Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | Webcomics

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.

During the course of refactoring this page, some proposals have been withdrawn and moved to /Withdrawn.

1 Motions and requests by the parties
2 Proposed temporary injunctions
- 2.1 Template
3 Proposed final decision

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Template

1) Enter proposal here

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Request for Clarification as to scope of Arbitration

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)

[edit] Meatpuppets

Long debate moved to /Meatpuppets.

[edit] Motion to add User:Jtkiefer to the listed defendants

Long debate moved to /Jtkiefer during refactoring.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1) Enter proposal here

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Wikipedia and deletion

Proposed principles 1 and 1.1 withdrawn

[edit] 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:

Standard principle, yes, and I believe it applies to the case. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, no question about this one. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

A bit of boilerplate from Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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)
Please consider the actions of all parties in light of this principle; it did not appear to be a one-sided failing. --66.101.59.18 04:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

(as added without comment by Mindspillage)

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

I agree with this one, it's definitely agreed that administrators (as with arbitrators and bureaucrats) should use their judgement when and where needed and should be able to use their judgement. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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. See Please do not bite the newcomers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I more or less agree with the sentiment, but not entirely with the wording. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}; what's there now was just yanked from the guideline page. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, blah. I'm not going to argue with the guideline page, not in this case, at least. :) Kelly Martin (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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. This is not really a reflection on Aaron, because hanging around on AfD seems to do that to everyone sooner or later. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The simple fact is that, when it comes to new editors, I'm full to the brim with Wikilove.
1. I've prepared a partial list at User:Aaron_Brenneman/Scratch#I.27m_a_kitten with diffs showing my interactions with fresh editors. I've also been patien and kind to users who requested to have me deleted (Davy Blue), and who placed digg articles soliciting people to come to my user page and abuse me (Treelovinhippie).
2. I stand be my listing of the number of edits fully. Well, actually the "76 marked as minor" was probably uncalled for. However, on no occasion do I say "is a sock". Compare this to Bearcat 's remarks on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Bloggers.
3. The header box I placed was 95% good oil. There is no doubt that the line "OMFG don't delete, are you kidding." was ill-advised, and in retrospect I wish that I had chosen my words more carefully. I know that full text of it is available elsewhere, but I'd like to reproduce it here:
  
  If you're here because of a websnark posting:
  Please understand that this is not a vote, this is a discussion. Please refer to WP:SOCK. Multiple comments by very new users to the effect of "OMFG don't delete, are you kidding?" that fail to provide evidence per WP:CITE and WP:V are highly likely to be discounted by the closing administrator. Many Wikipedians have been known to react unfavourably to attempts to alter the course of a nomination in this manner, and may in fact recommend to delete based upon it. If you wish to prevent this comic being deleted, the way to do so is to provide verifiable evidence.
4. Responding to sections 3.2.15 Biting the newbies and 3.2.7 Dismissing (etc)
  1. Linked there are: "invasion" [1], "contaminated" [2], "foaming" [3], "mugging" [4] (chronological order)
  2. Not one of these comments appeared on an AfD or the talk pages of any of the new users in question. Three occurred on the talk page of the other subject of the other subject of this arbitration. While all edits to wikipedia are "public property", tradionally great latitude is given to the manner in which we express ourselves on talk. As such I will only respond to the "invasion" comment on WP:WEB.
  3. This comment was made at 05:26 21 November. Over 70% of the contributors as at that time were later discounted by the closing admin. I note that I did use the term "sockpuppet" there, a term that I had not applied to any users on the debate. Regardless of the civilty of this, there was no indication that these were multiple incarnations of one user as opposed to multiple new users, so this was carelessly said on my part. I generally use great caution with these terms as I find labels to be a poor substitute for thought, and regret that I did not exercise that caution in this instance.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (updated 00:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

Comment by others:

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)
Tony is absolutely right. Historically, a significant percentage of newcomers cut their policy teeth in AfD: I myself picked up the basics of our policy there. Despite the fact that it attracts newcomers like moths to a flame, it remains what one editor has termed "a cesspool of bitterness and bile". It strikes me that our treatment of newcomers in general is unhealthy at best. – Clockwork Soul 06:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. Is AfD unpleasant? It depends. Did the newbie come there because his/her inappropriate article was nominated, or because he/she saw an inappropriate article? My first interaction was when I saw Drexel Shaft -- an article that says this is what happens to Drexel students. That wasn't encyclopedic, so I listed it. If folks have misunderstandings about what is and is not appropriate for Wikipedia and write an article, they themselves are in charge of reading our policies and reading our articles. If, after the welcome page, after the sandbox, after the Welcome they get, they still think that the best thing is to write an article about their favorite forum in their hometown and find it on AfD, it isn't that Wikipedia has failed to give guidance. After this, there is yet another option: finding an article on AfD, the authors can respond by trying to understand the policies or by arguing that what they wrote is really, really coooooowel. If the former, most voters will not bite. People will often explain policy. If the latter, the deliberators might well get snarky and belligerant. Since, at that point, the author has to have missed about six different ways to find out policy, I'm not sure that "hostile" deliberators are so blameworthy. Finally, suppose that a vanity article or a "favorite forum" or "favorite web comic" article gets in. Is that person going to be a good, longtime editor? We can check the histories, but most such authors wander off. They wander off because they're not interested in Wikipedia, and if they were interested in Wikipedia, they'd have already had a sense of what an appropriate article is. I don't mean to be the only "tough love" person, or elitist, or whatever it is that I'm going to be assumed to be, but let's not get into such a pity party that we forget that the authors have at least skated the line to get their articles on AfD. Geogre 13:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

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:

I would propose changing the end of this "than the statistics or the newness of the person making the case." Phil Sandifer
I'm struggling to connect the heading here to the discussion. As it stands, I'm proposing that this be merged to 3.1.7 opinion on specialist subjects. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Useful clarification of the process of policy-formation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Opinion on specialist subjects

6) When considering an article as a candidate for deletion, well-supported and well-stated opinions based on verifiable evidence, regardless of source, should not be dismissed without good reason, although opinions are always subject to challenge on reasonable grounds.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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)
Hm. I have to dig through the page history to remember what the original version of this even looked like; I do not support the most recent previous version. I maintain that we cannot go by claims of expertise alone with the Wikipedia editing model, that expertise gives a toolbox with which to make better arguments but not the ability to have your statements stand without producing those better arguments. I don't believe it is unreasonable to expect a genuine expert in a subject to produce a convincing statement within a five day deadline. And any such convincing statement ought to be weighed for what it is worth regardless of who makes it. Note that this is compatible with and in fact requires that AfD is not treated strictly like a vote—but whether this is done properly is another can of worms. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I like Mindspillage's amendment because it rightly removes the issue from its surrounding baggage of the "expert opinion" argument. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd propose that this be ammended to more strongly reflect the requirements of WP:NPOV as supported by WP:V and WP:CITE.
1. A "reaonable ground" to dismiss includes failure to produce supporting evidence from reputable independant sources. Anything that weakens the burden to cite is very very bad, and should be avoided at all costs.
2. An argument is made above (in 3.1.6 Consensus) that experts should be given a "free pass" on citations due to the time pressures of AfD. Leaving aside the thorny problem of determination of expertice, this argument also fails to take into account the realities of deletion, particularly deletion review. If an expert is unable to provide citations in a timely manner for whatever reason and an article is deleted, producing this evidence at some later stage on W:DRV is an almost free-pass to restoration and re-listing on AfD.
3. Thus this should be re-cast as When considering an article on a specialist subject as a candidate for deletion, the opinions of established, well qualified, independent experts on the subject must meet the same verifiabilty standards as those of lay contributors.
4. Response to Snowspinner - If Snowspinner would like to present examples of articles that were deleted but that were unable to be restored or relisted when sources were cited, that would make his case defensible. I will endavour to produce a list of articles that were restored via AfD when new information was presented, see User:Aaron_Brenneman/Scratch#WP:DRV_reversals.
5. Further thoughts - This situation you've described rests on several assumptions.
  - That an article on AfD is heading for deletion based upon failure of people to WP:CITE.
  - That there does exist some reference that an expert will be able to produce in some frame of time greater than five days.

If this expert to simply state the fact without citing, and deny anyone who is unconvinced right of response, the door is opened not only to bad faith but to simple errors of misquotes, misrememberings, and unintentional hyperbole. Expert can make mistakes too.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC) (Updated 05:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

I strongly disagree with this - it is not reasonable to hold comments made in a debate with a firm five day deadline to the same standards of verifiability and citation to which we hold article content. In article editing, if an expert is slow in getting their source, the article sits in a lousy form for six days. In AfD, the article is deleted and the expert can be banned for recreating it. (And will be - there are admins who would be on that like a ton of bricks, and Aaron knows it) It's simply not reasonable to shift the burden of proof to the keep side while imposing strict standards of proof - at least not on a time limit and with hard-to-reverse decisions. Phil Sandifer 01:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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)
Response to Tony: I have no faith in common sense, because I do not believe it exists. Here's a little quote to illustrate my views: They found a more convenient method of being defiant without any insight, viz., the appeal to common sense. It is indeed a great gift of heaven to possess right or (as they now call it) plain common sense. But this common sense must be shown in deeds by well-considered and reasonable thoughts and words, not by appealing to it as an oracle when no rational justification of oneself can be advanced... Seen in a clear light, it is but an appeal to the opinion of the multitude, of whose applause the philosopher is ashamed, while the popular charlatan glories and confides in it. (Immanuel Kant. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics). The terms I want defined are being thrown around as if we all knew exactly what was meant by them; I suggest that we do not. No rati0onal debate can occour without first defining your terms. As you have felt free to describe me as being "far too lawyerly", I feel equally free to say that I feel you are being far to vague. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I want to come back to this accusation of being overly lawyerly to try to demonstrate why I think it is important to define terms. I also want to attempt to demonstrate how this relates to this specific case. I will focus on my own "area of expertise", which is, roughly speaking, English-language literature in the modernist tradition. Now, if we limit ourselves to the academic field, an "expert" in this area might be an undergrad student, a Masters student, A PhD student, a newly graduated PhD, a PhD with some teaching and/or publishing history, an experienced lecturer, a professor who has a long history of presenting and publishing papers and book-length studies,this last is really a true authority. It is easy to see that there are varying degrees and types of expertise involved here. As we move up the academic scale, the "expert" becomes more "well-qualified" and "established" in that their views and expertise becomes increasingly recognised and valued by their peer group. Those below, say, the level of "experienced lecturer" are highly unlikely to be viewed as being an established authority on the subject by that same peer group. As for independence, even the most highly respected authority is likely to be seen as less independent when they are commenting on areas of the field in which they have made a large personal investment.

To take a specific example, Charles Bernstein is a highly respected academic, critic and poet who was one of the leading members of the group known as the L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poets and co-founder of L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E Magazine. Now, much as I personally respect Bernstein, if he were to make a claim that the L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poets were the single most important group of 20th century writers, I would find it hard to credit his independence for the purposes of that claim. I would also be concerned if he cited himself as an expert in any articles he edited.

Now, if Bernstein is unlikely to come along and edit here, but if he did, he would need to gain expertise in our policies and procedures, especially things like WP:CITE, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, deletion policy, the dispute resolution process, plus facts of Wiki life like "If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, do not submit it." and the fact that your opinions are likely to be questioned with equal vigour. He would also need to learn the differences between his normal writing style and encyclopaedic style. All of those take time, and it is for this reason that a well-read, literate non-expert with a deep understanding of how things work here will often be a better contributor, a better "expert", than an authority like Bernstein.

If we return to the case in hand, I think we can accept that as a PhD student who is dealing with Webcomics as a part of his studies, Snowspinner has some expertise. He is on the way to being well-qualified but has insufficient teaching and publishing experience behind him to have gained the status of an established authority. It could also be argued that his independence is called into question, however slightly, when he comments on Web sites to which he has contributed. I think we can further accept that Snowspinner is an experienced editor who understands Wikipedia policy and the facts of Wikipedia life. Given these assumptions, I fail to see how his expert opinion is above question. The argumentum ad populum view that its validity is enhanced because many accepted it is a fallacy and should be simply discounted.

Now, let us assume or imagine that Snowspinner did, in fact, provide a "testable rationale" and that Aaron was wrong (note that this is put forward as a hypothetical to advance an argument). I would submit that at least three possible interpretations would be available. 1) Aaron does not understand the term "testable rationale". 1) Aaron understands the term but failed to see the testability of Snowspinner's rationale. 3) Aaron understood everything but chose to act in bad faith.

It seems to me that this so-called "finding of fact" is, in reality, a bundle of assumptions. It assumes that Snowspinner is a "established, well qualified, independent expert". By attempting to define these terms, I believe I have demosntrated that there is reasonable cause to question this assumption. It further assumes that Snowspinner provided a testable rationale. We would need to define this term in order to evaluate the validity of this assumption. Finally, it assumes bad faith as the sole motivation for Aaron's actions. This assumption of bad faith is, at best, unproven. I suspect it is unprovable. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any good reason to bestow on any editor special status, beyond what their body of edits entail. This whole business of "experts" is a can-of-worms. Paul August ☎ 22:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
There isn't much to say after Filiocht's demonstration (it was masterful), but, in the agony of scrutiny that has come up after all the CNN exposure of Wikipedia, I found myself having to defend Wikipedia in that old game: let's compare it to Britanica. My interlocutor pointed out that the "Death" article in EB is written by Kuhbler-Ros, who is an expert, while the Wikipedia article was edited by people with silly screen names. My counter was that the original author of the Wikipedia entry was better, because she or he had read Kuhbler-Ross as well as the other experts who disagree with her, that our article was stronger for not being the work of a high-profile participant in an ongoing scholarly polemic. I was stretching the case, but the point is that experts bring in more than expertise: they bring in polemics and the limitations of point of view, while humble observers and reporters will synthesize points of view and stay out of the fray. Geogre 03:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed with Geogre and Filiocht, but I feel that if someone is an "expert", then an editor would be wise to treat his or her opinions with more value, but only if there is some kind of evidence that they are, in fact, an expert.--Sean|Bla ck 02:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia

7 withdrawn and merged with 15, producing 15.1

[edit] 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:

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:

[edit] Looking for proposed principle 9?

Proposed principle 9 never existed. Principle 10 was inserted after principle 8 at 02:24-02:25 UTC on 7th December.

[edit] Civility

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, I believe the principle applies. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think this is applicable to all parties in the very heated discussion on article deletion that forms the center of this case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm unclear as to what discussion that is being refered to in Comment by parties #1 above. If Tony could correct that ambiguity, than I could provide diffs that allowed me to present my views of the discussion you are refering to. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Straight from precedents, and quite relevant. -- SCZenz 02:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
While this is obviously important, there needs to be a careful consideration of what incivility/no personal attacks represent in this case. Specifically:

Does attacking someone's judgement constitute a personal attack or a legitimate criticism of the trend of someone's actions? (In rather biased terms, is it wrong to call a vandal a vandal?)
Does invokation of incivility guidelines in a case where there is no clear incivility constitute an act of incivility/bad faith?
Does linking to an external site containing incivility to use as evidence in a discussion constitute incivility? What if the intention of the linking is not itself incivil?

Until everyone is on the same page here, it would be hard to apply this principle.--Fangz 07:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This principle is Wikipedia policy. How to apply it is the job of the Arbitration Committee. -- SCZenz 07:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Use of edit summaries in disputes

12 and 12.1, first second drafts, were withdrawn

[edit] Use of html comments in discussion is deprecated

13 withdrawn

[edit] Defend against passion

First draft, "Playing to win", withdrawn

second draft

14.1) Whilst a measure of passion in one's viewpoints regarding Wikipedia is to be expected and encouraged, it is important to avoid extremes: strongly held beliefs do not excuse ignoring consensus, abusing official processes, or alienating other contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties:

Second draft in response to comments. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I propose merge to 3.1.6 Consensus. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 10:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia

first draft, "Wikipedia is for readers", withdrawn

This is a redrafting of 15, merged with 7.

15.1) "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. 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 and the activities of the community must be dedicated to that purpose.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'd tighten up the wording here, but yes, I support this. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I like this. If the committee adopts the principle, someone can tighten up the wording. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Deletion is an emotive issue

First draft, "Deletion is aggressive", withdrawn.

Second draft

16.1) Deletion of content that someone contributed, although frequently necessary, has to be understood as something that may offend people. The principles of civility and assuming good faith apply to all parties in discussion of deletion and deletion policy, in the light of the potential for offense.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Expresses the principle in a more neutral manner. Something needs to be done about some of the more extreme behavior on AfD (which is not a one-sided thing) and a lot of this can be just taking things down a notch in recognition of the genuinely raw feelings that deletion proposals can occasion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
No reaon to state this. WP:CIV and WP:AGF should operate all the time, and not any more in special spots. Are there are areas where we'd accept that CIV and AGF operated less? Of coure not. This is in effect a recasting of the withdrawn Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop#Wikipedia_and_deletion. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others

There is nothing in this principle that does not also apply, in every way, to every act of editing done on Wikipedia. Therefore, I think this proposed finding of fact is a complete no-op. Nandesuka 16:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

More boilerplate from precedents, if I recall correctly. I think this is at the heart of the case. 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I in fact did post a link to WP:WEB at the village pump, diff to be provided. It's also worth noting that the last time I directed Tito to a discussion (the Able Baker AfD) he took a position opposite to mine. These are all editors that I respect, and am more than willing to accept it if their views run counter to mine and are carefully explained. I propose that this section be withdrawn and moved to the subpage. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (Updated 10:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)_

Comment by others:

The arbitrators should note that the original context of this finding of fact is that it was included in an attempt to state that it was improper to contact editors on their talk pages to let them know that a discussion was occurring. Tony openly indicated that the relevance of this item was because Aaron's contact a small number of editors, in public, on their talk pages was, in his opinion, "packing the debate." While the statement as it stands now is perfectly motherhood-and-apple-pie, the assumption of bad faith that lead to its original inclusion in this page (rather than some other, equally important principle, such as "collegiality"), gives context to the discussion below. Therefore I incorporate by reference the original edit in which Tony explains his specific reasons for including this item: [5]. Nandesuka 12:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
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. (reply to original justification accusing Aaron, since removed by Tony) Nandesuka 06:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No, I really do need to think about this. I want to make sure I avoid even the appearance of impropriety, and if there's now a consensus that talking to other editors on their talk page is improper and dangerous, maybe I better avoid doing so. I mean, I hadn't heard of any such consensus, but certainly you've implied it in a number of your points. So, I'll avoid using the wiki entirely for this. Perhaps I'll just mention it on IRC — normally, I believe that it's better if people use the wiki, instead of out of band methods, but if avoiding the wiki is the best way to avoid being accused of "packing the debate", well, one can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, right? (reply to [6], since removed by Tony.)Nandesuka 12:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe that your characterization of an editor alerting other editors of a topic of interest to them as deserving of censure, your apparently fabricated characterization of those editors as "mates" (where did that come from? I'm Aaron's mate to the exact same extent that I am your mate), and the fact that you apparently can't restrain yourself from admittedly subdued personal attacks on this very page ("not known for their evenhanded approach to article inclusion"? Huh?) contravenes your claim that you "don't have a problem with people talking about interesting stuff on web pages." You are suggesting that a Wikipedia editor should not talk, in public, with other editors. That is one of the more outlandish things I've ever heard, and I hope you will abandon this very, very strange line of argument. What "suggests an attempt to pack a debate" is certainly not Aaron talking to other editors in public. What "suggests an attempt to pack a debate" is User:Tony Sidaway, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop. (reply to [7], since removed by Tony) Nandesuka 04:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
As a note, Aaron Brenneman did post the policy proposal to the Village Pump way back on 2 November 2005. This doesn't appear to be the behavior of one trying to pack a debate. – Clockwork Soul 07:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

18) Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy and avoid personal attacks. Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Aaron Brenneman edits deletion policy

1) First draft was withdrawn

1.1) Second draft was withdrawn

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" [8]. 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~~ words "if in doubt, don't delete", with an edit summary that referred to a discussion elsewhere [9]. 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~~ statement.

Note: altered to correct second removal, with thanks to Paul August. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Now this is the sort of explication that I like to see. A clear, detailed narrative of the facts with diffs illustrating each point. I would object strenously to "paring it down", as SCZenz suggests. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Some significant diffs Fred Bauder 00:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's another [10] that Aaron Brenneman describes as "removing some fluff" Fred Bauder 00:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

An attempt to delineate the bare facts of Aaron Brenneman's conduct. I'll forebear from further comment as I think the diffs do speak for themselves and the arbitrators can make their own minds up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
This amount not to the bare facts, but to some degree of editorializing on Tony's part. I've prepared a blow-by-blow account of the most recent flurry of editing on WP:DP at User:Aaron_Brenneman/Scratch#My_behavior_on_WP:DP. It's lengthy, but shows that, at least on that occasion, none of the parties involved were particularly well behaved. It's instructive that this occasion begins with Tony's changes "without discussion" to a policy page. While I could use a bit more WP:COOL, I'd like all involved to to be held to the same standard. - brenneman^(t)^(c) 06:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
1. I'll also review my behavior on the other occasions mentioned to see how much I've strayed outside the bounds of acceptable behavior. However, as the link to my scratch page shows, edit warring takes up a lot of diffs, particularly when hard-heads like Tony and I are involved. Is there some other way to present this material? - brenneman^(t)^(c) 06:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. An announcement is not a discussion. This change was made without input from other editors at that time.
  2. Rather than those involved further editorialising, can we just let the diffs speak for themselves?
  3. I apologise unreservedly that I underestimated your sensitivity. Is it acceptable to you if I replace it with "particularly when editors as passionate and assertive as Tony and I?" - brenneman ^(t)^(c)
    
    Any doubts I had that this whole mickey-mouse affair was a hatchet-job have been removed by the "finding of fact" signed by two ArbCom members based upon this. Is the implication that I'm alone in questionable editing to policy? Further, the actual edit summary was "removed some fluff from lead paragraph, mostly left controversial sectin alone". Which clearly indicates that I did edit the controversial section, hence mostly. If this is the standard of accuracy and impartiality that I can expect, it will be pretty hard to take any admonishment seriously. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 22:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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)
The sentence: "On 8 November, Aaron Brenneman again removed the section, with an edit summary that referred to a discussion elsewhere [11].", says he again removed the section when in fact he removed just the sentence "If in doubt, don't delete!", not the entire section. Paul August ☎ 18:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Since corrected, with thanks to Tony Sidaway. Paul August ☎ 21:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Tony, please stop applying double standards. In particular, to complain about the use of the word "hard-head" is ludicrous when you are indiscriminately slinging personal attacks such as "cronies" around elsewhere in this document. It is embarassing to watch. Please stop. Nandesuka 13:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Assumptions of bad faith by Aaron Brenneman and Dragonfiend

2) /Withdrawn for now. Handled better in other findings --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomics community opinion

3) First through third drafts withdrawn

fourth draft, merged with 4.

3.3) 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. He 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 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:

I bit the bullet and merged with 4. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Eric Burns' expressed dissatisfaction with Wikipedia and his method of expressing that dissatisfaction do not seem exceptional when looked at in the context of two things: First, that Eric Burns has advocated the position that all webcomics that reach 100 strips should be included in Wikipedia, [12] and secondly, that according to webcomics publisher Joey Manley, Eric Burns has a reputation as someone who deliberately causes trouble: "Eric 'I Aggro Drama' Burns ... has ignited more than a few drama wildfires. ... Sometimes, you can tell that Eric knows it's going to happen, that he's about to 'deliberately' trip the circuits and start the sparks flying."[13] Simply put, it is not at all surprising that a Wikipedia editor that holds views far outside of Wikipedia consensus might become frustrated; if that editor also has a reputation for "drama," it is not at all surprising that his or her frustration is expressed in a dramatic way. -- Dragonfiend 04:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope that you are merely failing to grasp the spirit of the "I aggro drama" comment, and not actually being as viciously and perniciously anti-expert as this comment implies. Phil Sandifer 04:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Eric is involved in a textbook case of a conflict of interest. Pilatus 14:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Pilatus. Which, of course, is not to say that he is doing anything wrong. It's just that his opinion should not be taken as gospel. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
But isn't Snowspinner in the exact same position as Eric Burns? Isn't his position in the webcomics community a conflict of interest in his AfD participation? Particularly when he keeps trying to claim that by somehow being in that community, his opinion is more "correct" than other people's? Zoe (216.234.130.130 21:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

Are you really saying that subject experts are LESS qualified than people who know nothing about the subject? Phil Sandifer 22:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying they're no MORE qualified, if all they do is wave their credentials and don't make any supporting arguments other than "take my word for it". By your logic, only the subjects of biographies should be allowed to edit their pages, and only members of the Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to edit their page (which one of them is trying to claim on the Help Desk mailing list, BTW). Zoe (216.234.130.130 22:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

I think that implication of who can edit is false, and not advancing the argument, and I think "they are no more qualified" is an incorrect view, an expert on a topic ought to be given more credence by default, once their bonafides are established. I'd take Eric Burns' word on what webcomic is notable or not over yours, or Aaron Brennerman's or Dragonfiend's, or Filocht's, or just about anyone else participating in the AfD discussion, or in this RfA discussion, even if he did not provide explicit proof for each assertion, because his bonafides are already established. I think it is critica that Wikipedians need to determine how to make experts more welcome here and how to value their words more. Not "take them as gospel", per se, but tend to not make them jump through the same hoops as Joe Random Editor, when they are talking about stuff in their area, until and unless they have been shown to exhibit a pattern of being wrong. We are not all equally competent to talk about every topic. It was a *good thing* when Nature recently compared Wikipedia to Britannia, favorably, and invited experts to participate. If those experts are required to prove their work, sentence by sentence, when it is attacked by people that know nothing about the topic at all, they are going to give up in disgust rather quickly, and contribute little of value. Granted, that larger issue is NOT the topic of this RfA, it's just an observation, but it ought to be kept in mind. What Aaron did to Eric with his "user has 29 edits" comment was highly unwelcoming, and unnecessary, and gave the appearance of not assuming good faith, and that IS, in my view, topical. 29 edits was a completely irrelevant observation in this context. Unless of course Aaron's goal was to drive off people that actually know something about the topic and encourage them not to edit or participate further. I'd prefer not to think that was the goal, but it certainly seems to have been the outcome. ++Lar 22:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR#The role of expert editors. Also see [14]. Zoe (216.234.130.130 23:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

It's my view that WP:NOR#The role of expert editors applies primarily to article creation, not to discussion of notability in a AfD. Eric Burns is more competent to comment on notability of webcomics than you or I are. If you want to call him on his commentary and ask for backup, for cites because you don't want to take his word for it, that's one thing, but to mark his comment "user has 29 edits" as a way of disparaging it is wrong, in my view. His number of edits is irrelevant to his "expertness". Not sure I see the relevance of the second cite, can you elaborate? That something was withdrawn may well be for reasons of palatabilty, not that the original comment was invalid. I stand behind my remarks in any case. ++Lar 23:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Dragonfiend, what point are you trying to make with the Joey Manley reference? Are you trying to suggest that Eric doesn't have bonafides as an expert? Do you consider Joey Manley an expert on Eric that we need to heed? That screed reads like... well... like a screed, with at least some apparently intended humor value and some apparently intended mockery. I'm not clear here on what is meant by referencing it. Do you dispute that Aaron's tagging of Eric was not really appropriate in this case, or do you think number of edits is the most important criterion for evaluating input? ++Lar 02:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Burns

4) Withdrawn (merged with 3.2 to produce 3.3).

[edit] Dragonfiend and Aaron Brenneman discuss the deletion of some webcomics articles

First draft was withdrawn

second draft

5.1) Aaron Brenneman and Dragonfiend are attempting to improve Wikipedia by deleting a number of articles on webcomics which they believe to be unsuitable. While Checkerboard Nightmare was under discussion at AfD, Brenneman discussed making a second nomination "when passions have cooled a little", describing the process as "pretty contaminated".[15] Dragonfiend compiled a list of webcomics by Alexa rank on her user page, and moved the contents into her user space [16][17] after being advised to do so by Aaron Brenneman because " it does give the appearance of a purge" [18].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Remove loaded wording. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is fine behaviour. When tensions are high it is easy to alienate participants even further. One should let passions settle down. Pilatus 11:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dismissing contrary opinions of outsiders and newcomers

6 was merged with 14, "Biting the newbies", and withdrawn

[edit] Dismissal of AfD results

7) First draft was withdrawn

7.1) Second draft was withdrawn

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.[19] 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" [20]. Brenneman claimed that Snowspinner's arguments "do not have the support of the non-footwear cummunity" [21] , an accusation of sock puppetry against editors supporting Snowspinner in the AfD.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Hm. Useful for seeing Aaron's fundamental disagreement with Snowspinner et al. over interpretation of policy; I note that the closing admin seems to have made a reasonable call here. If he had struck out anyone's comment whose arguments didn't pass muster under his interpretation or tried to close the debate, this would have more teeth. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Stick to the facts. The Committee can make up its own mind on the relevance of this in its deliberations. Was it acceptable so insistently to ignore and deprecate an argument that had apparently met with so much success, referring to those who embraced it as the "footware community" (presumably a reference to sock puppetry)? I've added that latter as a citation in the finding of fact. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I propose this section be merged into 3.1.7 opinion on specialist subjects - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Snowspinner has written, "And AfD consensuses can be wrong." [22] -- Dragonfiend 18:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a striking misrepresentation of my words - I've certainly never advocated throwing out AfD consensus because you don't like it. When I have claimed an AfD consensus is wrong, it is because the consensus clearly disregards expressed and long-standing policies and consensus. I see no way of reasonably claiming this to be the case with Able and Baker. Phil Sandifer 19:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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)
1. Completely disagreeing with the argument is within his rights, and even being dismissive of it. Nobody has to listen. This could at most be a civility issue. -- SCZenz 08:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
There is no way the ArbCom can determine as a matter of fact, what motivations the voters had. It may be bad faith to assume that their motivations were any but the best, it is simply wrong to state as a fact that they couldn't have been otherwise. Paul August ☎ 19:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
It is simply not possible to second-guess motivation. Do do so will often result in an assumption of bad faith. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
As I have said elsewhere, it requires a failure to assume good faith to assume that nominations were a failure to assume good faith. As Kelly Martin says below, "let's play the good faith shuffle." Labelling low edit count voices in an AfD is normal procedure and quite helpful for folks who don't want to be going to contribs on every one of a dozen red-link user names. Geogre 11:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Snowspinner

8) First draft was withdrawn

[edit] Bad faith

9) On October 18, Aaron Brenneman created a sock puppet [23] and performed some vandalism to make a point. When faced with evidence of suspicion, he acted evasively and accused others of wrongdoing. [24] [25] [26] [27]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I've recast this to refer directly to the incident, removing anything that could be interpreted as editorializing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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)

I can't see how being badly behaved is indicative of bad faith. -- SCZenz 08:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

#Isn't assuming bad faith also bad faith, I'd suggest a rewording of this that doesn't assume bad faith while still presenting the relevant information. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually strike that, this is appears to be a bad faith proposal and even after looking over the evidence I am not convinced that Aaron was acting in bad faith. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The IgnoreAllRules incident was without question an incident of bad faith editing. However "a past history of acting in bad faith" indicates a long term problem, something which does not seem to be true in this case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Not only is this irrelevant to the case at hand, but this was a one time event, for which Aaron Brenneman his very publicly acknowledged and apologized. There is no pattern here. – Clockwork Soul 18:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
This was a very unfortunate decision by Aaron, but it's completely irrelevant to the case at hand.--Sean|Bla ck 02:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree that this is irrelevant and recommend withdrawal. 08:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filiocht (talk • contribs).

[edit] 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:

Let's all do the Good Faith Shuffle! Seriously, this serves no purpose, especially in light of some comments above about how the ArbCom is not entitled to make any determination about the motives of editors. Either we are, or we aren't, but I don't see how this serves any useful purpose to include, except to make some people feel better about themselves. The ArbCom is not your mother; it's not our job to make you feel good. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
In response to SCZenz: more respectful disagreement. This should be the default assumption; if true it shouldn't need to be stated, only in its absence is it needed to mention here. And even then better if at all possible to speak of actions that help or hurt rather than motivation. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I'll go with Kelly on this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

In reply to Kelly Martin, with great respect, I disagree with you. If there is no evidence that parties in this dispute were trying to hurt the encyclopedia, even though both parties believe the other side is hurting the encyclopedia, that seems to be of importance in how the case is treated. -- SCZenz 03:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility by Snowspinner

11) As part of the overall debate on the inclusion of webcomics in the encyclopedia, Snowspinner has at times been uncivil [28] [29], including linking from Wikipedia his own expressions on other websites which contain remarks that are uncivil in the context of Wikipedia [30].

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm not inclined to take much notice of the conduct of Wikipedians off the wiki itself, unless it is clearly targeted at another Wikipedian with intent to harass. I don't see evidence of that here. The on-wiki comments, of course, are subject to our review. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
As per Kelly. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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)
In response to Kelly's statement above regarding conduct "clearly targeted at another Wikipedian with intent to harass," I'd say that I'm not comfortable speculating on intent. I feel that posting links to other sites that contain incivility directed at other Wikipedia editors creates a hostile environment regardless of intent. Dragonfiend 02:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Failure to assume good faith by Snowspinner

12) Moved to /Withdrawn, and recast in #18 below. -- SCZenz 23:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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

Follows from section of evidence on this exact matter. Phil Sandifer 05:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
My views on Aaron's talk page solicitations have been well aired. I agree with geogre on the lensing effect of IRC but don't see the difficulties of policing IRC as a reason not to deprecate this kind of activity as inimical to consensus-building. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:11, 8 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)
I propose this be merged into 3.1.13 Playing to win. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others

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)
Strange. Neither Snowspinner or ~~Tony Sidaway~~ complained when 172 was notifying people of an "important AFD debate". I cannot see that putting a notice on six different user-talk pages is any worse than complaining at a blog, thereby attracting a dozen "keep" voters. Nor can I see that this is the kind of behaviour which Aaron engages in with great regularity, and it is far off from being abusive. I concur entirely with Nandesuka. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have added Tony here. But Snowspinner was notified and did vote on the AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, what I find most troubling about this is the fact that the poll sat for a week without comment, and that it was hardly the first discussion of this issue. To bring a poll to people's attention is a normal, if somewhat unfortunate move - but this should be taken in the larger context of Aaron's tendency to "play to win" - that is, as one instance in a dogged refusal to give up or accept a lack of consensus for his views. Phil Sandifer 08:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I had no idea that these debates were going on. I do have strong opinions on these matters, and I express them... (OK, no humility) well, generally. Once I had become aware of the RFar, it was logical that I would want to know about the other issues that I had been too somnolent to have noticed. When a debate is going on that is of interest to niche editors, the results will be extremely unrepresentative if all those of passionate interest show up and the rest of the community is, like me, just trying to keep away from all the conflict. Having a poll with 3 votes then get used as evidence for action against users is ridiculous, so the stakes have been elevated by this very RFar. Had this not been filed, I, at least, would have dismissed all this polling and arguing as one of those unfortunate wiki swamps where nothing ever emerges. However, since there is a hypothetical "consensus" on web comics that is licensing action, it becomes far more important. It's not playing to win. If it is, it is playing to win by Snowspinner and the other plaintiffs who use the unpopulated debates as proof that they have a stick with which to bash AfD nominators. Geogre 12:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I wasn't clear. Let me back up and try again. If there is a poll on Star Trek, for example, the Star Trek editors will get involved, plus whoever it was who wanted all those articles merged or deleted. The rest of the community will be unaware, even if there is a Village Pump announcement. (I say to myself, "Oh, Lord, not that! I don't want to hurt the feelings of Trekkies, and right now those articles are getting deleted, so why go get into that?") The results of a poll like that will be distorted, because the passionately interested (the Trek authors) will be present, but the disinterested and hostile will be staying away. I would have left this poll alone, except that it is being used as evidence that there is a consensus on web comics. Once it gets assumed to represent community opinion, it gets deadly serious that the community be heard, so, at least for me, it was the stakes raised by this complaint that made me go from horrified avoidance to feeling that it was my civic resopnsibility to weigh in.

On a separate matter, "spamming for votes" is a charge that can only be alledged if IRC logs are similarly taken into account. It is my opinion that one can distort the results of a deliberation much more effectively with five dilligent minutes on IRC than a week of note-dropping on talk pages. This is not to say that IRC vote or opinion drumming has taken place, but merely to point out that we are selectively choosing to punish the documented while ignoring the undocumented. I could be in three private message tabs on #Wikipedians telling me to go weigh in on a debate and leave no evidence, while a single, "Please offer your opinion, pro or con, here" is going to be considered evidence of misbehavior. Until we solve the lensing effect of IRC, I'm not sure we can consider talk page notes as evidence of stealth (esp. since they're in plain view). Geogre 15:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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 as "OMFG don't delete, are you kidding?" [31], referring to such debates as "contaminated" [32], referring to them as "foaming at the mouth" [33], accusing Eric Burns of participating in "the mugging of an AfD" [34], and describing them as "a sock puppet invasion" [35].

Comment by arbitrators

A fair statement. The practice of warning newbies is good, being unncessarily disrespectful and offputting is not. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties

Straightforward, I think. Phil Sandifer 05:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Straightforward finding of fact. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
We seem to have quite a few redundant sections. This is covered in 3.2.7 Dismissing (etc.) as well as 3.1.5 Treatment of new contributors. As I've already placed some comments at 3.1.5, I'll also respond to this there. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others

This edit looks most like Aaron trying to warn non-Wikipedian not to vote just because they have been referred here by a website posting. That, and marking a few votes from users with very few edits. Both are acceptable practices. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Acceptable, and common, practices. – ClockworkSoul 06:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Re Tony: Perhaps I should clarify a bit, as I tend to get into trouble when I try to be brief. It is a common and acceptable practice to allow recent editors to know that they may not be counted for a vote: it tends to breed more frustration for new users when they assume that the decision not to count them in AfD is an arbitrary decision. To inform them of this standard is far better then leaving them to figure it out on their own. That being said, there are proper ways to notify new users of this practice, and not-so-proper ways. The former is gentle and nonjudgemental, the latter is not. – Clockwork Soul 07:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, the "OMFG, don't delete, are you kidding?!" was meant as a harmless joke, one that most internet users would understand. A bit too much, maybe. But otherwise Aaron is doing something that the majority of experienced Wikipedians would do.--Sean|Bla ck 02:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Nothing odd, or wrong, with this. Recommend withdrawal. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I found that edit box very offputting when I first saw it, but I commented anyway, (only to have my commentary lined out and disregarded). How many other editors were offput enough to not even bother to comment? We'll never know. Inside jokes and snide comments can often be perceived as elitist, with, in my view, bad result. I agree with Mindspillage, it's a fair statement and should stay, at least somewhere in the final result, even if factored out here as redundant. The fact that others find nothing odd or wrong with the practice is a bit troubling (to this relative newbie) as it seems to at least give the appearance that those others violate WP:AGF when they feel that way. ++Lar 12:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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, stating "You cannot in good faith argue for the notability of webcomics covered by the "important people" of comixpedia when you're one of those people that writes for comixpedia" [36]. This is an unfortunate assumption of bad faith, and could be construed as a personal attack.

Comment by arbitrators

Comment by parties

Again, straightforward. Phil Sandifer 05:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The quoted words make it plain that she was using conflict of interest to justify a deliberate, conscious and overt presumption of bad faith. Strike "and could be construed as a personal attack" for reasons outlined by SCZenz. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I have seen nothing cited to suggest I ever said that I had "fear that Snowspinner would use his association with those websites to manipulate Wikipedia." This is presented as a "finding of fact;" if I did not, in fact, say that I "fear[ed] that Snowspinner would use his association with those websites to manipulate Wikipedia," then this ought to be withdrawn. -- Dragonfiend 19:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Proposing that policy be shifted to prevent a hypothetical case of two specific people doing something that they have never shown any indication of doing is an assumption of bad faith. Phil Sandifer 19:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others

I don't want to haul diffs out on this, at least not more than they have been and unless it's requested, but from what I recall the issue was more subtle and by no means invalid. I hope I will be forgiven for explaining it in a bit of detail, on the way to explaining what might and might not be a personal attack as described above. Many people working on those websites have demonstrated a strong interest in and strong opinions about Wikipedia's content, and some people on those websites see Wikipedia as a tool to expand visibility of what in their opinion is an art form that ought to have more coverage, an idea contrary to Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. (Yes, I have seen this explicitly stated, and can find diffs if requested.) The issue Dragonfiend raised was that, if those websites were directly written into guidelines at WP:WEB, it seems possible that some writers could attempt to manipulate Wikipedia content through their own websites. The fact that Snowspinner is a contributor to those websites, in addition to being a Wikipedia editor, is an incidental coincidence; if Dragonfiend suggested that Snowspinner in particular was expected to do this, that might well have been a personal attack. I would caution, though, that it unusual (indeed, perhaps unprecedented) for an editor to be discussing the role of a website to which he contributes in Wikipedia guidelines, and pointing out the potential for conflict of interest in such a process is not necessarily inappropriate. -- SCZenz 08:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Dragonfiend specifically identified Eric Burns and me as the two problems. Phil Sandifer 08:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That, in my ultimately irrelevant opinion, sounds like an assumption of bad faith. Unless, as I said above, she was only pointing out the potential for conflict of interest, in the sense that you and Mr. Burns are the only two people I know with obligations as Webcomics experts and as Wikipedia editors. -- SCZenz 08:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Where are the diffs to support this? Paul August ☎ 03:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

In the above diff (thanks Tony), Dragonfiend correctly points out a conflict of interest by Snowspinner, and states correctly that Snowspinner should have revealed this. However the quote from the diff given above, goes beyond this. It suggests the judgment (possibly correct) that Snowspinner's conflict of interest renders him unable participate in the discussion objectively. This may have been an inappropriate assumption of bad faith. Paul August ☎ 17:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Without diffs this isn't very helpful, and I agree wholeheartedly with SCenz.--Sean|Bla ck 02:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree with points raised by SCZenz, Paul August and Sean Black. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Tony, thanks for the new diff. However, I disageee with your reading of it. As I see it, Dragonfiend quite rightly pointed out what she saw as a potential conflict of interest (Note that I am saying that she was right to raise it. I am not addressing the question of her being right in her interpretation.). This speaks directly to the point I raised above on the dangers of accepting anyone as an "expert" for any topic in which they have a direct personal investment. As for construing this diff as a personal attack, I can only say that if, in other circumstances, this comment was directed at me, I would not so construe it. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed.--Sean|Bla ck 02:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Dragonfiend is pointing out what is a textbook-case conflict of interest. To quote from the acticle: Having a conflict of interest is not, in and of itself, evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, for many professionals, it is virtually impossible to avoid having conflicts of interest from time to time. Pointing out the existence of a conflict of interest is a value-neutral finding of fact, in fact such conflicts must be disclosed to avoid the accusation of bad faith later on. I suggest that this finding be withdrawn and re-cast in neutral wording. Pilatus 14:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) One should also bear in mind that the failure to disclose a conflict of interest is universally considered a serious breach of professional etiquette. Pilatus 18:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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

I don't want a finding that says that "being a shit on AfD is understandable, and thus tolerable". That would be wrong. WP:CIVIL doesn't have an AfD exemption. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense Fred Bauder 00:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties

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)
I concur with Kelly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others

Although I essentially agree with this statement, I am not sure I like the notion of having an ArbCom precedent that states concern about our deletion process, as it could be used in future debates on deletion policy. -- SCZenz 08:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't that the stament is one that expresses a concern. It just states a fact. The concern is an interpration that the reader is free to draw (or not to draw) David Formosa is dysgraphic please excuse spelling errors 08:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
So long as there is no statement saying, "Being cranky when your beloved article is up for deletion is wrong" or one saying, "Being cranky when it appears that people are trying to flood the vote with people who have no knowledge of Wikipedia's processes and practices is wrong," one saying, "Everybody is a meanine on AfD" is unnecessary. It is only when "He hurt my feelings!" is introduced as a sanctionable offense that the corrollary of "AfD is tough" needs to be offerred as a counterpoint. Geogre 15:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomics AfD nominations by Dragonfiend

17) Dragonfiend has nominated 11 webcomics for deletion [37], [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. Of these, eight resulted in a consensus to delete (seven unanimously), two resulted in a keep due to no consensus, and the last, for Checkerboard Nightmare, had a strong consensus to keep. Webcomics expert Snowspinner voted delete in two of these nominations, and keep in the Checkerboard Nightmare nomination.

Comment by arbitrators

What point is this making? Kelly Martin (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties

Reasonable evidence that Dragonfiend has followed a campaign of deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
This is an excellent example of using the facts to refute a claim. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others

This just follows from Dragonfiend's evidence. -- SCZenz 21:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
In response to Kelly Martin's question, this regards the next item on the list. It's establishing that there's no evidence that Dragonfiend is generally incompetant, so there was no good reason for Snowspinner to say she was (thereby negating a likely defense against his remarks being a personal attack). If this point is inappropriate, I can only apologize; this is the first RfAr I've paid a great deal of attention to, and I've taken my stylistic queues from the points above. -- SCZenz 03:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks by Snowspinner

18) Frustrated over Dragonfiend's nomination of Checkerboard nightmare, Snowspinner informed her that she was "not capable of making reasonable judgements" [48] and stated that her views should be rejected as invalid "on sight" [49]. These generalized claims were not valid in light of Dragonfiend's past AfD nominations of webcomics (above), and there is no evidence of anything other than a simple mistake made by Dragonfiend. Without justification, the harsh language by Snowspinner constitutes a personal attack.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not a personal attack, but a rather frank (and uncivil) assessment of Dragonfiend's judgement. To clarify for Aaron, when considering whether bad faith was involved, I was of the opinion that it wasn't and said it should be recast in terms of either incivility or personal attack. On further reflection it appears to be uncivil, though not grossly so. An unfortunate choice of wording in a sticky situation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is my effort to recast Snowspinner's response to Dragonfiend's nomination of Checkerboard nightmare according to a more clearly relevant principle. -- SCZenz 21:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think incivility covers this more accurately. There is a very specific problem here - Dragonfiend makes bad AfD nominations based on bad premises. Sometimes these bad nominations are of comics that there is not a pressing reason to keep. In this case, it was nearly disastrous. Until Dragonfiend alters her stadards with regards to webcomics, I do not think her deletion opinions count for much, and that no conclusions she reaches that are based on a complete disregard for the webcomics community can possibly be reasonable judgments. This is not a personal attack - it is a dismissal of a particular system and method that Dragonfiend has adopted, and urgently needed to unadopt. Phil Sandifer 11:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The phrase "So-and-so is not capable of making reasonable judgments" is clearly a personal attack; it is almost the definition of one. If you disagree, I encourage you to imagine yourself as the target of such a statement. Nandesuka 12:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
While, saying someone's particular judgments are, or have been, unreasonable, may not be a personal attack — saying that someone is incapable of making reasonable judgments, most certainly is. Paul August ☎ 22:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, now I'm confused. When these comments were cited as 12), Tony said that they were not a failure to assume good faith and should be recast as personal attack. When that suggestion is followed, he says then they are not a personal attacks. Huh? --Tabor 05:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The phrase "not capable of making reasonable judgements" is clearly the nearest thing to a personal attack I've seen amongst all of this evidence and debate. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Just to be slightly contrarian, I find it rather worse than a personal attack. If I say, "You're ugly, and your momma dresses you funny," I'm just, as Jonathan Swift said, "flinging a well-timed turd." I will be ignored or punched in the nose. If, on the other hand, I say, "What you have written is the most officious piece of nonsense I have ever read," I have made no personal attack at all, for I attacked the words, not the person, and yet I have done more infuriating damage, because I was trying to reduce your value in the eyes of readers. It is only when these two are combined that we get, "You are incapable of making a reasonable decision." Further, it addresses all future utterances of a person. It is a progressive statement that all that shall ever be uttered by a person on this subject is without worth. To me, that's somewhat poisonous. Geogre 18:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration statement on dispute resolution

Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Dispute_resolution

Although negotiation is not explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:dispute resolution it is contemplated under the initial steps of Wikipedia's dispute resolution policies under language which suggests users who are in conflict talk to one another on their respective talk pages and on the talk page of any article in dispute. Effective negotiation often requires courtesy and respect for the other party and their point of view, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

[edit] Previous attempts to resolve dispute via talk pages

19) No effort was made on the part of the party raising the RfArb to use any other method to resolve dispute

Edits to snowspinner's talk by brenneman

[50] 28 October
Please don't mistake my objections for a personal issue of mistrust. As I've said several times, it's only about outside verifiability, and the differance between an expert opinion on the factual nature of something and it's relative importance. I can't support any objections that you would do anything less than honest, as I assume good faith and have no evidence otherwise. I'm deeply sorry that you've been offended.

[51] is everything all right? 2 Nov
I haven't had much direct contact with you, although you did feature on an early version of my user page. Thus forgive me if I ask: Is everything all right in your world? Your contributions seem to be becoming more, well, shrill. On WP:WEB there is every chance that we could come to some form of guideline that you can live with, if you'll have some faith in the process. That also means having some faith in your fellow contributors, even those whom you believe to be aligned against you.
We've all got similar goals in mind, for the project as a whole and for little things like guidelines. If we focus on the areas we agree on first, that will make the other things easier.

[52] trying again to express concern 3 Nov
And again I'm trying to express some concern. You're looking near meltdown on WP:DRV right now, and I'm trying to offer an ear, or an eyeball or something. What's gotten up your craw, so to speak? Forget that random public bunfight on the other end of town, just pretend for a second that you don't think I'm some sort of enemy combatant and tell me what's going on?

[53] trying to work out a guideline 6 Nov
I'm reaching out again here, trying to find some way forward.
I'll again say that I don't have any personal distaste for you. I'm just finding it very difficult to reach any sort of compromise with you. When trying to work out a guideline, something like "this survived AfD" simply isn't helpful. We're trying to go to root cause here, and ask why it survived AfD. We distill out the things that are important to people, we codify them, and thus we avoid (in a large measure) repetitive argument.
With regards to the A.B. AfD the thing that changed that from it's previous "delete" to "no consensus" was you. Not the evidence of syndication, but you. People are pretty specific about that. The problem is that that really doesn't help much.
We cannot have a state where (with the excpetion of Jimbo) we are deciding what stays and what goes based upon one person's opinion. In fact, thinking back to Ashida Kim, even he doesn't get to decide sometimes.
This really isn't about anyone casting aspersions on your academic standards. Ok, that may not be 100% true, I shouldn't speak for other people. Some of them may have axes to grind. What this is about for me are the tenants WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. I just want some simple, objective guidelines that we can get general agreement on.

Edits to brenneman's talk by snowspinner

[54] IIDDD 17 October

[55] ArbCom notice 24 Nov

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'd in particular like to see the arbitrators go on records at to why they accepted this case, per my request below. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I trust that the arbitrators can understand why condescending implications about my mental health did not particularly engender further discussion. Phil Sandifer 11:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Arbitration statement on consensus

Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Consensus

As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.
In cases where compromise cannot be reached, users are expected to follow the Dispute resolution process.

[edit] Snowspinner and compromise

20) Not a single concession has been made by the party raising this RfArb.

[56] brenneman proposes "minimum conditions" that all agree on 23:35, 4 November 2005

[57] note that the only objection (to removal of syndicates)is snowspinner, with one editor explicitly agreeing and three tacitly agreeing

[58] brenneman's first request for compromise

[59] brenneman's second request for compromise

[60] brenneman notes that he's compromised, asks for flexibility

[61] brenneman notes that current 100K Alexa is higher than he'd like, but that "I'm trying to find something we can all agree on"

[62] brenneman again demonstrates willingness to compromise

[63] brenneman removes syndication 23:31, 9 November

[64] brenneman notes this on talk page 23:33, 9 November

This stands for 12 days, with seven people editing the guideline in the interim. There is no objection on the talk page [65] in this time, with 9 editors contributing.

[66] notes on talk page that he's re-inserting syndicates based upon Checkerboard Nightmare AfD 02:37 21 Nov

[67] reinserts synidcates 02:40 21 Nov

[68] State of AfD at time of re-insertion of "syndicate" (note Ravenswood's edit was afterwards, using this diff as it clearly shows the time)

Note 1 - The word "syndicate" does not appear in this discussion.

Note 2 - Based upon the admin's later discretion, the count at that stage was 3k, 2d, 1m. This includes the discounting of Eric Burns

Note 3 - Eric Burns (talk • contribs), has thirty-five edits in over a year, with twelve in article space. By Tony Sidaways's criteria, this comments would be discounted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I've been reasonable, concilitory, and logical. I've shifted my position based upon a broader consencus. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Snowspinner's argument on syndication has widespread acceptance, as shown by evidence submitted here, so dropping it would hardly be an acceptable compromise. It is never wise to make claims of support on the basis of a small, limited discussion--especially when one has oneself made attempts to pack the debate by contacting solely likeminded people. I have suggested an alternative strategy, more likely to reach a consensus, on the talk page of WP:WEB. I do think we should take this talk page spamming thing more seriously. I don't do it and nobody I respect does it. Why not? Because it's obviously a dumb way of making policy decisions that are supposed to depend on consensus. Just because Aaron didn't spam as much as someone recently did on a RFA, does not mean that his activities are unlikely to destroy attempts to build consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

That one of my objections was the relative secret nature of the guidelines, having been conducted originally on a subpage of a WikiProject who's members had already largely been driven off by the process, and then on Wikipedia talk:Websites might explain the fact that most of the people involved in the discussion were sympathetic to Aaron - unlike him, I've never gone talk page spamming in promotion of my side of the argument. Phil Sandifer 11:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, yes, you've convinced me - getting out the vote is unhelpful in determining consensus, because the establishment of consensus is driven most primarily by people listening to each other and changing their minds - a targetted get out the vote is always going to go against that. Phil Sandifer 12:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Once you start using it as evidence in an RFar, you should expect more input. If people agree to take a stand and put themselves on the line by commenting upon the RFar, they should know about the components. This is not widespread "talk page spamming" (see Bonaparte spamming for a recent RFA candidate, if you want to see what that looks like). 1) The persons were known to the person dropping the note. 2) The persons receiving the note had already been participatory. 3) The persons were not required or asked or argued to express a particular opinion. In short, this is notifying, not "talk page spamming." I keep a small circle of close wiki-friends, and I drop notes on them all the time, often in e-mail, about situations that I'm involved in. That's called collegiality. Geogre 12:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I've never gone talk page spamming in promotion of my side of the argument. Perhaps not, but I've been seeing plenty of strongly worded messages on enwiki-l to rally opinion. How is that significantly different? --Tabor 05:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Brenneman holds a straw poll

21) On 22 November, in response to Snowspinner's suggestions that the strong keep consensus on the AfD of Checkerboard Nightmare was due to that strip's syndication and, with some 25 participants counted by the closing administrator, constituted evidence of a consensus for including articles on syndicated web comics, Aaron Brenneman took the discussion on syndicates to a straw poll on Wikipedia talk:Websites [69]. Snowspinner's response was "You cannot hold polls to magically override consensus on other pages" [70]. User:Nifboy suggested "How about just Keenspot strips (perhaps further restricted to active and archived strips)?" [71]. The straw poll then languished unattended for over a week, until on 7 December Aaron Brenneman selectively solicited the participation of six editors on their talk pages: Titoxd, Nandesuka, Geogre, Encephalon, Radiant! and Zoe. Subsequently, Zoe, Nandesuka and Geogre participated in the straw poll, all arguing against ~~inclusion of syndicated articles~~ use of syndication as an inclusion criterion for web comics.

Comments by Arbitrators

Comments by participants

Should probably be considered as a textbook example of how not to make policy. We can't make consensus by employing such methods, and in their bluntness they probably hamper the formation of consensus by more appropriate means such as perhaps contacting (in this case) AfD participants whose decisions after all form the consensus that this guideline is intended to reflect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- You presumably mean Able and Baker, not Checkerboard Nightmare. Phil Sandifer 11:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- I do believe you're right. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments by others

Tony, your characterization of me as a "crony" is extremely rude, in addition to being simply wrong, and completely misrepresenting my views. Nandesuka 12:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a wholesale misrpresentation of my argument, and I can find no way in which it matches the argument of any of the other recent votes. My argument was not "delete" nor "keep" or "against them" nor "for them." My argument was to the purpose of the question: Is syndication a valid criterion by which to proclaim a web comic "notable?" I answered to that specific question. My position was that syndication in print comics is a distribution arrangement and very significant, while distribution is not enhanced for web comics. Therefore, I said, syndication does not make a web comic more or less "notable" than non-syndication, because it is a false analogy to apply the term "syndicate" from print to web. No one in that poll said a word about "delete syndicates." Geogre 13:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Further, how are these "cronies" here but being "spammed" elsewhere? If these are friends (and I assume cronies are friends...never having had a crony, I'm not entirely sure), then notifying them of an issue is not "spamming" (random and unsolicited e-mail). Geogre 13:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- I still wonder how this is automatically tied in here and not just seeking input on an ongoing discussion. If it languished for a week, the person organizing the poll might well go looking for the opinionated (like me) and the verbose (ok, me too) and the people interested in deletion process in the long term. I'm not sure that calling on either me or Nandesuka and counting on either of us to take a position in agreement with Aaron's would be wise. We both are more independent than that, and even my closest friends can tell you that I will fail to say what I'm expected to say pretty often. There is something in your comments that suggests that the six authors are somehow less independently minded than Aaron, that they are being led in some manner. I think that's what's offensive to folks. Geogre 15:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- That is more accurate, yes, and it brings up the point that this was a poll about how to make dispassionate determinations of worth of Web Comics articles in the future without reliance on the opinion of a sole "expert" such as Snowspinner. It was an attempt to come up with a set of objective criteria. I'm not sure how that can be considered anything but laudable, and that's why I participated. Geogre 15:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
So what that he contacted me? He asked me to voice my opinion about the subject on my talk page, because he was looking for the input of other editors who frequent DRV. By the way, he had done it before, and he got a result he wasn't expecting, so contacting someone who went against him doesn't seem like stacking the cards on his side. Besides, there isn't anything unusual about an editor asking for the input of other users he knows, it is done all the time in Wikipedia and needless to say, in IRC. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 07:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia's mathematics editors, frequently and routinely post messages on each others talk pages as well as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, informing of debates, polls, conflicts, discussions, votes, AfD's etc. Such communications are an essential part of what I would describe as a very vibrant and successful community of editors. Anything which attempts to discredit or discourage such communications would be extremely counterproductive. To say or imply that it is wrong to invite people to participate in a discussion is very misguided. In the market place of ideas, how do we determine an idea's value? Restrictions on speech are not the answer. The answer to speech with which you disagree is of course more speech, not less. Paul August ☎ 04:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Being able to inform other editors of policy and such is half of the reason User talk: pages exist.--Sean|Bla ck 02:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Attempting to get a ruling on what information (as opposed to personal attacks or rudeness) can or cannot be posted on user talk pages smacks of censorship and is potentially foolish. I'd sooner this sort of thing happened in public than by e-mail, for instance. As for the specific point, I see no problem with drawing attention to polls, etc. in this way. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Snowspinner's stated position on webcomics inclusion

22) Snowspinner has written that our guideline for webcomics inclusion should be simply "every comic with an archive of 100 strips or more should be included." [72] As recently as Oct. 24, User:Snowspinner has written that he "still basically" supports this. [73]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If it's worth noting above that "Aaron Brenneman and Dragonfiend are attempting to improve Wikipedia by deleting a number of articles on webcomics," then it's probably worth noting the position of the other involved party -- that every webcomic that can update 5 days a week for 5 months should have a Wikipedia article. Dragonfiend 02:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I object - I've shown considerable willingness to back down from this position, and have not advocated this position in several months. Phil Sandifer 09:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

A note that I still basically do (Which, in light of my general position that we ought not exclude verifiable information) amounts to an ideal. It was more than obvious that community consensus was not behind that ideal, and I have been more than willing to help shape a "good enough for now" guideline - especially when the hostility grew to the point that Comixpedia spun off. This finding remains a grotesque effort to redefine my intentions based on selective reading of my comments on unrelated websites to make me look like an uncompromising inclusionist. Frankly, it's nothing more than another attempt to play to win. Phil Sandifer 18:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I have no problem with this as a finding of fact. --Tony Sidaway|Talk
I am not sure where exactly to hang this comment but if there is not a clear consensus on what WP:WEB exactly ought to say, but there are still boundaries above (Penny Arcade is notable) and below (something I posted for the first time yesterday isn't) that everyone agreed on, would it not be best if those comics in the gray area weren't posted? Or are people saying that posting comics in that area is a valid way to find the boundary? ArbCom said they did NOT want to comment on deletion policy, only behaviours. But trying to pack individual deletions to get desired outcomes, of planning to try again when there is less notice, of posting comments that might be offputting, and so forth, should those held to be findings of fact, strike me as supporting "playing to win" behaviour (or at least the appearance of it), rather than the valid approach of trying to use test cases in a calm, reasoned atmosphere, to help refine where the boundary is? ++Lar 23:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Snowspinner has assumed bad faith

23) Snowspinner has often stated his assumptions regarding his percieved bad intentions of other users. When Dragonfiend asked Snowspinner to avoid profanity and posting links to blog comments about how deletion on Wikipedia makes him "really feel" "like killing", Snowspinner assumed, "Dragonfiend was ignoring my point in favor of trying to find a way to render the Websnark thread some strange form of 'inadmissable evidence' in the debate."[74] After Dragonfiend disclosed Snowspinner's conflict of interest, Snowspinner wrote that he was assuming bad faith: "I am unable to continue in a good-faith discussion with [Dragonfiend because she is] somebody who continually accuses me of being someone who would use my academic writing to advance a personal agenda on Wikipedia." [75] Dragonfiend never made such a statement, let alone "continually." After webcomics creator User:Tedzsee refered to Snowspinner's conflict of interest, Snowspinner wrote: "Absolutely not - there is no conflict of interest, and the assumption of bad faith in the accusation remains wholly unacceptable." [76] On this Workshop page Snowspinner described his concern with the motivations behind other editors in the WP:WEB discussion: "My concern is that Aaron and Dragonfiend are playing to win ..." [77] Snowspinner has also assumed that quoting two of his statements on webcomics notability is "a grotesque effort to redefine my intentions based on selective reading of my comments on unrelated websites to make me look like an uncompromising inclusionist." [78]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Posted by Dragonfiend 02:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I hope Dragonfiend will reconsider proposing this - it seems very unfair to first engage in shady evidence practices as in the previous remedy by trying to take one comment made off of Wikipedia and turn it into a description of all my Wikipedia activities, then to accuse me of assuming bad faith when I call bullshit. Phil Sandifer 03:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This continues to be absurd - that I am an expert on the subject requires involvement in the subject. Furthermore, and this is important to note, the first time I brought up my expertise, I linked to User:Snowspinner/Webcomics, where the "conflicts of interest" are in fact spelled out. To accuse me of hiding anything is completely untrue. Phil Sandifer 23:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not declaring a conflict of interest is a serious breach of professional etiquette that in a professional environment would be sanctionable. The fact that Phil, despite measured responses [79], [80], does not accept that his perceptions may be coloured by his involvement with the webcomics community (and worse: has done nothing to dispel the fear that his perceptions will be coloured by his involvement with the webcomics community) is disturbing. Pilatus 16:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

To respond to Phil, the issue is not about expertise but about trust. WP:NOR has a section about expert editors that applies as much to setting policy as it does to writing articles. You can put forward that third parties have recognized that webcomics mentioned on certain websites that you happen to be involved with are generally notable, but you can't EVER say that webcomics on websites that you help edit are automatically notable. Pilatus 22:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] A note to the community

1 has been withdrawn

[edit] Admonishment to Snowspinner

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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)
I agree with Jtkiefer on this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think the admonishment towards all the parties of this dispute (listed below) is a better idea. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General point on procedure

10) All Wikipedians are reminded that all other potential avenues towards resolution should be exhausted before a request for arbitration is made.

This was originally numbered as 2, which clashed with another, earlier, proposed remedy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I am not willing to issue general instructions to the community as a remedy. General instructions should be issued as part of policy or guideline according to consensus. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Another note: if we, the ArbCom, determine that we have accepted a case in error, we are fully empowered to unaccept it. The ArbCom has complete discretion over what cases it chooses to hear or not hear, and I see this particular "remedy" as a backhanded attempt to censure the Arbitration Committee for deciding to accept this case. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC) Addendum for Filiocht: You are not denied the right to express an opinion, but you are denied the right to use an Arbitration Committee decision to do so. The purpose of this page is to aid the Arbitration Committee in developing a decision. It is not for members of the community to express its opinion about whatever matters it chooses. If you wish to question our decision to consider this case, please do so in a more appropriate location. It might possibly make sense for us to consider adopting a principle stating that "the Arbitration Committee normally will not consider a dispute until all other avenues of resolution have been exhausted, but reserves the right to accept any case presented to it". To attempt to shoehorn this in as a "remedy" (and one targeted at persons not even nominally a party to the case) evinces a misunderstanding of the scope and mission of the Arbitration Committee. The Arbitration Committee is not empowered to issue general edicts or to write policy; this proposed remedy appears to be an attempt to do both. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Tautological. Snipped a lot of blather that I wrote earlier. Can't agree that this case is causing further friction; things have been rather quiet since it began. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strikes me that this was not done here. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Allow me to clarify; I believe the ArbCom was, with the best will in the world, mistaken in accepting this case and would like to ensure that the mistake is not repeated. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Further clarification for Kelly Martin; there is nothing in the least backhand about this. I have stated clearly that I believe the ArbCom were mistaken in accepting the case. Am I to be denied the right to state this opinion? Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I take serious objection to the image of "the same people coming around to pat him on the back, in the teeth of the evidence", which is clearly an assumption of bad faith on the part of anyone who supports Aaron, regardless of who it is aimed at. If it is aimed partly at me, I'd like a retraction and apology. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I concur. I have expressed my opinion on the talk page to the RFar itself and won't belabor it here, but I believe that it was a mistake to have accepted consideration, even if people were awfully unpleasant to one another during the debates. Geogre 15:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I should very much like to see Tony Sidaway show the people coming to "pat Aaron on the back, in the teeth of the evidence," as that looks like a comment designed simply to increase heat and shed no light. So far, all sides have refrained in pointing out that Tony and Aaron have a previous RFC history, and it doesn't need to be introduced here, either, but that comment shows bitterness that appears to be wholly unsupported by any behavior in the Web Comics brouhaha. Geogre 13:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Paul August ☎ 20:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I would have preferred that other avenues had been pursued before bringing this case to ArbCom. This seems in line with the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration: Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee. I don't see this remedy as being a "censure" of the ArbCom, but rather as a gentle reminder to the disputants of this case of the above. Paul August ☎ 23:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

As for Tony's comment: "If we held an RfC I've no doubt we'd get the same people coming around to pat him on the back, in the teeth of the evidence"; I would also like for him to state explicitly to whom he is referring. Paul August ☎ 23:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I concur with Filiocht. Nandesuka 20:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
ArbCom has, out of clear necessity, from time to time taken on the responsibility to intervene rapidly in disputes that are damaging to the community. Although I do not think this dispute in fact required an RfAr at this time, it was presented (in good faith) as a case where precisely such intervention was necessary. Thus ArbCom ought not to censure itself, as some of the comments above imply. (As a practical matter, the ArbCom members know that they acted as seemed appropriate at the time, so they won't censure themselves.) All that being said, I do not think a reminder to try other avenues of dispute-resolution, which might well have been fruitful in this dispute, would be amiss. -- SCZenz 22:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Geogre's and Filiocht's objections to Tony's "in the teeth" statement. Even though I have supported Aaron in this RFAr, we need not go back further than the RFC filed against Tony where I opposed Aaron's action, and where I still think his filing of the RFC was mistaken. The IgnoreAllRules incident is the precise reason I did not support Aaron's adminship request as well, and I seem to remember calling his actions "mean-spirited". In fact, I often disagree with Aaron on deletion issues and I am definitely not a back-patter. When I support him here it is because I do not want to see Aaron banned or sanctioned from anything because I think that his behaviour after the IAR incident has been more than acceptable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that the willingness to characterize anyone who Aaron contacts as a "crony" — thanks for redacting yourself in this case, Tony — is, incidentally, a great example of "playing to win." Tony seems, to my eyes, to be so focused on imputing bad faith to Aaron's actions that he's willing to cause "collateral damage", regardless of the actual facts of the case. Certainly, this evidence section is quite beyond anything I've experienced before. It reads like an ex-post-facto attempt to turn every edit of Aaron's, even completely innocuous ones such as informing other interested parties, in public, on their talk page, into misbehavior. If this is what Tony actually thinks, that's extremely disappointing. Nandesuka 13:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Filiocht, Geogre, et al. This case is only casuing further friction between the parties.--Sean|Bla ck 02:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Note to Tony: Things have been quiet lately because a frustrated Aaron Brenneman has gone on an extended Wikibreak. – Clockwork Soul 14:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Brenneman admonished to seek consensus on policy

3) Aaron Brenneman is admonished to be respectful of consensus in creating and altering Wikipedia policy. While boldness in editing is valuable on Wikipedia, it is no use to Wikipedia to have written policies that create dissent.

Comments by Arbitrators

Comments by participants

Follows from proposed finding of fact 1.2 (Aaron Brenneman edits deletion policy). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments by others

What is this doing here? ArbCom accepted the case on WP:CIV and WP:BITE in the webcomics debate. Pilatus 00:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Brenneman banned from editing Wikipedia policy

4) Aaron Brenneman is banned from editing Wikipedia policy pages for one calendar month. He may participate in discussions on the talk pages of Wikipedia policy pages and, in discussion, persuade others to edit policy on his behalf.

Comments by Arbitrators

Comments by participants

Follows from proposed finding of fact 1.2 (Aaron Brenneman edits deletion policy). See also enforcement proposal 1. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I would, if we go with this, limit to deletion-related policy pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snowspinner (talk • contribs) 11:46, 8 December, 2005 (UTC)

Comments by others

I think that this is a bit overbearing and unecessary. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Draconian and inappropriate. Recommend withdrawal. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I second Filiocht's recommendation for withdrawl. Draconian is not a bad word for it. – Clockwork Soul 15:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Brenneman banned from editing deletion-related Wikipedia policy

second draft

4.1) Aaron Brenneman is banned from editing Wikipedia policy pages----to apply to pages in Category:Wikipedia official policy or the equivalent should the pages be reorganised--related to deletion for one calendar month. He may participate in discussions on the talk pages of Wikipedia deletion policy pages and, in discussion, persuade others to edit deletion policy on his behalf.

Comments by Arbitrators

Comments by participants

Follows from Proposed finding of fact 1.2 (Aaron Brenneman edits deletion policy). Restricted to deletion policy only, and only headline deletion policy (not WP:WEB, etc). See also enforcement proposal 1. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments by others

It should be clear what "related to deletion" means. I assume pages with notability standards like WP:WEB are included? I support the fact that this remedy makes it clear that participation in policy-making is not really limited, only direct editing. -- SCZenz 23:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
As I noted above I have read the article and I am not convinced that Aaron has been acting in bad faith and on that note if he hasn't been acting in bad faith then there's no purpose to this. I'll try to think up if there's a better way to do something like this than an outright ban on editing policy pages even only deletion related ones. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
This seems more than a little excessive. – Clockwork Soul 18:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Utterly inappropriate: Aaron is interested in making the policy more dispassionate and clear. I understand why some people don't like the work he does, but the work he's doing is legitimate. I also personally agree with it more times than not, but this "remedy" is an attempt to translate the sting the plaintiffs feel over a particular debate that only took their time into neutralizing one of the few people with the patience and energy to actually do something about the ambiguity of the deletion policy. I have seen no evidence of the plaintiffs taking the time to try to get community input (Wikipedia community) on deletion policy, so the effect of this would simply be to help the policy die (and justify the complaints of people who say they don't work on it because it's a mess). Geogre 11:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Draconian and inappropriate. Recommend withdrawal. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Brenneman on probation

5) Aaron Brenneman is placed on Wikipedia:Probation with respect to policy pages--to apply to pages in Category:Wikipedia official policy or the equivalent should the pages be reorganised. He may be banned from any page in Wikipedia space relating to policy which he disrupts by attempting to change written policy without consensus. He may not be banned from using talk pages under this probation. After six months he may apply to the committee for the probation to be lifted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A fairer alternative, I think - I still hold out hope that Aaron's actions can be moderated. It just may require occasional use of Professor Cattleprod. Phil Sandifer 11:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I think this may be more appropriate than 4 or 4.1 (the ban proposals). See also enforcement proposal 1 (Snowspinner and Tony Sidaway excluded from enforcement). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think that if this is implemented it should be rewritten to forbid any administrator who is a party of this case which I think may only be Snowspinner from directly enforcing the banning portion of it, that way if for example Snowspinner (sorry for repeatedly using you as an example) where to see that Aaron was violating his probation he could not directly block him but could go to WP:AN/I and post it up for another admin to review and to possibly implement a block if needed. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The usual understanding on such matters is that involved admins won't make the call - but I don't see much reason to prohibit me from enforcing in the event of a non-deletion related issue. (Whereas I forsee being involved in deletion-related issues) Phil Sandifer 02:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes the usual understanding but I'm the cautious type and think it would be better if it were mentioned in the decision. Even though I assume it will be unecessary. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
What is this doing here? ArbCom accepted the case to review behaviour of editors involved in the debate on deletion of webcomics. WP:WEB is a guideline and nowhere near policy. Pilatus 19:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dragonfiend not to make webcomics nominations

6) Dragonfiend is not to make further nominations of webcomics for deletion or to further engage in discussion of what webcomics ought be kept or deleted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I've seen no evidence that Dragonfiend is problematic outside of this context - best to simply remove her from this context. A time limit might be appropriate. Phil Sandifer 11:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this is an appropriate sanction. I agree with Sjakkalle that it isn't appropriate to deter or ban good faith nominations. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Inappropriate. Dragonfiend's webcomics nominations have all been in good faith. Why ban her making good faith AFD nominations? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. All users should have the right to make-good faith AfD nominations. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
If her nominations are bad again, they'll get voted down again. I strongly oppose any remedies in this case that would limit any user's ability to participate in the policy and deletion debates that brought on this issue. The result of this RfAr should not be that one side of the debate is penalized out of debating—that would have the equivalent effect of a direct ruling on policy. -- SCZenz 23:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
While Dragonfiend's nonimations are in good faith they are not in good judgement. A restriction for a period would give them an oppitunity to research webcomics and the community and work out why there nominations have caused this fallout. David Formosa is dysgraphic please excuse spelling errors 01:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The "sanction" for a few misguided AFD nominations is that they wind up being kept. Banning people from making AFD nominations is something we should only do if they are being extremley disruptive. That is not the case here, several of Dragonfiend's nominations have successfully ended with a deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely innapropriate remedy, unless he's acting in bad faith in an attempt to disrupt AFD which is in no way the case here there is no reason to restrict the type of article he can nominate. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
This remedy is beyond the pale. Dragonfiend's webcomic nominations have resulted in deletion at about the same percentage as afd nominations as a whole (see WP:AFD100). Compare to what it took to get GRider banned, and that's not even enforced against his puppeteer. —Cryptic (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC) (added 03:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

I didn't know about GRider before you mentioned him but if you are stating that DragonFiend should be treated like GRider than either there's something I'm missing or your really overreacting, GRider (from what I saw of his talk page and his contribs) was a troll in the truest sense of the word, Dragonfiend on the other hand has as far as I can see been working in good faith even if you disagree with his nominations. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind at least clarifying what you mean by what you wrote above? Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

GRider disrupted vfd on a large scale for months before the arbcom intervened. When they did, Radman1's response was simply to stop using the GRider puppet, and the ban wasn't extended to him. It is beyond the pale to penalize Dragonfiend, a primary account who nominated 11 webcomic articles, of which about three quarters were deleted, similarly to GRider (a proven sockpuppet who nominated hundreds and saw about a third deleted). —Cryptic (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying I had no idea what you were talking about, I agree it is quite foolish to treat DragonFriend like GRider. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 04:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Inappropriate in the extreme. I see nothing that comes close to justifying such a remedy. Paul August ☎ 05:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia should not be restricted.--Sean|Bla ck 02:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All parties admonished

7) Aaron Brenneman, Dragonfiend, and Snowspinner are all cautioned to remain civil even in stressful discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Spreading the wealth here is also a fair choice, I think. Phil Sandifer 11:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Good. Most generous of you. I have submitted evidence so, perforce, I am a party to the case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I propose the addition of "Tony Sidaway, " to this sentence. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 09:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd want to see some evidence of incivility from him first. Phil Sandifer 18:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Finally a suggestion from Snowspinner on this RFAr which I can agree with. Civility is good. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
This seems like an entirely reasonable remedy. Nandesuka 13:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Seems like a good proposal Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I am against adding Tony Sideaway to this, he is not a party to this case nor is he a party in any of the case's disputes as far as I have seen so he shouldn't be mentioned in any of the proposed remedies. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 09:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

And yet, all of his text here is under Comments by parties? Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway would have to be added, if this were to have any meaning whatsoever. After all, he appears to be a self-appointed district attorney in this case. His comments have been in the "Parties" section, and he has done most of the writing on this "evidence" page. He has also been chief in doing the refactoring of it (which he shouldn't do if he is one of the parties). Geogre 18:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Then move his comments, he isn't a party to this so at worst his comments on this are in the wrong spot, also refactoring the page (within reason) is generally allowed by the arbcom even though I think Tony went too far in his refactoring but since there's no reason to believe his refactoring wasn't in good faith adding him as a party would be absolutely innapropriate. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 18:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
My point being that he is self-identified as a party. Indeed, it's difficult not to see the somewhat one-sided nature of this page (as opposed to the initial RFar) as being a result of personal differences between Tony and Aaron (i.e. the original complaint specified Aaron and Dragonfiend, but this workshop page is almost solely about Aaron). It's arguable, in fact, that this Workshop page is not an RFar as much as a new RFC. If Tony wishes to endorse and claim to be a party to the dispute, then it's not for me to tell him he isn't. Geogre 03:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Which seems highly beside the point, since there's still no evidence against Tony at all, making admonishing him kind of unfair. Phil Sandifer 06:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

As examples of incivility, some might reasonably consider, Tony's use in this workshop of words like: "clique", "cronies", "mates", "chums", "not known for their evenhanded approach to article inclusion", "same people coming around to pat him on the back, in the teeth of the evidence", "cliquishness (some responses on this workshop on the subject of AfD are good illustrations of the callous, Usenet-like mentality that thrives there)", "campaign", "fiddle faddle and primperies", "extended bout of wikilawyering", "pack the debate", "talk page spamming", "shit for sugar", and "bloodlust". Paul August ☎ 17:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Brenneman to Assume Good faith

8) Aaron Brenneman is admonished to assume good faith at all times. Such phrases as "sock puppet invasion", "mugging of an AfD", "foaming at the mouth", and "contaminated" are unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Follows from proposed finding of fact 14 (Biting the newbies). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It looks the me, according to Previous attempts to resolve dispute via talk pages findings, that he assumed good faith, and was unfairly treated for it. Personal attacks by Snowspinner clearly shows that it isn't Aaron Brenneman who is lacking in this department. – Clockwork Soul 01:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, jumping straight from "I won't compromise because I'm right, and I'm an expert" to an RFar is a bit extreme and shows an imperiousness that is contrary to the demotic nature of Wikipedia and a failure to assume good faith. Aaron seems to have colored within the lines, here. Geogre 15:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Brenneman forbidden from annotating deletion debates

9) Aaron Brenneman is forbidden from annotating other editors entries and placing "sock puppet warnings" in deletion debates.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Follows from proposed finding of fact 14 (Biting the newbies). If this kind of annotation needs to be done, somebody else can do it. A remedy does not imply that a serious policy breach is due to bad faith. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed - I don't think this alleges sinister intent. I think it alleges damaging outcome. Phil Sandifer 00:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Unnecessary and excessive, in my opinion. – ClockworkSoul 18:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
1. This motion is based upon the assumption that Aaron Brenneman added such annotation with sinister intent. In looking over all of the documentation, I don't believe this is the case. Because there was no sinister intent, to promote such a "remedy" is to make a mountain out of a molehill. – Clockwork Soul 23:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with ClockworkSoul, plus as a closing admin I know how helpful these can be just for tipping me off to potential sock issues on a vote which lets me know that I have to take a closer look at all the votes and this appears to be an attempt to vilify people noting possible sockpuppets and meatpuppets in general. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 18:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Jtkiefer, didn't you previously say that you disregarded at least one comment/vote inappropriately in this AfD and that you regretted it? But you're saying that Aaron's annotations were nevertheless useful? I'm confused by that. Again, I think you got handed a mess with this one, but I don't see how Aaron's notations helped you out in the least. (I asserted elsewhere that they may possibly have misled you). Further as I said at the time, they give the impression of elitism. Aaron marked Eric Burns in a way suggesting his opinion didn't matter, after all. ++Lar 23:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonetheless of how I disregarded votes a note stating that possible sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry may be involved helps since it prompts the closing admin to look into it and even if such claims are false then there's no harm done. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As an admin who has done a fair amount of AfD closing, I've seen such annotations frequently. Such annotations can be helpful. However I'm unsure whether this practice is ultimately a good thing or not. But I see no reason to ban one editor from using it, without banning all editors from using it. Paul August ☎ 00:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Paul is entirely correct. This is yet another case where ArbCom is being asked to essentially create policy. There has not only been no policy against labelling nonce and low-count editors, there has been precedent for it. Many of our more established and respected administrators label edit counts when new voices emerge in AfD, especially when they seem to only show up in one particular debate. Unless there is some strikingly unambiguous evidence that Aaron did this with nasty words and an attempt to intimidate, and did it habitually, would something like "don't do it again" be appropriate. After all, if it were done and done only in these 3 debates, then he would already be unlikely to do it again: a ban on annotating requires a finding that he will do it again without prohibition. Geogre 11:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
No evidence whatsoever that Aaron commented on these votes in bad faith. It is a common practice and it is wrong to sanction a user for it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Looking at the evidence presented, I see no grounds for this proposal. Recommend withdrawal. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Brenneman advised to avoid altering deletion debates

second draft

9.1) Aaron Brenneman is counseled to avoid annotating other editors entries and placing "sock puppet warnings" in deletion debates.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The waggy finger is the most powerful tool on Wikipedia. "Give me a fulcrum, and I shall move the world" -Archimedes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Against this one for the same reasons as I opposed the first version of this which is that I think that this is unecessary and that it's wagging the figure at someone who acted in good faith. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I oppose this for the same reason as above. If we think that this practice should be discouraged, then it should be discouraged for all editors, not just Aaron. I see no good reason to treat him any differently than any other editor in this regard. Paul August ☎ 05:47 December 2005 (UTC)
I also oppose this, as per Jtkiefer and Paul August. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that it ought to be discouraged for all editors, but that's a different thing than an admonishment to a particular editor about how he or she did it in a particular case. I think Aaron's way of doing it in the case in question at least gave the appearance that he wasn't assuming good faith in others. Further I think while we should assume good faith in his case, it hasn't been (and can't be) shown. The wagging of the finger is for the outcome. ++Lar 12:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 10 is renumbered duplicate 2

10) 2 "General point on procedure", clashed in numbering with 2 "Admonishment to Snowspinner". It has been renumbered as 10.

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Snowspinner and Tony Sidaway excluded from enforcement

1) Tony Sidaway and Snowspinner are ~~excluded from enforcement of~~ forbidden to enforce any remedy arising from this case. They are not to enforce sanctions against any party under any of these provisions. amended Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Anybody who thinks I'm not a party has been sleeping since July. Of course I shouldn't engage in any enforcement, should other parties in this case be subject to sanction. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Unecessary since none of proposals regarding Tony and Snowspinner will most likely pass anyway especially since neither are actually a party to this dispute and the arbcom so far has not shown an urge to change that. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought Snowspinner was a party? He's listed under Complaining Witness. I agree with you that Tony ought not to be a party (at this stage can ArbCom modify who the parties are?? I suppose they can!) and that Tony's comments are confusingly sometimes under parties' rather than others which is not always helpful. ++Lar 23:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Woah, wait a minute! Since when is Snowspinner not a party to this? He is a significant party to this. Zoe (216.234.130.130 21:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

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)
This page badly needs to be refactored. In the near future, I am likely to remove, or move to the talk page, proposals and commentary which I do not believe will be helpful to the Committee. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I must admit, this I find this whole process simply fascinating. I am diminishingly unlikely to contribute anything further to this until such a time as the arbitrators make their voice heard as to the scope and direction this will take. I'd much rather be pursuing something constructive, and keeping my powder dry. So, just a few questions.
- Will those members of the arbitration committee that accepted this request explain why they felt that the other stages of dispute resolution were not relevent? Why, in particular, Snowspinner was not required to demonstrate that he had tried and failed to resolve this dispute himself prior to bringing it to RfArb?
- Given the comments made in accepting this, will the arbitration committee be examining diffs that do not have a relationship to Webcomic AfDs, Snowspinner, or WP:WEB?
- Given that the other stages of dispute resolution have not occured, what is the scope of possible remedies and enforcements, and to whom might these be applied? Specifically, if the arbitration committee will entertain arguments that do not involve any of the named members in the request for arbitration, will they also be willing to specify remedies and enforcements for unnamed but involved editors?
Thank you. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
In the course of refactoring I have removed some proposals that I didn't author. Please check /Withdrawn to see if something you still think has relevance to the case is there, and restore if necessary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I apologise to Nandesuka for not immediately informing her of some removals of non-germane sniping. I also apologise to SCZenz for inadvertently removing one of his comments in doing so. I won't be doing that again (*ouch*). I should have left it to one of the arbitrators. My removal of other people's comments--however unsuitable I believed them to be for this page, or for that matter, any place on Wikipedia--was grossly inappropriate. On the complaint about "swizzling the context" (I think I can guess what that means) I have to say that I am altering my comments in place on the advice of the arbitrators; this is their preferred mode, because they view this page as a developing resource rather than a discussion page. I suggest that we all edit our statements in this manner. There are both a talk page, and this section, for discussion, although preferably the latter would be used for matters germane to the case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think that there are a large number of redundant and contradictory sections that should be dealt with as well whether that means they're withdrawn and moved or just outright removed. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Tony: obviously, I disagree with your characterization of my comments, but I thank you for acknowledging that it was inappropriate for you, a party to the action, to remove comments by third parties, simply because you disagreed with them. I trust that you won't do it again. Nandesuka 14:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't remove them because I disagreed with them. Don't get carried away. I removed them because they were sniping and, for the most part, frankly should not be anywhere on Wikipedia. And I'll say no more on this matter,for obvious reasons. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

They were a lot less snipey before you swizzled the context [81]. —Cryptic (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the removal of one's own comments has a strange effect. Some of my comments now make no sense, because Tony's side of the conversation has been removed. That seems like inappropriate refactoring—did you do that, Tony? -- SCZenz 19:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Removing proposals created by others is a tad more than just refactoring, IMHO. Filiocht | The kettle's on 16:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Webcomics_Workshop_1a44.html"

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Template

[edit] Request for Clarification as to scope of Arbitration

[edit] Meatpuppets

[edit] Motion to add User:Jtkiefer to the listed defendants

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

[edit] Wikipedia and deletion

[edit] Assume Good Faith

[edit] Deletion process

[edit] Treatment of new contributors

[edit] Consensus

[edit] Opinion on specialist subjects

[edit] The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia

[edit] Conduct of editors when policy is ambiguous

[edit] Looking for proposed principle 9?

[edit] Civility

[edit] Use of edit summaries in disputes

[edit] Use of html comments in discussion is deprecated

[edit] Defend against passion

[edit] The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia

[edit] Deletion is an emotive issue

[edit] Policy formation

[edit] Personal attacks

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

[edit] Aaron Brenneman edits deletion policy

[edit] Assumptions of bad faith by Aaron Brenneman and Dragonfiend

[edit] Webcomics community opinion

[edit] Eric Burns

[edit] Dragonfiend and Aaron Brenneman discuss the deletion of some webcomics articles

[edit] Dismissing contrary opinions of outsiders and newcomers

[edit] Dismissal of AfD results

[edit] Snowspinner

[edit] Bad faith

[edit] Good faith

[edit] Incivility by Snowspinner

[edit] Failure to assume good faith by Snowspinner

[edit] Playing to win

[edit] Biting the newbies

[edit] Dragonfiend has assumed bad faith

[edit] Acrimonious atmosphere

[edit] Webcomics AfD nominations by Dragonfiend

[edit] Personal attacks by Snowspinner

[edit] Arbitration statement on dispute resolution

[edit] Previous attempts to resolve dispute via talk pages

[edit] Arbitration statement on consensus

[edit] Snowspinner and compromise

[edit] Aaron Brenneman holds a straw poll

[edit] Snowspinner's stated position on webcomics inclusion

[edit] Snowspinner has assumed bad faith

[edit] Proposed remedies

[edit] Template

[edit] A note to the community

[edit] Admonishment to Snowspinner

[edit] General point on procedure

[edit] Aaron Brenneman admonished to seek consensus on policy

[edit] Aaron Brenneman banned from editing Wikipedia policy

[edit] Aaron Brenneman banned from editing deletion-related Wikipedia policy

[edit] Aaron Brenneman on probation

[edit] Dragonfiend not to make webcomics nominations

[edit] All parties admonished

[edit] Aaron Brenneman to Assume Good faith

[edit] Aaron Brenneman forbidden from annotating deletion debates

[edit] Aaron Brenneman advised to avoid altering deletion debates

[edit] 10 is renumbered duplicate 2

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

[edit] Snowspinner and Tony Sidaway excluded from enforcement

[edit] Analysis of evidence

[edit] Template

[edit] General discussion

Views

Navigation