Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Comments 2 My good grace is exhausted 2.1 Tony's response to Mindspillage and ensuing and kind of off-topic discussion that you probably don't have to read 3 "Cavernous schisms he has helped create" 4 Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is. 5 Personal attacks by Snowspinner 6 This ruling 7 Snowspinner and "people who know nothing" 8 How does this arbitrate 9 On admonishment

[edit] Comments

I find including my criticism of Dragonfiend's repeated nominations of webcomics without regard for the webcomics community to be somewhat... unseemly in light of the current absence of Dragonfiend's own suggestion that I might use my academic work as a vehicle for getting my way on Wikipedia - a personal attack that was considerably more calculated, has been repeated, and seems not to have been made in the heat of the moment - something I find to have a far more chilling effect on debate.

I also feel that it remains inappropriate to sanction me for comments made off of Wikipedia, or to suggest that comments off of Wikipedia somehow mean I am unable to ever point to anyone else's viewpoints in the same discussion - particularly viewpoints expressed after I had made the comments. Phil Sandifer 22:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My good grace is exhausted

I've tried to maintain some level of calm throughout this. Now however, I'll be brief, and somewhat blunt.

The fact that is was accepted at all is still a mystery to me. Not only did Snowspinner fail to attempt dispute resolution, he ignored my attempts at resolution. The ArbCom of course aren't required to explain themselves, but it would be polite.

Tony Sidaway's relentless attempts at character assassination appear to slide off the ArbCom's radar as well. I put "OMFG" on an AfD and engage in some heated discussion on a talk page, it's a big deal, Tony calls people "cronies" and suggests that RfC is for the little people and, well that's ok then.

As to the Proposed findings of fact, Aaron Brenneman's edits to deletion policy - So, we've got an edit of mine from three months ago, that has nothing to do with anything that mentioned when this was accepted, and a recent one with the edit summary misquoted in a misleading manner. What is this in aid of? Is the suggestion that Tony and Snowspinner have not ever pushed the bounds of harmonious editing?

Finally, Proposed remedies, Aaron Brenneman admonished - Words fail me. I'll just point to this again.

This process has been a travesty from the beginning, and it's sure not getting any better. I'd be happy to engage in some meaningful dialog with members of the ArbCom, I'd even be happy to trot out a list of my transgressions. I've never claimed to be lilly white. But the implication that I've behaved worse than Tony or Snowspinner is laughable.

brenneman^(t)(c) 03:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this comment is as telling as can be in terms of showing how necessary a strong ruling in this case is. Aaron seems either wholly unaware or wholly unconcerned that he has contributed significantly to a process that gutted Wikipedia's contributors in an area, including some top notch subject experts. He seems wholly unconcerned at the newbies he has tried to drive off.

This has never been a dispute about civility, which is why I find it so very beside the point that the dispute got incivil on all sides. The incivility, mostly, was directed at each other, and I think we're all aware of that, and it's beside the point. What this dispute is about is the treatment of potential contributors, and of the outside world. It's a dispute about subject experts, communities other than Wikipedia, and about what the deletion process is for. It's a dispute about whether, at the end of the day, a Wikipedia editor should put the consensus ahead of their own opinions, or whether they should push for their opinions vehemently until they win.

That Aaron is unaware of the cavernous schisms he has helped create is, to my mind, by far the greatest offense, and it is clear that admonishment is not going to get him to realize this.

I ask for a stronger remedy. Phil Sandifer 07:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This makes me laugh. We have Eric Burns, who early in his wikicareer decided that editing his own blog was more rewarding than wikipolitics and that he should direct others to Wikipedia to do his editing for him. He eventually threw a hissy fit to direct people to Comixpedia. Can't see anyone else who has departed acrimoniously (and IMO, specialist subjects are best handled on a specialist wiki). Pilatus 00:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

So, um, Snowspinner, please explain again why you made no attempt at mediation? Why you didn't make any conciliatory gestures? Why you didn't go with an RFC? Why you had no interactions before launching an RFar, and why you would have the poor manners to gloat and try to turn Aaron's exasperation into yet another call for a burning? Throughout, it still looks to me like you have overreacted, called people's opinions "worthless," and now gone on to even suggest that process is for other people. If you bait people enough, recruit all those they have ever checked in abuse of power, and then say enough snide things, I'm sure you'll get anyone to protest -- and that's all Aaron has done -- but when you then call protest a reason for a "strong injunction," when you're the one who hasn't followed policy, it rings hollow. Don't put the needs of yourself above the needs of the project to have clearly set and consistently followed process. You have not attempted mediation, have not sought comment, and now try to crow. This is fairly disgraceful behavior. Geogre 02:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm crowing? Since when? Phil Sandifer 03:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as the arbitrator who's written most of this decision, and whose primary interest in the case was to try to keep it from being a total shitfight or from going into ruling on policy, I stand by what I've written. My personal opinion of this case is that all parties need to stop sniping at each other already, assume that the other parties are acting in good faith—which as far as I can see they are; this is a good-faith disagreement turned ugly—and go back and try to come to a constructive consensus like the reasonable people you are in other contexts. I did think the manner in which the deletion policy was edited—and not the editing itself, mind—was significant enough to need to be mentioned. But I don't think it would help the project at all to do anything stronger.

No one needs to be restricted, paroled, banned, lynched, tarred, feathered, or hanged. There are no trolls here. There are two groups of people with genuinely different ideas of what belongs in Wikipedia who have let this dispute turn personal and ugly and spill over into incivility and newbie-biting instead of constructively working on policy, which the arbcom cannot help you with; it is outside the scope of what we do. Note that the civility policy applies to both established and new Wikipedians, by the way, experts and not so informed alike, and I consider WP:BITE to be a special case of it.

Of course, I'm speaking as an arbitrator, but for my own opinion only; whoever comes along after I do may well clash. Shooting off at the mouth, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tony's response to Mindspillage and ensuing and kind of off-topic discussion that you probably don't have to read

With respect, this isn't really about personalities. The groups of editors do represent two radically different views of policy, that is true. However that should not be a problem for the Committee. There is absolutely nothing, not one word, in the deletion policy, that justifies the deletion of articles about web comics except in exceptional circumstances--an article about a web comic that only lasted a few issues, perhaps. If an article is about an insignificant webcomic then the deletion policy clearly tells us that it doesn't need to be deleted. The Committee absolutely *should* uphold the policy of Wikipedia; without that we're stuck in endless arguments with people who either haven't read the policy or have read it and don't care. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying so, Tony, but you're asking ArbCom to rule on whether Inclusionisism or Deletionism is correct. -- SCZenz 05:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, he's arguing that the matter has already been settled, and that people who disagree with him are ignoring established policy. This is not necessarily any less inflammatory than what you accuse him of arguing, but it is very different. Phil Sandifer 05:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It happens to be the case until the unlikely event that we change our deletion policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It might be more accurate to say he's asking ArbCom to rule in favor of pure inclusionism over more of a middle ground between the two. I don't think there's a consensus among Wikipedia editors that that is settled by any means. -- SCZenz 05:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Only marginally so - you're still missing the heart of his claim, though, which is that the matter is settled already. Suggesting that he is asking the arbcom to rule in favor of pure inclusionism suggests that it is the arbcom's ruling that would cause pure inclusionism to win out. In Tony's view, pure inclusionism has already won out, and he is merely asking the arbcom to observe that fact. Put another way, in your view the arbcom has a choice between inclusionism and deletionism. In Tony's, the nature of the arbcom and its mandate is such that it must uphold inclusionism, just as it must uphold NPOV and No Personal Attacks. Phil Sandifer 06:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You have a point, Phil. I don't doubt that Tony genuinely believes as you say, so what he asked isn't inappropriate. At the same time, what I said isn't inappropriate either, because if my perception of community consensus is correct then ArbCom ruling as he suggests would be inappropriate. -- SCZenz 06:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I don't deny that - it's just that the debate that sets up between you and Tony is a much more productive one, because I think you both agree with a lot more of the evidentiary standards than you would on the larger inclusion/deletion debate (Which is so sterile precisely because the two sides share no actual premises that could be used to persuade each other). Phil Sandifer 06:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

(After a minute trying to remember what we were talking about.) Yes, Tony and I can agree on evidence that people have violated policy relatively easily, if we can agree what policy says. In this case, I read him as saying that people violated policy by AfD'ing articles they thought were non-notable and thus unencyclopedaic—we can't agree on that, because we don't agree that policy prohibits that. -- SCZenz 06:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Right. But the debate on whether policy prohibits it is one that can actually be held productively. For instance, I'm guessing Tony is inclined to cite Wikipedia:Deletion policy, where it does not say that "article fails to meet some standard of notability" is a criterion for deletion, suggesting that it is not. Phil Sandifer 06:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

And I can cite WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information and WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_propaganda_machine. And so we fight the old battles, with resignation and certainty of the outcome, because we're all convinced we're right. Heck, it could be worse... we could be in the American Civil War rather than on Wikipedia. ;-) -- SCZenz 06:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This is, in fact, a relatively different argument from the normal one, which turns into a discussion of the nature of what is encyclopedic. Ultimately, here we both, I think, agree about what a policy page is and how to read one. Because when you cite those pages, I point out that neither the propaganda nor indiscriminate information sections suggest that articles on webcomics are in any way problematic based on their topic - indiscriminate information refers to the inclusion of trivia about a subject, for the most part - not the topic in general. That is, it forbids the inclusion of information about a subject that is non-essential to an understanding of that subject. And propaganda is about a style of writing - it amounts to a special case of NPOV. Neither of these are comments on the nature of what is or is not an acceptable topic, or even, for that matter, on whether the notion of an acceptable topic is relevent to Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 06:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries... etc." That I take to mean that not all true things are encyclopedaic, and that there is ongoing debate on where to draw the line. From this I argue that policy is not definitive on this issue, because of lack of community consensus, and so ArbCom should not make a definitive ruling. -- SCZenz 06:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

And, indeed, it is possible that we will come to a conclusion that there are classes of entries that are unfit for inclusion. Absent said conclusion, however, none of the elements of the deletion policy enable their deletion. Phil Sandifer 06:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Established practice, which is the basis of policy, is that community consensus (or a reasonable approximation thereof) that an article should be deleted enables its deletion. -- SCZenz 06:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Established practice was also to, for quite a time, use meta-templates despite the explicit request of the developers at WP:AUM to not do so. There was also an established practice of using images that were flagged as "non-commercial" for a while. It is possible, in other words, for the community to begin doing things that the established rules say that it should not, and in these cases, the community has fairly routinely been found to be in error. That is to say that practice is not, in fact, the sole basis of policy. Phil Sandifer 06:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think my characterization of the deletion policy is that it is not so much "pure inclusionist" as mergist. I would certainly welcome the recognition of this strong tendency to mergism in our official policy. Here we have a small but dedicated class of editors who actually spend a lot of time destroying or attempting to destroy articles, which they could conceivably believe to be a good thing to do, but doing so in an insensitive manner and not taking into account the alternatives offered in the official deletion policy which, I would hope we can expect to assume, they have actually read and understood.

Certainly their insensitivity has led to problems with biting newbies, but it is just as clear that their activities are not supported by the deletion policy. Deletion is intended to be a last resort, not the first. Not only the people, but the fabric of Wikipedia itself, is at risk from unwise campaigns of deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

People are, of course, free to infer whatever they wish about Wikipedia policies from whatever sources they wish. That doesn't mean those inferences are correct. I find it refreshing that Tony's attempt (as I see it) to turn this RfArb into an "arbitrator straw poll" about policy has been so thoroughly, utterly, and completely rebuffed. It looks like the likely outcome is that Aaron will be admonished to be respectful of consensus, and all parties will be reminded to remain civil. And, let's be frank, all parties obviously need that reminder, as their ongoing edits show. I'm relieved that the Arbcom has remained so clearheaded about this, and is crafting a remedy appropriate to the situation, rather than accepting the heavy-handed and thuggish remedies that were proposed earlier. Nandesuka 13:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Their activities aren't opposed by deletion policy either, which is left deliberately ambiguous on where the line between keep and delete is. Why not let community consensus at AfD make the decision? That is common practice, and common practice is the source of Wikipedia policy when the developers, Jimbo, and the Board of Directors haven't intervened. If you claim they're stacking AfD's, you can claim that; if they're manipulating policy, you can claim that too; but I don't believe that AfD nominations in good faith, which often pass, are against policy. -- SCZenz 17:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If as seems possible this arbitration case ends with a waggy finger for Aaron--which I'm sure he'll be happy to admit I predicted in an online IRC conversation two or three weeks ago--it will still be a ruling that has a bearing on the process of policy creation. As I said two weeks ago in moving proposed principle 17: I think we have fostered a notion that we can make policy just by getting our chums together and having a straw poll. While that may often get a quick result, it doesn't make a consensus. Responses to this item suggest that we badly need guidance on the intimate relationship between policy formation and consensus. This may be a waggy finger, but I think that it will be a rather muscular one. It is not acceptable to play fast and loose with Wikipedia policies. I just wish the Committee would bite the bullet and enforce the policies more fully. Deletion rampages are not good for Wikipedia, either as an encyclopedia or as a community. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

So, in other words, putting up a notice on your Web Comic urging people to go vote on Wikipedia is wrong, Tony? Getting the three or four people who write articles on every one of their favorite web comics to vote is wrong, and, further, that it is good that no one presume that the matter is settled because the straw poll was a week old? Is that what you're saying? Seems to me that saying "it is already decided that they stay" when there has hardly been enough time to get a preliminary discussion going is wrong, and that you'd agree that it is, that having more people come to a straw poll a week later is good. I'm so pleased that you're finally coming around to a position wholly opposite to what you have previously stated. Geogre 20:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that we should seek consensus. Since the practises that you describe are not good ways of achieving consensus, and we don't deleted without consensus, you might like to consider that you should try to abide by the deletion policy instead of repeating the false claim that articles must justify their existence. No, articles are kept unless there is a consensus to delete them. If you think this policy is wrong, seek to change it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Tony, AfD is, in fact, where we get consensus on deletion. Policy isn't "all articles are included until there is an overwhelming consensus that they must be deleted." It is that, when there is doubt, the deliberation take place on AfD. However, the substance of this RFar is "do not nominate Web Comics to AfD to determine a consensus, because there already is one, and nominating when I say there is a consensus (and I'm an expert) is a sanctionable offense." Quite a leap. Secondly, if there "is already a consensus" on web comics, and it's not on AfD nor to be determined there, then how the heck do we get it, except with straw polls and the like (which is yet another "offense" in this RFar)? So, if there is a straw poll or RFC, does it end only when the plaintiff says so? You had accused Aaron of "packing" the debate because he sought input after a single week! It seems like Snowspinner and you are advocating:

1. No AfD nominations, because we're experts, and we'll tell you.
2. No asking people to comment on polls and meta pages, because you might ask people who disagree with us
3. "Consensus" is determined in a day or two
4. We will use Quickpolls to determine the matter.

These things are all illicit, illogical, and shabby in the extreme. Finally, though, saying "there is already consensus," which is the heart of Snowspinner's complaint ("because there is already consensus, nominations are bad faith, and because in bad faith are attacks and because attacks, prosecutable") is falacious in the extreme. The point to Wikipedia is that the debate never ends. Nothing is settled. We keep talking. We keep determining consensus. We keep modifying policy (otherwise, simple majority delete votes would take articles away to the outer darkness, like it did in the old days). The basis of Snowspinner's complaint fails, and the rest follows, and you have been really quite inconsistent in your argument against Aaron. If he isn't supposed to use AfD, what is he supposed to use? If Dragonfiend isn't supposed to use her good judgment and nominate questionable articles, what is she supposed to do? Ask the wise Phil to make the determination for her? Geogre 16:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It's blatantly clear that Snowspinner and I are saying none of the three things that you attribute to us, and I wonder why you bothered to do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Blatantly clear? Ok, then explain why this is an RFar, when there was neither any attempt at mediation nor RFC, and exactly what the offenses are supposed to be? The logic as presented leads directly to the conclusions I listed. It comes down to this: what's wrong with listing something at AfD? Snowspinner says "there is already consensus." Where? Where is that consensus? You and Snowspinner says that there are experts who aren't being listened to, but that's an incomplete statement, at best. Not being listened to by whom? By those listing for AfD? By Aaron? You don't probably care whether Aaron and Dragonfiend respect this expert or another. So, what is it? Listing for AfD is... is... is bad? How? Why? What is it that should get more than, in Snowspinner's term, "finger wagging?" I can't see in what way Snowspinner has been agrieved by the listings on AfD, much less why he was so aggrieved that he had to go to ArbCom without mediation or RFC, why it was an emergency. You do. Please explain it. Geogre 02:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Cavernous schisms he has helped create"

[1] Nandesuka 06:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

How pleasant. <sigh> "It's already settled," above is wholly in dispute, of course. It isn't "settled" that all web comics are good unless there is an extraordinary case. It isn't settled that all high schools are in. It isn't settled that anything is in except in exceptional circumstances. It is settled that all articles need to demonstrate (that's right: they have to demonstrate) that they pertain to a matter worth talking about, that they do not advertise, that they represent something that the world will have some curiosity about, that they are not personal vanity, etc. Most web comic articles fail at least one of those features, and most of those fail the vanity criterion. Personally, I think this RFar is looking a bit vain, too, but I speak only as someone getting rather tired of being told that "oh, that was already decided while you were out of the room: the whole project is whatever I say it is." Geogre 15:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the context, Snowspinner seems to have been making a perfectly reasonable and very funny, if somewhat flippant, response to someone who asked if use of profanity on a user page was appropriate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

And that context was known to the person? It wasn't biting the newbie? After all, someone was clueless enough to ask, and that seems to mean that the person was a newbie. To be flippant in that response is the same as "biting a newbie" by, essentially, saying, "Haha, you don't know our policies!" That's pretty much the definition of newbie biting. Furthermore, these are comments on WP:AN/I, which the new user has every right to expect to be a bit more serious than "this is my playground, and I'm making a joke for my buddies." I.e. If saying "as a new voter, your vote may not be counted" is newbie biting, then deriding a new user on WP:AN/I would be in a class above and beyond that. Geogre 16:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be seen as newbie-biting. There is a place for flippancy and clowning, and answering a good faith inquiry probably isn't the right place. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is.

In Personal Attacks by Snowspinner, Mindspillage notes that "Snowspinner informed [Dragonfiend] that she was 'not capable of making reasonable judgements' and stated that her views should be rejected as invalid 'on sight.'" Two arbitrators have stated their opposition to this finding of fact based on their belief that "A judgment is different from a personal attack." I'd like some clarification on this from the arbitration commitee if possible. Aren't all personal attacks based on judgments? Examples of personal attacks such as "I'm better than you" and "You have no life" seem to me to be judgments as well. Also, according to WP:NPA editors should "Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is." [2] Is WP:NPA incorrect? Is it appropriate to suggest that the opinions of another editor ought to be opposed "on sight"? -- Dragonfiend 16:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• For whatever it's worth, that puzzles me, too. My religion says that judging someone is a sin. As I've argued elsewhere, saying, "You are incapable of forming a valid opinion" requires not only an insult, but an proscriptive insult: "You will never be listened to." That, to me, is the height of bullying, and compared to that telling a new account voter, "Be aware that your vote may antagonize established Wikipedians" is a case of warm fuzzies. Geogre 20:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think this was a serious insult to Dragonfiend. Geogre, you could almost convince me that it's a grave personal attack. Snowspinner obviously feels very strongly on this issue, having argued in workshop that Dragonfiend should even be forbidden to nominate webcomics articles for deletion.

It seems that the circumstances are against Snowspinner on this one, although I have my reservations about the notion that she made good nominations in all cases but one--at least four of her nominations seem to have attracted so little debate that I would have relisted every one without a moment's hesitation, because a rough consensus cannot be reached if hardly anybody contributes to a discussion. Nevertheless I question his judgement.

But he's entitled to express his opinion, and as a matter of fact we are entitled to express lack of confidence in one another's judgement. I really wouldn't want to have the Committee class everyone who has ever questioned my judgement as having engaged in a personal attack. I'd hate to have myself judged to have made a personal attack on you because once or twice I've found you making serious misrepresentations, containing gross factual inaccuracies, about specific alleged incidents, which necessitated my making conscientious and meticulous investigations into my own conduct on the basis of the reasonable assumption that you had done your homework ([3] but don't take it out of context--there was a productive discussion following this reasonable questioning of Geogre's statement). You had clearly made an honest error and I never doubted this. It seems to me that this kind of judgement is inevitable in a community like this. If someone makes a gross error then it's not completely inappropriate to express the opinion that his judgement isn't up to snuff. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's be frank: if the judgment is one that expresses criticism of you, we might be told that it "doesn't belong on Wikipedia." Theoretically. Nandesuka 17:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again you're engaging in the kinds of statement that I removed earlier, on the grounds that they had no place on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for illustrating my point. It is — and I am being sincere — a big help. Nandesuka 16:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually you're engaging in a somewhat snide personal attack. Be aware that personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm simply expressing my opinion that you have made gross errors in the way you have pursued this RFArb — errors that you yourself have acknowledged — and that your judgment isn't up to snuff. That kind of judgment is inevitable in a community like this. Isn't it? Nandesuka 17:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That kind of snide personal attack, as you're aware, is never, ever either inevitable or even remotely acceptable on Wikipedia. Cut it out. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of my description of your behavior. I think you have amply demonstrated that your determination of what is and is not a personal attack is not trustworthy: you seem to take any criticism, no matter how delicately phrased, as a personal attack, but are willing to excuse any indiscretion by those you agree with, no matter how aggressive or crass ([4] is a great example), as "perfectly reasonable and funny." I am sorry that you are determined to interpret any and all of my constructive criticisms of you as personal attacks. But I can't control the inferences you make, and I certainly will not allow you to place responsibility for your inferences on me. I will continue to treat you with civility, but will never let that stop me from pointing out the serious flaws in your behavior. Kind regards, Nandesuka 06:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks by Snowspinner

For the ArbCom to rule that "a judgment is different from a personal attack", would be a dramatic weakening of WP:NPA. If such a ruling were to occur, expect everyone who is accused of making a personal attack to be quoting this ruling. Obviously all personal attacks involve making a judgment. Saying to a presumably health adult that she is "very obviously not capable of making reasonable judgments" and all her opinions "ought to be opposed on sight" is most definitely an attack, and it couldn't be any more personal. Such statements are equivalent to saying "you are an idiot". To the arbitrators who don't seem to think it is, please consider how you would feel if someone were to say, "Neutrality and James F, having voted oppose on this, are very obviously not capable of making reasonable judgments — all their opinions ought to be opposed on sight". Paul August ☎ 03:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This ruling

If these are the extent of the remedies the arbcom is considering, they may as well just cloes the case with four votes. Aaron has made clear on this page that he does not intend to take admonishment seriously. He has indicated with edits like [5] that he is going to continue treating all those who disagree with them with an assumption of bad faith. A ruling from the arbcom here that amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic is worse than useless - it sends the message that the way in which webcomics deletion has been handled - a way that is all too similar to deletion in many other topics - is more or less wholly OK. Phil Sandifer 01:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you get to tell ArbCom when to stop deliberating, Snowspinner. At any rate, I would like to point to your phrase "similar to deletion in many other topics": is it the center of your contention that any article about a web comic is somehow unlike an article on any other subject and that it should get a different sort of consideration for deletion (or not be considered at all)? I had suspected, in my most satirical mood, that you were suggesting that web comics are "already determined" and that their subject was, according to you, a "get out of AfD free" card, but I hoped you weren't really suggesting any such thing, as that would mean that you filed an RFar for deletion policy clarification and to get the ArbCom to admonish people simply for not taking your word for what is and is not subject to deletion policy. Geogre 23:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I looked, but I couldn't find a barnstar for "novel interpretation of what people say for the purposes of easier refuting their arguments." Phil Sandifer 23:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner: Please see WP:CIV. - 00:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry... I'm not sure how to make "That's a complete straw man of my argument that totally ignores what I said" more civil. Humor seemed the optimal method. Phil Sandifer 01:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You could, of course, answer my question, as I asked it on the talk page to the original RFar, on the Workshop page, and here. To boil it down, is it, in fact, your position that web comics are different from other articles for deletion because you account yourself an expert, and hence your opinion of greater value than other peoples'? Geogre 16:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No - I would imagine a subject expert on any subject would be given a wide berth to say, "Um, wait just a second here, this is important," and to be listened to. Webcomics are the dispute in which this has turned viciously ugly and in which the opiniosn of experts are being most inexcusably dismissed. It is far from the only horribly uncivil deletion debate on Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 16:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That's how I think it ought to be too, but that doesn't seem to be how it actually is in practice. Many of the parties in this debate (especially among those who think Aaron did nothing wrong) seem to be saying that experts carry no extra weight, get no benefit of the doubt, but have to prove things in detail when they assert them, every single time, just like Joe Random Editor is expected to when he's talking about something he doesn't know anything about. All opinions about a subject are not, in my view, equal. The well informed ones ought to be worth more when its domain knowlege that is in question. (rather than the opinions of those with the most edits...) And as I've asserted before, I think that's bad for the long term growth of the encyclopedia. In my trawling around reading things, I have noticed experts in other fields also pointing this out. How long has it been this way? ++Lar 17:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's always been that way and should generally always be that way in content issues - although there's at times a place for an expert to use their own research as a source for something. (Which is to say, there is a point at which NOR should be IARed). I continue to think it's absurd to demand experts be able to produce citations in five days or see the article nuked, and that it's absurd to treat experts as less credible than people who know nothing - both things that this discussion has moved towards. Phil Sandifer 17:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but Wikipedia is not peer reviewed and does not have expert editors vs. little people. Yes, you do have to establish yourself every time. Yes, deliberations are open to people who are not "experts." As I have said elsewhere, we have to rely solely upon our words to sway voters, not our claims about ourselves. Actual experts really shouldn't be so afraid of that, either. The whinging here seems to be a commonplace. The fact is that "experts" on web comics are, necessarily, web comic lovers. I take the position that web comics should not be represented at all, any more than any forum or website should, unless they have affected the world beyond their readers and been referred to by other media. This neither elevates nor relegates web comics. Instead, it insists that Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information, and we don't take one web comic referring to another as a "reference work," and so I absolutely disagree with "experts" on pop culture getting to determine their inclusion, since that would result, 100% of the time, in inclusion. However, you have confirmed that your gripe is that you weren't being honored, that articles were being listed for deletion, and that you are seeking an RFar to settle a deletion policy dispute. That's not what ArbCom is supposed to do. Geogre 18:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think WP:WORLD (which points out that the world does not revolve around any particular editor) has some bearing here, but as a converse. For many valuable experts the world does NOT revolve around Wikipedia! They are terrifically busy, and have a choice of where to devote their free time. Repeatedly providing bonafides or repeatedly defending the same article, or assertion, may be perceived by them as a waste of their time, and thus they will choose not to participate, and further, will start commenting about Wikipedia negatively. While it's reasonable to ask for sources and cites in article space, and even reasonable to ask for bonafides, the first time, in an AfD debate, dismissing an expert comment with "user has 29 edits" is wrong. True, webcomics are pop culture, and are small potatoes compared to other more weighty topics, and ArbCom isn't being asked to rule on the general principle of treating experts with respect (nor should it be asked), but I nevertheless think Aaron needs to be admonished about this (with some enforcement teeth, there currently are none), as it is a bad precedent to leave standing, especially if it starts getting extended to other areas. We should not be chasing experts away, and we should not delude ourselves into thinking that all input is equally valid. IMHO. (Tangentially: I must apologise... I have misjudged you, Geogre, I had failed to WP:AGF, I had mentally pigeonholed you as something of a reactionary foamer, and I am sorry. I got a chance to read your user page and I realised there is a lot of very profound and thoughtful work there on what makes a subject notable, and how to comport oneself in AfD discussions, and most importantly, on what makes an article good... I think if you think about this matter with less regard to the personalities involved and more about the issues, you will realise that maybe I have a valid point about how Aaron comported himself, and about how we need to welcome experts rather than belittle them. for experts can make an article good much faster than those that know nothing about the topic. WP is an experience, you cannot separate articlespace from projectspace, and belittling experts in AfD debates will not endear them to WP, the experience, or motivate them to work on articles, which after all is the goal, right? To build the greatest encyclopedia man has ever known...) ++Lar 17:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No one, "experts" or otherwise, should be "belittled". Aaron is not without blame, and this ruling currently recognizes that. The edit count annotations, whether good or bad, are a common practice. They have been used by many editors on many AfD's (as well as other places), for a long time. They can be used to "belittle" and even when not, they can still be construed as "belittling", especially by new editors. All that is unfortunate, and argues against the practice. However such annotations can also be very helpful to the closing AfD admin in weighing opinions appropriately. And when I see something like "user has 29 edits" I read it to mean exactly that and nothing more. I certainly don't read it as an attempt to denigrate (though of course it might be). As I've said before this whole expert thing is a can of worms. The reasons are several, not the least of which is that there is no way one can be sure of the identity of any editor let alone whether they are an "expert". Many people might consider me to be an "expert" in certain areas (I have a PhD, I've taught at the university level, I've given talks and published papers in reputable peer reviewed journals) but I don't expect, nor want to be, treated differently than any other editor. I think the level of respect any editor should have for me should be based on my body of edits, and nothing more. In fact as senility begins to set in, they should probably judge me more and more by my more recent edits, after all, as it says on my user page "C.V.": "Once considered talented". — Paul August ☎ 19:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Lar, I guess, for the compliment (but it was a bit alloyed). Paul and I have similar "credentials," and there are other Ph.D.'s running around the site as well. I agree, further, that no one should be belittled, but noting when an account has few edits does have a legitimate, non-hostile purpose. Let's put it this way: It's no longer a secret that my specialty is 18th century British literature. Let's say that I went to C18-L after writing an article on Hodge, the cat of Samuel Johnson's. If it went to AfD, I could get upset and tell the C18-L people that Wikipedia was "suppressing" articles and information on pets of the famous. The people who would come to vote in the discussion would be highly, highly qualified folks -- all of them either doctoral candidates or professors of 18th century literature. However, they wouldn't know anything about Wikipedia. They'd know their subject, but not us. The few edit labels are supposed to help us figure out when people have a lot of experience with Wikipedia. Whether they know the subject or not is somewhat irrelevant: we want experts to be editors, and we want them to be welcome, but their point of view on what should and should not be in Wikipedia may be way off base and may be biased by the way that the debate was presented to them. The label isn't supposed to say, "You newbie, you're worthless!" It's supposed to say, "This person has little experience, based on edits, with Wikipedia." (BTW, with Hodge the cat, I have favored deletion, but someone wrote a very clever article on him, more or less to spite me, I think. I like Hodge, and it's a great article, but he should be discussed with Johnson rather than as a star of literature and life.) More to the point, expertise is something that can help assess whether the fact claims of an article are true or not, but not really, I think, the importance or centrality of a topic. If I tell you that Aphra Behn was not against slavery, you should probably believe me. If I tell you that Aphra Behn is more important than Charlotte Bronte, you should no more believe me than the next person. What I suspect is that expertise is being used here to suggest that the in/out decision must be left to the "experts." Experts are experts on fact and truth, but not really Wikipedia and the importance of a topic to Wikipedia. Geogre 18:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you tell me that Aphra Behn is more important than Charlotte Bronte (assuming she's C18L too, I'll pretend I have no idea and, for the purposes of this discussion, won't follow the links to see for myself), and you've already established your C18-L bonafides (regardless of how many edits you have here, that's irrelevant to evaluating notability once you know what it is), I AM going to take your word for it, way more so than if Joe Random Editor says so. I believe that IS the correct thing to do. If someone was proposing that a templatebox be added to AfD discussions that gave links to distilled (i.e. SHORT and TO THE POINT... coming up to speed on Wikipedia-culture is a big research project as it stands now, there are a lot of things to read, and I certainly won't claim to being all the way "up to speed") consensus on how to make a case for notability here and how to establish bonafides, I'd be all for that. But that's not what happened here. What happened in this AfD was that Aaron's actions gave the appearance (whether done in good faith or not, the appearance still stands) of callous disregard for opinions of anyone other than insiders, and his statements surrounding this AfD, coupled with Dragonfiend's statements (all as already detailed in the evidence), give the appearance (whether done in good faith or not, the appearance still stands) of a campaign against webcomics, and what seems to be the outcome pending certification in this arbitration is that he be told not to do it again, with absolutely no enforcement teeth, in the face of his statements that he has no intention of caring or heeding what ArbCom says. I call BS. ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's take a step back, as there is some history you should know about. Aaron has been interested in deletion standards since he got to Wikipedia, or at least since I became aware of him on Wikipedia. He has been systematic about it. When a new category arises, whether those are sprite comics or web comics or blogs or forums, he tries to work out a project page for quantifying include/exclude decisions. Now me, I'm not one of those. I despair of anything concrete coming out of that endeavor and have suspicions about the way that such criteria will be used, but I agree essentially with the impulse. The blogs are clear examples of a category of subject where few people think there is inherent usefulness. Sprite comics are much the same. Forums are harder, and web comics are very hard. This is because there are some long time Wikipedians who are fans of these things. Aaron wanted to get a guide anyway, and he plunged on heedless of who was on the other side. I don't think he was on a campaign against web comics. I think he was on a campaign to find a system for determining which ones, if any, should be allowed. I don't want to put words into his keyboard, but that's the impression I get. When this stuff turned acrimonious, he attempted a poll on criteria as part of WP:WEB. Snowspinner took part in that. Then this went to RFar, without the usual attempt at mediation or comment, and the stakes got raised. I had previously been unaware of the WP:WEB debate, myself. Speaking only for myself, I suspect that Snowspinner has worked to have personal preference rather than community assessment. AfD may expose an article to the ignorant and unwashed, but it's the system we have. Those non-experts, non-fans, non-viewers of web comics are, in a sense, the people who use Wikipedia to look things up. I feel like we need to be dispassionate about it. For me alone, I'd say that we should treat web comics like web forums and web sites: they need to have an effect beyond their own fans. This will make some in, and it will make some very good web comics out. If our mission were to preserve all information, this would be a crime, but that's not what we do: we're a tertiary source of information. We're supposed to write about nothing that isn't being written about by other, verifiable, objective sources, and getting into experts who rank above outside references invites us to allow original research (which is one of those WP:NOT things). Most of all, I object to the way this whole thing has gone out of process. Geogre 02:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if holding a bunch of (x)fD for x that are related to topic y is the right way to determine what the right level of coverage for y actually is. You say " Those non-experts, non-fans, non-viewers of web comics are, in a sense, the people who use Wikipedia to look things up." but I don't think that's true at all. The people who comment in AfD discussions are aren't anywhere close to a cross section of the readership. They're self selected. The regulars that comment do it (I perceive) because they are deep into the mechanics of WP, and therefore are quite a bit differently distributed, I suspect, than average seekers of information, and the armies of interested partisans that come in because of calls to arms aren't representative readers either. But this is way off topic for this RfAr and more suited to the general deletion reform discussions I suspect. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[6] - again, Aaron makes clear how seriosuly he takes the admonishment by joking about it. He's said multiple times he's not going to take a mere admonishment seriously, in fact. Phil Sandifer 17:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why do you think he was joking? Nandesuka 17:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Because I do no think he considers himself a deletionist vandal? Phil Sandifer 17:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

So? Again: what does his love/honor/reverence for your position have to do with anything? Since when do we suggest that someone's disagreeing with the process is evidence for the process? This looks like another veiled personal attack/taunting-by-tattling. Geogre 18:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Snowspinner and "people who know nothing"

I believe referring to other Wikipedia editors as "people who know nothing" [7] ought to be avoided. -- Dragonfiend 17:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How does this arbitrate

The purpose of an arbitration remedy is to stop the problems identified in the findings of fact from recurring. The findings of fact verge on the painfully trivial. The remedies say "yeah, so play nicely". That can't be enforced, even with the Might of the Arbitrators behind it (or there'd be no arbitrators). Why did this need any kind of arbitration, and what do the Arbitrators (and the parties) think is going to be achieved by this? Perhaps you all just wanted a blood-letting. Please confine such activities to the privacy of your own homes in future. -Splash^talk 23:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been fairly explicit about my dislike of this ruling for basically these reasons. Phil Sandifer 00:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

To me it affirms that this thing should never have gone to ArbCom in the first place. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I imagine the arbcom would have, in this case, closed without findings. I take this to mean "This is bad. Not quite so bad that we're going to bust heads, but bad, and you all should make damn certain not to let it get worse." Phil Sandifer 15:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need the ArbCom to tell us that? Anyway, I am personally quite satisfied that none of the remedies here involve sanctions against users who I all consider to be good and responsible. That includes you Snowspinner, I consider you to be a good and responsible contributor. Sometimes a bit too bold for my tastes, but in general a good faith contributor. I do think that a request for mediation or comment would have had a good chance of solving the problem before the ArbCom got invloved. Arbitration cases have a tendency to bring about hard feelings and the worst in people, something which is not always true of RFC and RFM. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason the findings of fact verge on the painfully trivial is that the complaints brought by the parties were painfully trivial. That they coupled their trivial complaints with requests for heavyhanded and unreasonable relief does not give those complaints any more gravitas. This RFArb is a shining example of why we have a general principal that other forms of mediation should be tried before arbitration. The only thing this arbitration accomplished was to stir up ill will. Please, please, please, Snowspinner - next time, try mediation or an RFC before trying to get people punished for the crime of disagreeing with you. Nandesuka 15:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The findings of fact cannot be described as trivial, whether painfully so or otherwise. That claim is simply not borne out by a reading of those findings. That an editor described an AfD as "tainted", a fellow Wikipedian as "participating in the mugging of an AfD", that he attempted to change longstanding policy several time without proper discussion and responded with incivility, and that dismissed all editors supporting an opposing point of view as sock pupppets. That another editor in the dispute acted with incivility, for which he apologised in the course of the discussion. They're not hanging offences, but they're not trivial; nor do any of the parties to the case take them as trivial. I often disagree with Aaron's opinions and have serious doubts about his actions, but I admire his forthright recognition of his faults and expression of serious contrition. This is not a trivial matter for any of us. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I had in mind by "trivial" the notion that, given the series of diffs that any reasonably competent editor could have constructed, there is nothing contributed to them by the findings of fact: they merely make a trivial regurgitation of them. It didn't need arbitration to say what the findings of fact say, unless, as I said, people just wanted to have a shout about it. It is of course not trivial in the manner that Tony observes; but as he amply demonstrates, it doesn't take arbitration to reach those conclusions. -Splash^talk 03:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

A regurgitation is the best form of finding of fact. The committee didn't need to get its skrying glass out and try to decide what people were thinking, it just had to--as you say--regurgitate the facts from the cited edits. And really, I think you'd be surprised at how many obvious facts are ignored until they are presented to arcom. In the maoririder case, it took an arbitration discussion before one single editor on Wikipedis other than myself recognised that (1) maoririder had made clear efforts and improved over the course of time,(2) maoririder's sock puppetry was not an attempt to evade blocks. How did I get those fact accepted? By literally typing in the words and links to edits and seeing arbcom regurgitate those words. That's how it's done. That'sd how we establish facts at an arbcom case, and believe me, it's bloody hard work. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On admonishment

While I have at times been unhappy with these proceedings, and in particular with the distance with which the Arbitration Commitee for the most part held itself, this is the process we have. It has ended focused in the majority upon my behaviors, so I'll only address those decisions that relate to me.

• I accept without prevarication that I have been uncivil and at times (suprisingly not raised here) verged on personal attack. No justification for this can occur. Not only do I withdraw from any previous acts of incivilty, I will take steps to ensure that I do not repeat them.

• I accept that some new members of the community were affronted by the actions I took during the Checkerboard Nightmare AfD, and in particular the use of "OMFG" was regrettable. I am now aware of a neutrally-worded template that I will use in the future.

(This has just been the warm-up.)

• I had, for reasons unclear to me, grotesquely misinterpreted the admonishment. It clearly says "respectful of consensus in creating and altering Wikipedia policy" and is thus refering to my editing of deletion policy. I was reading this as referring to WP:WEB, a guideline. I have made several dismissive statements based upon this error, and I now withdraw those.

• I accept fully that my edits to deletion policy in October were untenable. In using uncivil or misleading edit summaries, and by knowingly making aggressive and confrontational edits to the main page with limited use of talk, I was disrespectful.

• I believed that the November edits were within the bounds of "bold but allowed," if not harmonious. I accept that the Arbitration Commitee does not find this to be the case, and would ask that they engage me futher on these edits. Clearly it is in the best interests of Wikipedia for those editors who are interested in creating policy to be equipped with the tools to do so.

• I can only say that I have acted in good faith for all but three minutes of my time here. I am deeply passionate about the project, and have strong views about the best way forward for it. I am committed to ensuring that we operate in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding. That I have allowed this commitment and passion to interfere with these is something I will do my best not to repeat.

• I'd like to thank everyone whose taken the time and effort to contribute, and I can only ask that they continue to devote the energy to my continuing improvement as a wikipedian.

brenneman^(t)(c) 02:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Aaron for the above. Your statement is apt and very welcome. I look forward to very many positive contributions from you in the future. Paul August ☎ 04:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, I am glad that you have taken your admonishment to heart. It serves all of us well to have to eat a little humble pie every now and then, and keeps us from believing that we are perfect. Although I'm sure that this was painful for you, I'm also confident that it will make you a better editor.

Likewise, I'm also relieved that the unreasonable sanctions asked for by some parties have been utterly rejected. Just as it is good for serious, credible claims to be taken with gravity, it is important that inconsequential, trumped up claims be given short shrift. And on another note, it's superb that the attempts to turn this RfArb into a ruling on policy have been so thoroughly rebuffed. It was, in my opinion, inappropriate for such attempts to be made, and I think the final ruling demonstrates that. Thanks to the Arbcom for staying on target. Nandesuka 05:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

On Nandesuka's repeated statements about "inconsequential, trumped up claims", I have performed my own investigation and produced the results here on my talk page. I don't expect Nandesuka to agree with my analysis, but I think it shows that an examination of the facts gives a very different picture to that repeatedly portrayed, without the benefit of a similar analysis, by Nandesuka. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony and I do indeed agree to disagree on this issue. The reason that I don't feel the need to provide a lot of text explaining it is that first, much of that analysis is on the Workshop page, and secondly, I view the Arbcom's absolute rejection of most the heavyhanded proposals for relief requested by Tony and Snowspinner as prima facie evidence that those claims were unreasonable.

Also, Tony, while I have repeatedly pointed out that most of your requests for relief were unreasonable, and without merit, I only descibed your claims as "inconsequential, trumped up" once, not "repeatedly." Inaccuracies of this sort are troubling. Please try to be more careful in the future. Nandesuka 17:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)