of the day, an opinion and may be wrong. This leads to my third concern here, which is the use of the word unreasonably; what is the base line of reason invoked, other than the opinion of those who disagree with Aaron's actions? Just as unquestioning deference to expert opinion should not be required, neither should we attempt to place limits on the circumstances in which such opinion may be called into question, beyond those required by WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, etc. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Far from being answered by the proposed finding of fact, my concerns were raised by it. Aaron did not find Snowspinner's input to be a testable rationale, you do. Isn't that just the way things are? The current wording, IMHO, constitutes an attempt to assert that your view is reasonable and Aaron's isn't. As such, it is an assertion of opinion, not a finding of fact. As to your second point, I tried to make it clear above that regardless of an expert's credentials, it is open to anyone to disagree with their statements. It would, I believe, be skating on very thin ice to assume anything other than good faith when a user exercises this right to differ. Even if they are wrong, even if Aaron is wrong in this case, he/they have the right to be wrong. In the particular context of AfD, they will, right or wrong, be just one voice amongst many and it is up to the other users who vote on a given AfD to assess the expert opinion for themselves and to come to their own conclusions. That's how AfD works. You may not like it, but it is not for the ArbCom to interfere in this kind of policy area. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
2. We can define it as follows "An expect is one who has trained in the relivent field to a graduate leval. Or one who is quoted/recoginized as an authority in the field." Dformosa 11:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

1. We could, but we haven't. Which makes the discussion here more difficult; first define your terms, then discuss is a useful guideline. If we were to define expert, I'd like something in there about neutrality. Your proposed definition could also cover the enthusiast. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that neutrality is a usefull test to determin an expert. Firstly its hard to test objectively and I'm unsure that its a prerequisite. I think we should be looking for something that is simple and objectively testable. How about. An expert is

1. A person trained to Graduate or better in the relivent field.
2. A person who has been published in a notable publication in the relivent field.
3. A person who is quoted as an authority in a notable publication in the relivent field.

1. I agree with Filiocht and would like to add to it. To even hint at this is against Wikipedia practice. It requires our real life identities to become part of all deliberations. Am I an expert in literature? Read my pages, and you tell me. Is Bishonen an expert in literature? Read her pages, and form your own opinion. Is Filiocht an expert? Read what he has written. If my real life identity is a quoted authority or not, that is nothing I wish to share with you. I do not want my Wikipedia articles to be written under my real name for a very good reason. You see, actual "experts" often times write at an even higher and more stringent level when they write professionally, and they have bread on the table at stake when people figure out their online writings. It is utterly nonsensical to submit real life "experts." Real experts aren't screen names. Real experts are real names, and Wikipedia does not require them. Trying to pull the "credentials" card when a debate is going against one is horsefeathers. There are a lot of folks on Wikipedia with a lot of credentials. You can tell, because they're the ones not talking about them. Geogre 13:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
2. This is, indeed, the next level argument for dismissing this so-called finding of fact. That "expertise" in the Wikipedia context is not something to be asserted or demanded, it is demonstrated by a user's contributions. Like Geogre, I could probably demonstrate a certain level of expertise from my non-Wikipedia life, but I choose not to because I wish to protect my privacy to some extent. I could, of course, invent an entirely false "real identity" that would make me an "expert" in anything I felt like. The whole notion of "expertise", never mind of "deferring to expertise" is a complete red herring. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Unreasonably dismissing persuasive expert opinion

second draft

7.1) Aaron Brenneman has been dismissive of persuasive expert opinions expressed on deletion discussions when they disagree with his, claiming for instance that they constituted claims made "without providing anything resembling a testable rationale", [33]. He was in fact referring to this argument presented by Snowspinner, in which the latter gave an argument which was presented in a manner which did not merit outright dismissal, and which was persuasive enough to be subsequently cited by over a dozen editors who voted to keep the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. It doesn't matter whether one agrees with Snowspinner's argument or not, saying it isn't "anything resembling a testable rationale" is still a dismissal, and was not merited. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. In response to Filocht's objection: I'm going for objective measures. Look at the AfD and you'll see that a really large number of editors cited Snowspinner directly in voting to keep. This means that it was persuasive by an objective measure--the number of people who thought it a good enough argument to be cited. Now dismissal of an argument in the terms Aaron used is a de facto failure to maintain good faith: the words "without providing anything resembling a testable rationale" are clearly dismissive, not in the sense of rebuttal but in the sense of denying that an argument of any kind has been made at all. I'm saying that he failed to maintain good faith at a crucial time--when presented with evidence of strong support for an argument presented by Snowspinner. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
   2. Aaron was faced with two things: a coherent argument with which he disagreed, and a number of people who were persuaded by it. He responded to this by claiming not only that Snowspinner didn't present anything resembling a coherent argument but also that those who were persuaded simply believed him. This is unreasonable dismissal. Handwaving away some inconvenient facts. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
   3. Again I remind Filiocht that the issue here is not that Aaron Brenneman expressed a minority opinion, but that he misrepresented the opinion of Snowspinner, pretending that he had not even tried to present a coherent rationale for his opinion. That is very rude in any case; in the circumstances, it's an attempt to win an argument by dismissal of an influential and inconvenient opinion, rather than presenting a counter-argument. Aaron and others did present counter-arguments, and quite reasonable ones, but those were not successful. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. I'm afraid I consider this even worse: what you may find persuasive, I may not. It certainly does not require bad faith on either of our behalves for this disagreement to arise. Is all criticism of others to be considered an unwarranted dismissal? I'm sorry if it is beginning to seem like I am disagreeing for the sake of it; I'm not, I just fail completely to be convinced by any of this stuff. I hope you do not consider my feeling this way an unwarranted dismissal of you, but I remain to be persuaded of the merits of this case. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Ah yes, the old Argumentum ad populum. Disagreeing with the majority does not require an act of bad faith. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

1. With all due respect, Tony, this can only be construed as an unwarranted dismissal if one fails to distinguish between opinion and fact. Are all votes that take the minority view to be labeled unwarranted dismissals? If not, which ones are? Those that disagree with my view? With yours? I'm looking for coherent logical argument here, not assertion. I want to see a clear distinction drawn between disagreeing with another user's opinion and denying the rotundity of the earth. Votes are expressions of opinion and people have the right to disagree, to dismiss the opinions of others, and even to be wrong. None of these things are, or should be, cause for censure. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Dismissal of AfD results

third draft

7.2) In the second AfD of Able and Baker, Snowspinner represented himself as an expert on webcomics, and was successful in persuading over a dozen editors of the validity of his argument to keep, which was presented with detailed reasoning and was based partly on syndication--a fact that could be verified.[34] Aaron Brenneman dismissed these results, claiming that Snowspinner's argument constituted a claim made "without providing anything resembling a testable rationale", and "These people aren't saying that they believe the evidence you've presented, they are saying that they believe you'" [35].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Stick to the facts. The Committee can make up its own mind on the relevance of this in its deliberations. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. Again, SCZenz, you are claiming that this is about Aaron Brenneman disagreeing with Snowspinner and presenting a counter-argument. He didn't just do that; if he had, there would be no problem. Brenneman dismissed the argument totally, denying that it even had anything resembling a rationale at all and claiming that the agreement of others was solely due to his patronage as an accepted expert. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Excuse me? What did he do wrong? He seems to have stated that he disagrees with the reasoning of many other editors. That's his perogative. He did not, for example, overturn an AfD in a manner contrary to policy—in fact, not being an admin, he can't. -- SCZenz 01:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner

8) Snowspinner is a longstanding Wikipedian who represents himself as an expert on webcomics (see User:Snowspinner/Webcomics). His arguments have been accepted by many fellow editors and have directly influenced deletion debates. [36]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Follows from the evidence. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. It's germane to the case that Snowspinner has successfully established himself as an expert, giving opinions that influence deletion debates. Unreasonable or spurious dismissal of such opinions is not acceptable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
   2. In answer to whoever said "if the implicit goal in the statement above is to imply that Snowspinner's level of expertise makes it inappropriate to argue with him, I object strongly to that", no, the primary purpose is to establish that Snowspinner has been successful in establishing himself as an expert and influencing opinions with his reasoning. The secondary purpose is to establish that it's wrong to misrepresent his opinions and to dismiss his successful persuasion as being solely to his claim of being an expert. There's a strong vein of anti-elitism here, but it's unacceptable to dismiss someone's arguments on the grounds that anyone who agrees with him does so only because they accept him as an expert. --02:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Non-germane. Plenty of folks influence AfD debates. Most do it by dint of reasoning. Anyone who does it by reference to "expertise" is violating Wikipedia's founding assumption that we use account names rather than real names. See above. Geogre 15:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Ummm... what? [37] That assumption doesn't exist. Hence User:Jimbo Wales and User:Larry Sanger. Phil Sandifer 16:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. Per their choice. If you go to the account page, you will see quite clearly the language in use. Please don't introduce a red herring to try to invalidate the point. When Wikipedia becomes real-name only, quite a few of us will be packing our bags. Geogre 19:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

1. 1. And I'm not advocating Wikipedia becoming real name only by any stretch of the imagination... but those who do use their real name do, by the nature of what names are, cary over some of who they are off the Wiki when its relevent. Phil Sandifer 19:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

1. I firmly believe that Snowspinner is who he says he is, and very knowledgable on webcomics. Everything in this finding of fact is true, and if the ArbCom wants to give him a compliment I think that's very thoughtful. However, if the implicit goal in the statement above is to imply that Snowspinner's level of expertise makes it inappropriate to argue with him, I object strongly to that.

Bad faith

9) Aaron Brenneman has a past history of acting in bad faith [38] and, when faced with evidence of suspicion, acting evasively and accusing others of wrongdoing. [39] [40] [41] [42]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Relevant to interpretation of Aaron Brenneman's actions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

   In response to SCZenz, he obviously isn't a bad person. But he's sometimes a badly behaved person. This incident has been entered in evidence so it's part of the case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. This case should be judged on its merits, not the assertion that Aaron Brennenman is generally a bad person. -- SCZenz 01:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Good faith

10) All parties involved in this dispute have goals consistent with what they believe, in good faith, would improve Wikipedia. However, these goals may not always have been pursued in an appropriate manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Planning a second AfD before the first is over, and the sock puppet incident (particularly his conduct in the day or so afterwards) suggests that Aaron has been following a policy to subvert Wikipedia by any means necessary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

   I think it suggests he disagrees with many (perhaps the majority, on some issues) on how Wikipedia might be improved, and that he can become frustrated and sometimes behaves quite poorly as a result. He's not a vandal or a troll. -- SCZenz 02:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

   1. Nobody has suggested that he's a vandal or a troll. If as you suggest Aaron "can become frustrated and sometimes behaves quite poorly as a result" (I agree--look at IgnoreAllRules), and it has gone on for quite a while unchecked, then it's a problem for arbitration. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. I'm adding this, because I think it's true and has been overlooked. -- SCZenz 01:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Incivility by Snowspinner

11) As part of the overall debate on the inclusion of webcomics in the encyclopedia, Snowspinner has at times been uncivil [43] [44], including linking from Wikipedia his own expressions on other websites which contain remarks that are uncivil in the context of Wikipedia [45].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This seems fair. All parties can plead mitigation, but we should take note of the evidence that Dragonfiend has provided. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. I don't think any of this was worth an RfAr, but now that it's here I think our proposed findings of fact should be balanced, and reflect that this was an acrimonious debate on all sides. For what it's worth, Phil, I'm sorry. -- SCZenz 02:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

1. No - it's an accurate claim. I think the claim is mitigated somewhat by the frustrating circumstances - noting particularly that the most incivil comments I made were off Wikipedia, and not made to Dragonfiend or Aaron, and that on Wikipedia I mostly just declined to repudiate them. But I was less civil than would have been helpful, and I'm sorry for that. Phil Sandifer 02:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
2. OK, no, I do dispute part of this - I did not link to the website primarily or at all because of my comments. Truth be told, I'd forgotten what I said there when I linked, and I think it's... a troubling idea that the fact that I had blown off some steam there would somehow mean I can't ever link there. Phil Sandifer 02:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

   Honestly, I think it does mean you can't link there. Your views were on the page, and weren't appropriate for Wiipedia. That being said, if you'd forgotten about them being there, that's certainly a mitigating factor—but an apology at the time would have been appropriate. -- SCZenz 03:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Failure to assume good faith by Snowspinner

12) Snowspinner has failed to assume good faith on the part of others, asserting that having made an incorrect AfD nomination was an indication of being "not capable of making reasonable judgements" rather than a simple error [46] and that a user's views ought to be rejected "on sight" because he disagreed with them [47].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Snowspinner may well have failed to assume good faith, but this is not a good example. The wording reads, in full: "Keep'. Suggest politely that Dragonfiend stop nominating webcomics for deletion, as he is very obviously not capable of making reasonable judgments of notability if he is nominating this." It could be seen as uncivil because it disputes Dragonfiend's judgement on webcomics, but it certainly doesn't impute bad faith. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

   I didn't write that he imputed bad faith; I wrote that he didn't assume good faith. I think assuming incompetence is also a failure to follow WP:AGF. -- SCZenz 02:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

   I think assuming error over malice is, in fact, the core of good faith - otherwise the policy would have to read "Agree with everybody." There are a limited number of options for explaining when you think someone is wrong. Phil Sandifer 02:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

   But there's a difference between assuming general incompetence and assuming an error in a specific case. -- SCZenz 02:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

   I'm sure Dragonfiend is generally competent. Just not about this specific thing - she is clearly out of touch with the community here. Phil Sandifer 03:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

   I cannot agree that to allege incompetence involves any failure to assume good faith, though it is hard to do in a civil manner and was not done well here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. My comments from the section above still apply. I can only hope Phil will be as understanding a second time. -- SCZenz 02:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
2. By what standard is an allegation of incompetence not a personal attack (regardless of whether or not said allegation is true?) Nandesuka 06:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Playing to win

13) Aaron Brenneman and Dragonfiend have both demonstrated an investment in "winning" debates over establishing and respecting consensus.

Comment by arbitrators

Comment by parties

1. Follows from section of evidence on this exact matter. Phil Sandifer 05:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Boy oh boy! Look at this little lot. This is a list of links to talk page solicitations that Aaron has made in the past few hours, to get certain people to come and join the debate on syndication, on WP:WEB: Titoxd, Nandesuka, Geogre, Encephalon, Radiant!, Zoe. Recognise any webcomics specialists in there, Phil? Of course there's nothing wrong with putting up an RFC, or a notice on the Village pump. But this wasn't a representative sample of Wikipedia editors. Although they're all admirable editors, they've been selected for a specific purpose: to pack a debate with opinions similar to Aaron's. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

   I don't object to talk page spamming in principle (I did it for my RFA... Jesus, that was a year and a half ago though, wasn't it? I'm so old...). But to do so on something like the seventh attempt to win this debate is gratuitous. Phil Sandifer 05:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

3. I find such spamming, particularly when it's done systematically and selectively, utterly unacceptable. Such practices strike a mortal blow to the formation of consensus by discussion, replacing it with a battle of numbers. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others

1. Every single editor on Wikipedia who has been here for some length of time has left notes on talk pages of people they respect letting them know when a debate is going on, including Aaron, me, Tony, and Snowspinner. The idea that this should somehow be construed as sinister is, frankly, bewildering, and is yet more evidence of an abject failure to assume good faith. Nandesuka 05:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

   There is, however, a time when one ought let it go. Phil Sandifer 05:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Biting the newbies

14) Aaron Brenneman has displayed a lack of respect or consideration of the viewpoints of new contributors, including derisively summarizing their views [48].

Comment by arbitrators

Comment by parties

1. Straightforward, I think. Phil Sandifer 05:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others

Dragonfiend has assumed bad faith

15) Dragonfiend challenged several websites' use as evidence on Wikipedia because of his fear that Snowspinner would use his association with those websites to manipulate Wikipedia. This is an unfortunate assumption of bad faith, and could be construed as a personal attack.

Comment by arbitrators

Comment by parties

1. Again, straightforward. Phil Sandifer 05:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others

Acrimonious atmosphere

16) Some of the acrimony surrounding this situation can be attributed to the stress that surrounds our deletion process. Many factors contribute to this, and most are understandable.

Comment by arbitrators

Comment by parties

1. I think this is an important observation - deletion is stressful. The strict time limit, difficulty of reversal, and strong personal feelings involved in it make it something that naturally upsets people. Perhaps our deletion system is the best it can be - that does not mean that it is a pleasant place, and it is difficult to engage in the conduct of people on AfD without realizing that fact. Phil Sandifer 05:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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.

A note to the community

1) All Wikipedians are reminded that, despite the stressfulness of our deletion process, it is important to remain civil, assume good faith, and work towards compromise and consensus in all aspects of the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This will be, I imagine, controversial, but I think it can be done without stepping into the deletion policy quagmire at all - both sides of this debate have been less civil than is desirable, and this is far from the only acrimonious deletion debate on Wikipedia. Without targetting anybody specifically, and without taking sides, it is worth warning the community on this point. Phil Sandifer 05:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Admonishment to Snowspinner

2) Snowspinner is admonished to remain civil even in stressful and heated conflicts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I am reasonably persuaded by Dragonfiend's evidence that I actually did cross a line here. I repeat my apologies, and I do think that Dragonfiend was unnecessarily baiting in the exchange regarding Websnark, and that the Checkerboard Nightmare AfD was grossly inappropriate, and needed to be called out. But I would be remiss if I didn't list this as a possible sanction to consider. Phil Sandifer 06:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

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:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. If the parties could make neutral statements and avoid loaded language on this page as much as possible, it would more useful for the AC as well as helping to keep the acrimony from spreading further than it already has. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: