Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop/Withdrawn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | Webcomics | Workshop

1 Withdrawn proposed principles
2 Withdrawn proposed findings of fact
3 Withdrawn proposed remedies
- 3.1 A note to the community

[edit] Withdrawn proposed principles

[edit] If in doubt, don't delete

1) If in doubt, don't delete.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Too glib for a principle, and too much like ruling on policy. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. It is no more glib than "no personal attacks," and we routinely acknowledge existing policy as the principles on which we base are rulings. ➥the Epopt 18:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm very uncomfortable adopting this as a principle in this case; it smells very much like trying to get us to rewrite deletion policy instead of building community consensus for it. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

We don't ever delete an article unless we have a good reason. A good faith difference of opinion on deletion should send a clear message to all parties, leaving them in no doubt as to the role of consensus in deletion matters (copyright deletions are covered by a separate, overriding policy, not the deletion policy). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
1. I agree with this principle, but as Aaron is not an administrator, I don't see how it might have been violated - a more relevent principle might be one against stealthily trying to change policy, misleading edit summaries, or respect for longstanding consensus. Phil Sandifer 03:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
2. In response to SCZenz, this is long-established Wikipedia policy and part of the problem is the prolonged war of attrition waged by one of the editors, against established consensus, to change policy in such a manner as to create a presumption for deletion. Removing "If in doubt, don't delete" is one example, removing direct quotations from the undeletion policy from VFU is another. The apparent intention is to either traduce or ignore longstanding policies that he seems to find inconvenient. The arbitration committee, as a committee and as individuals, can make up their own minds on this. This is a discussion page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
3. On whether the committee should make a pronouncement on policy, this is a matter for the committee. It has not shied from clarifying important policies in the past, nor from adopting as principles some of the more sensible guidelines. This seems like a reasonably sensible guideline to me. Should we be deleting articles when people who are experts in their field are telling us of their importance? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  
  The community, to my knowledge, has chosen to listen to expert opinions in every AfD individually. But whether a guideline is sensible not at issue; I personally agree with the presence of "If in doubt, don't delete," although I think it's vague enough that I interpret it differently than you do. What I object to is this RfAr's apparent simltaneous goals of correcting users' allegedly incorrect behavior and stifling those users' ability to meaningfully contribute to policy discussions. I think it is unfair to pursue both goals at once. -- SCZenz 05:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  
  I don't want to stifle anyone's expression of views, but I think most people can agree that "if in doubt don't delete" is a reasonable summary of Wikipedia's cautious approach to article deletion. We must remember that we're here to build an encyclopedia. To that end, we should have basic policy statements that people are expected to adhere to in the course of editing Wikipedia, whether they personally agree with them or not. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  
  I think I'll drop this proposal because I don't think it's going anywhere. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

I still think this gets too much into policy; I would reject this in favor of "deletion process" as proposed below. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
This sounds more like a finding of fact, in which case I would like to see citations to policy pages, mailing list posts, etc. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Hope this clarifies the principle. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Nandesuka - I suppose it's possible other arbcom members might feel differently.
General - Can't this be combined with 3.1.15 "Deletion is aggressive" below? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 15:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

Definitely goes to policy. I would hope that the ArbCom rejects this one. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The fact that this item is still here, despite it being straightforwardly rejected by Kelly and other Arbcom members, suggests to me that Tony's refactoring has not been effective. This RfArb is not about policy. I urge Arbcom to reject this, and furthermore suggest that perhaps Kelly or other Arbcom members may wish to proceed with their own refactoring. Nandesuka 12:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
This seems to contradict the "not about policy" proviso. Paul August ☎ 21:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion on specialist subjects

6) When considering an article on a specialist subject as a candidate for deletion, well supported, well argued opinions of established, well qualified, independent experts on the subject, based on verifiable evidence, 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)

Comment by parties:

Amended somewhat in response to comments. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:54, 9 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)

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Compromise in the interests of consensus must always be grounded in commonsense. The Farivar case suggests that common sense tends to prevail when wise heads can agree. It's part of the reason we have an arbitration committee, although in this case the appeal was made directly to Jimbo Wales. I have now merged this with proposed principle 15, producing 15.1. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:10, 8 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] Use of edit summaries

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

[edit] Use of edit summaries in disputes

second draft

12.1) If a content dispute develops, proper use of edit summaries is critical. Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it may be controversial; if the edit involves reverting previous changes, it should be marked as a revert in the edit summary. In controversial situations, avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. Doing this will actually exacerbate the situation, because it naturally encourages the other party to respond in the same manner - in other words, by making an edit and using the edit summary - and what might have been productive dialogue instead becomes an edit war. In these situations, it is better to discuss changes to article content on the talk page. (from Wikipedia:Edit summary).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Straight from our guideline on edit summaries. We should all remember this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Use of html comments in discussion is deprecated

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Is this really necessary as a principle? If someone's using hidden comments to violate other policies such as WP:CIV, the specific incidents are probably better as aa finding of fact. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
As with Mindspillage, I don't see why we need to declare new policy. If someone is using HTML comments for an inappropriate purpose, then cite a diff and explain why it's inappropriate, instead of inventing new policy to prohibit it.

Comment by parties:

New one, this. As far as I'm aware only Aaron Brenneman does it. Not sure there is much consensus on it so I've made a comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines asking whether it's widespread. Probably not, and Aaron doesn't do it much. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Deletion is aggressive

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

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties:

This is a basic courtesy that we all too often forget. Remember that a revert has been compared to a slap in the face - complete deletion is, then, akin to a kick to the groin. Like reversion, it is often necessary, but we ought not relish it. Phil Sandifer 05:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Particularly given the wide range of alternatives to deletion, it is often not only likely to offend, it is also easily avoidable by appropriate editing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I propose that this be merged into the more value-neutral section 3.1.2 Wikipedia and deletion. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia exists for its readers. As in any other community, contributors are expected to be familiar with its processes and guidelines whose purpose is to provide a standard for the readers and a framework for the contributor. Newbies are not exempt. The edit page cautions "If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, do not submit it", and it is the ArbCom's daily bread to point this out to users and bring the message home that individual editors do not own articles. Pilatus 17:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC) — The above statement is not a principle of policy but a finding of fact. "The behaviour of those involved in the deletion process must not be offensive" would be applicable policy, and trivially so; that statement is be a corollary of WP:CIV. "The behaviour of those involved in the deletion process will invariably be offensive" is a finding of fact, a finding which is not supported by the data. The majority of debates conducted at AfD is unanimous, and most of them do not raise hackles. Pilatus 16:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Deletion can be emotionally charged, and can seem agressive when there's strong emotional investment in an article. To say that it is agressive I think contradicts WP:AGF, as it's a hair's breadth from implying that one who nominates an article for deletion is being agressive. (I am assuming you mean agressive with a negative connotation, and not as in "Deletion is Bold" or some such thing.) I don't think reversion is a slap in the face in general, but rather depends very much on context—and the same is true of deletion. I also fear that having this as a precedent could be used in unforseen ways to undermine or attack what is, indeed, a necessary part of creating Wikipedia—if it were part of this ArbCom decision, could I call someone who nominated one of my articles for deletion "agressive" without it being a personal attack? -- SCZenz 08:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
This point absolutely should be reworded. In fact, I think taking a one-sided stance like this is likely to contribute to the unpleasant nature of AfD. It seems to reinforce the notion that discussions about deletion must, by their nature, inevitably be acrimonious. It is wise to counsel that one should take care not to offend. On the other hand, one should not leap at the opportunity to take discussions personally, feel offended, and express self-righteous indignation. It might be better if the statement included language recommending people to try not to take offense rather than to encourage hurt feelings by giving the impression that taking offense is correct and justified. --Tabor 06:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Deleteion is part of the normal function of a user-edited encyclopedia. It is neither aggressive nor passive. Rather, it is the alimentary function of the organism. That which belongs, builds the body. That which does not belong is discarded. This is not a value judgment, but it is an evaluation about the usefulness of a particular article to the aims and action of this particular project. There are sites that allow all articles and never delete, and Wikipedia does not need to replicate them. In fact, I would argue that taking the position that nomination for deliberation for deletion and that deletion is an act of aggression is, in fact, an out-of-policy and inappropriate point of view, that it, not the deletions nor nominations, is sanctionable. Geogre 10:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't really see how one can describe deletion as "aggressive" without also describing editing as "aggressive." This doesn't seem relevant to me. Nandesuka 16:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Playing to win

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

Comment by Arbitrators

I don't believe that speculating on motives is constructive ("playing to win"); defending against passion is a strong step toward consensus-building but there must be some better way to state this. Thinking on it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This one is going to bite me in the ass some day... Phil Sandifer 05:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we can describe certain activities, whatever their motives, as playing in a manner that is likely to result in a hegemony for one's views rather than a consensus. Drafting half a dozen people you know and trust into a policy discussion may seem sensible at the time, but the danger is that you'll end up with a lopsided result on which actually there isn't much general consensus outside the small debate. So yes, perhaps this needs rewording, but I think I'll go with the principle. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I said "compromise," and I meant it. Obviously the goal is to obtain consensus, and I think if one is "playing to win" on Wikipedia it means one is trying to sway concensus to accept one's own ideas. The alternative to playing to win is thus to build consensus on a compromise. Or is this item really about ignoring consensus and abusing "official processes" (whatever those are)? Those things are wrong whether one is "playing to win" or not, so I feel like this principle is addressing two issues. -- SCZenz 08:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd refer this section to the section on snowspinner and compromise as added below. I'm not playing to "win", but would like to see some middle ground achieved. For example, I have solid references that show that the proposed 100K alexa band is a poor choice, see the link on WP:WEB. But I have compromised on that. See the link on WP:WEB's talk to the list of webcomic examples, where it's shown that the single criterion that has led to this ArbCom would affect only 20% of the example webcomics, and that of those only two have articles. There is no question that I have, in encounters with Tony in the past, dug in my heels beyond reason. This is not an example of that.
Response to Snowspinner I agree totally and empahtically. Enforced compromise would give effective veto power. That is why we only allow thse things that meet our guidelines on WP:V and WP:CITE to be brought to the table. The hypothetical LaRouche editor, when asked to demonstrate that his LaRouchean claims were suitable for inclusion as they had reputable independant sources, presumably could not. We do not compromise on WP:NPOV, WP:V or WP:CITE under any circumstances. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I would like this to explicitly spell out that compromise is the preferred alternative to trying to "win". -- SCZenz 07:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be used as a club by users - consider a situation like the Lyndon LaRouche articles where one user edit warred with several. If compromise is required, that one user, no matter how wrong, gets to get at least some of their way, and block other ways. Furthermore, compromise still phrases this in the language of people getting their way, which is the whole problem. This isn't about getting your way. Editors do not get their way - the encyclopedia gets its way. Phil Sandifer 00:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is for readers

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

Comment by Arbitrators

This seems redundant with the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia bit above; I'd prefer to clarify that that add this. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Relevant largely in terms of the "meatpuppet" controversy and on how to respond to external criticism - or, really, the entire idea of "external" things to Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 05:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Mindspillage that it's redundant with Proposed Principle 7, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and have redrafted it as a merged proposal (15.1), which I think is somewhat clearer and easier to understand. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is for all its readers, who are by definition "every person on earth in their own language." This goal may override the opinions of a small subset of those readers, even if they are well-informed, well-organized, and have strong views. It is the right—nay, the obligation—of Wikipedia editors to argue in favor of what they think makes the encyclopedia the best it can be for our readership as a whole. -- SCZenz 07:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion on specialist subjects

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)

Comment by parties:

Amended somewhat in response to comments. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:54, 9 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.

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

[edit] Withdrawn proposed findings of fact

[edit] Aaron Brenneman's approach to deletion policy

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

As per SCZenz. Policy is mutable, and wanting to change it is no offense. If other problematic behaviors come up as a result (for example, attempting to force a change without consensus, or using misleading edit summaries), then those should be targeted, but not the attempts to change policy themselves. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Attempting to change policy is not an issue. Misrepresenting policy as having been changed when it has not is. One form of such misrepresentation would be to edit the descriptive policy page to say something other than what it does, when no consensus for that change exists. Another would be stating authoritatively that policy says one thing when in fact it says something else. If there is evidence of someone doing that in this case, please so indicate by adding the appropriate diffs to this finding of fact. Without such diffs, I would not be inclined to include this finding in the decision. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This follows directly from my evidence. It's difficult to get a fellow to adhere to deletion policy when he's prone to editing it and then jumping in and says "no it doesn't say that." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
1. Or, for that matter, altering it, often stealthily (As with the "removing anonymous addition" edit summary) to suit his own purposes. Phil Sandifer 03:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
2. To clarify for SCZenz once more: the issue is not disagreement with policy, it's attempts to "win" arguments by editing out statements of policy that he finds inconvenient. Brenneman simply deleted the section in the first instance, and it was only when he finally disclosed its new contents in the course of "correcting" me that I became aware of what he had done. Subsequently he attempted to get the policy changed by starting a debate on another talk page and then editing the policy with a reference to that debate, after the debate on the talk page of the deletion policy page left him in no doubt about the opposition to his attempts to change it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  
  In that case, the above shouldn't say what it says, but instead say that he has allegedly manipulated policy to influence ongoing debates, and been misleading in his efforts to do so. The statement at the top of this section is that he has made attempts to change the policy in the face of clear opposition—and nothing's wrong with that. (It was done recently at WP:CSD, in fact, and the reason that wasn't a problem is because the editors involved were forthright and honest about what they were trying to do.) -- SCZenz 05:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

[edit] Aaron Brenneman's approach to deletion policy

Second draft

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

2) During the course of policy discussions on Wikipedia talk:Websites, Dragonfiend and Aaron Brenneman and others made frequent recourse to assumptions of bad faith and personal remarks [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] . --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Some of these remarks are by neither Aaron Brenneman nor Dragonfiend; a one-off remark by Cryptic [19] in particular. My take on most of these is that they are disagreement, and vehement disagreement, but are not all examples of verging into the inappropriate or uncivil. This is a particularly acrimonious area of policy, one of the deepest rifts of opinion on Wikipedia; both sides have gotten a little short with each other.

Things like "I know that WP:V is ... difficult for you [20]" are snide and should be avoided; this accusation [21], speculating on Snowspinner's motive, was unhelpful. However, I think it's important not to mistake strong criticism for attack. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Comment by parties:

Follows from Phil Sandifer's evidence. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
1. Give me a few days and I'll present copious volumes of evidence of Aaron Brenneman's habitual resort to snide, uncivil behavior and his almost constant imputations of bad faith to those who disagree with him. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Second thoughts, I'd rather concentrate on how his conduct here, particularly the campaigning and the discounting of other opinions, has tended to degrade the process. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Aaron Brenneman has now falsely accused me of engaging in mudslinging. I will adjust my focus accordingly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  
  Can I ask what you mean by that? If you were doing what was right already, why would you respond to a false accusation by doing something different? -- SCZenz 08:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  
  What is appropriate changes with the circumstances. It is not good to permit a false accusation to stand unchallenged. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Webcomics community, Wikipedia, and alienation

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Though it's unfortunate if subject-matter specialists leave, the only thing I think we can go by here whether the associated conduct is acceptable on WP regardless of who it has offended. I don't know that the wording of this implies that. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
In response to Sjakkalle: If AfD is a "rough game", as you state, then there is something wrong with AfD. I prefer not to blame the people who do not wish to play it; instead, I place blame on those who choose to encourage a "rough game" environment. Deletion is an important part of maintaining an encyclopedia, but there is no reason why it needs to be an incivil one. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

I just realized that a short while ago, but I guess I'm too late to strikethrough my question. ;-) Thanks for your answer. -- SCZenz 00:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Moving from below to here: I propose as a neutral-tone alternative wording "Since these events, a number of users have ceased editing Wikipedia." Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomics community opinion

Second draft

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Cmt moved to correct position above. Thanks to Tony for pointing out my error. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The revised language in 3.1 is, if I understand it: A person popular among web comics authors has expressed his opinion that Wikipedia's coverage of web comics is "worthless." This is a matter for arbitration, but, for example, Njyoder saying that our gender articles were POV, is not? I.e. the regard that some hold for this particular voice is turning this from an "Oh, well" to a matter of arbitration? Is it mandatory that our coverage of web comics be something that the web comics community regards highly (and unanimously so)? It seems like one must already have decided that web comics are central and that this particular author is correct and that deliberating on articles is not allowed if he disagrees with it to find in these actions a cause for arbitration. Geogre 01:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Njyoder was a person who was brought up for RFar for vandalizing all gender-related pages, claiming that they were full of "POV." I could have used any one of a dozen other examples. The point is that one person's opinion is not inherently greater than another's, unless you already venerate that person as an "expert" or someone important. This introduces the opinion of the outside on the function of Wikipedia. As for whether we look bad or not, that, again, is nothing to the point, unless you have already decided the deletion debate for yourself and decided that it is the duty of Wikipedia to not only allow significant web comics, but to be an excellent source of information on web comics. It's ok, to me, if we "look bad" to the web comics community, as that's not our mission. We can have the same debate about Star Trek and whether we look good or bad to the Trek community. In fact, for those with memories long enough, we did have that debate, and we decided that Memory Alpha does its work, we ours. Geogre 14:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomics community opinion

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I've tightened up the wording and moved "disquiet" to "lack of confidence". Wikipedia doesn't operate in a vacuum. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to have two points covering the same thing. Can we combine this and the one below? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What's the point of this finding? John Seigenthaler has recently published much stronger statements expressing "lack of confidence" in the way Wikipedia operates, as have many others. I think Larry Sanger might just have as well. Criticism and disagreement with Wikipedia is nothing new. Also it seems a bit at odds with 11) below—at least with the comments along the lines of disregarding what happens off of Wikipedia. --Tabor 05:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Burns

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

We're not dealing with trolls here. This finding of fact is a companion to 3, and I'd merge them if I could do so without employing stilted English. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This finding is to let Eric derive benefit from the withdrawn principle Opinion on specialist subjects, which originally read "the opinions of established, well qualified, independent experts on the subject should not be dismissed without good reason", and whose purpose seemed to be to exempt "experts" from the rigours of WP:V and WP:CITE. I propose that this finding be withdrawn. Pilatus 17:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Really wondering why this is here. It looks like a testimonial dinner introduction and not a part of an ArbCom case. Should all voters have real life biographies submitted to establish their bona fides? If not, then really none should. Geogre 15:52, 12 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 ☎ 22:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
This seems inheirently pointless. On Wikipedia, he's just an editor.--Sean|Bla ck 02:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Not a troll, not Jimbo. Just a regular editor. Suggest withdrawing. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Campaigning to delete articles on webcomics

5) Aaron Brenneman and Dragonfiend are consciously involved in an overt campaign to delete a number of articles on webcomics from Wikipedia, sometimes going to the lengths of planning a second AfD before the first has been completed. Dragonfiend compiled a list of webcomics by Alexa rank on her user page, and moved the contents into her user space [22][23] after being advised to do so by Aaron Brenneman because " it does give the appearance of a purge" [24].

Comment by Arbitrators:

This finding states true things: that Aaron and Dragonfiend wish to nominate for deletion webcomic articles they do not consider suitable for Wikipedia, and are specifically focusing on this group of articles, but it does so in loaded terms. I see no evidence that this was not done in good faith; I'd alter the wording again here. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Of course there's nothing wrong with campaigning to do something that one considers to be good for Wikipedia. When things go wrong, however, it can be illuminating to examine the background against which things went cockeyed, and the background here is a campaign of deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I think there is something to be said for this. Certainly deleting webcomics, nominating webcomics for deletion, or even nominating lots of webcomics for deletion is not itself a problem. What is a problem is if/when this becomes a "campaign." When a campaign begins, it serves as a "keep out" sign, engenders an us vs. them mentality, and fosters bad faith. I think the more important finding here - or perhaps the principle - is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game that you play to win. My concern is that Aaron and Dragonfiend are playing to win, and that this is becoming more important to them than being open to the possibility of error or to the consequences of their actions. Phil Sandifer 18:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

And I'd like to remind Tony that civility is always a good idea, all the time. Nandesuka 05:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The implication of the wording of this proposed finding-of-fact is that the actions described are a bad thing. If the ArbCom decides that this finding-of-fact is necessary, I would suggest it be reworded to avoid such an implication. -- SCZenz 08:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dismissing contrary opinions of outsiders and newcomers

6) Aaron Brenneman has frequently been dismissive of opinions expressed by non-regular editors on deletion discussions when they disagree with his, referring to such debates as "contaminated" [25], "foaming at the mouth" [26], accusing Eric Burns of participating in "the mugging of an AfD" [27]., describing them as "a sock puppet invasion" [28]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Merging this with 3.1.5 would be inappropriate as 3.1.5 is a principle, and this is a finding of fact. Principles state what we, the Arbcom, hold to be the policy applicable to the matter at hand, while findings of fact state what we, the ArbCom, determine to be the relevant facts from the matter at hand. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Follows from the evidence. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I propose that this be merged into 3.1.5 Treatment of new contributors. Why do we have so much duplication, it only serves to further fragment discussion. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Unreasonably dismissing reasonably argued expert opinion

7) Aaron Brenneman has been dismissive of reasonably argued expert opinions expressed on deletion discussions when they disagree with his, claiming for instance that they constituted claims made "without providing anything resembling a testable rationale", [29]. He was in fact referring to this argument presented by Snowspinner, in which the latter gave a reasonable, verifiable argument which was subsequently cited by over a dozen editors who voted to keep the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

A person trained to Graduate or better in the relivent field.
A person who has been published in a notable publication in the relivent field.
A person who is quoted as an authority in a notable publication in the relivent field. Dformosa 06:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] Unreasonably dismissing persuasive expert opinion

second draft

7.1) Aaron Brenneman has been dismissive of persuasive expert opinions expressed on deletion discussions when they disagree with his, claiming for instance that they constituted claims made "without providing anything resembling a testable rationale", [30]. He was in fact referring to this argument presented by Snowspinner, in which the latter gave an argument which was presented in a manner which did not merit outright dismissal, and which was persuasive enough to be subsequently cited by over a dozen editors who voted to keep the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

[edit] Failure to assume good faith by Snowspinner

12) Snowspinner has failed to assume good faith on the part of others, asserting that having made an incorrect AfD nomination was an indication of being "not capable of making reasonable judgements" rather than a simple error [31] and that a user's views ought to be rejected "on sight" because he disagreed with them [32].

Comment by Arbitrators:

One possible explication of the principle behind AGF is "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity". The alleged conduct is not a violation of AGF (SCZenz's opinion notwithstanding). It is, however, uncivil. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Snowspinner may well have failed to assume good faith, but this is not a good example. The wording reads, in full: "Keep'. Suggest politely that Dragonfiend stop nominating webcomics for deletion, as he is very obviously not capable of making reasonable judgments of notability if he is nominating this." I think Snowspinner agrees that it was uncivil, but it certainly doesn't impute bad faith or fail to assume good faith. Recast as personal attack of incivility. --Tony Sidaway|Talk

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

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

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

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

I agree with Sidaway. By Wikipedia:Assume good faith, 'Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions.'. Allegation of incompetence is not a claim of intent by Snowspinner, so the guideline does not apply. Not unless Snowspinner thinks Dragonfiend is deliberately incompetent.--Fangz 07:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Should I rephrase this in terms of WP:NPA? Even if I can't put my finger on it exactly, I think something is wrong when Dragonfiend makes a number of nominations that succeed, and then is told she's generally incompetant because she makes one error. I am openly soliciting suggestions about how to rephrase this issue. -- SCZenz 07:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I have followed Tony's suggestion; see #Personal attacks by Snowspinner below. -- SCZenz 21:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom. - This gives some wriggle room, if Snowspinner is to plead that he had sufficient evidence in his eyes to justify the claim, that he only made it in reference to specific, isolated circumstances, and that it wasn't said with 'venom', whatever that means. --Fangz 07:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That was written in the past couple days; I think it's a mistake to treat it as the text of a law, where the exact details matter. -- SCZenz 07:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Snowspinner

8) Snowspinner is a longstanding Wikipedian who represents himself as an expert on webcomics (see User:Snowspinner/Webcomics). His arguments have been accepted by many fellow editors and have directly influenced deletion debates. [33]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am swayed by the notion that it would be unreasonable to expect the arbitration committee to validate experts--even with such careful circumlocutions as I've employed above. I withdraw this proposed finding of fact as unsuitable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
If it can be explained to me why we would say the above about Snowspinner that would help. This appears to be an attempt to get the ArbCom to "validate" Snowspinner's expert status. I cannot imagine to what end, unless it it to support an finding to the effect of "Do not argue with experts." I'd propose that anything relevent here be merged into .1.7 opinion on specialist subjects. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Non-germane. Plenty of folks influence AfD debates. Most do it by dint of reasoning. Anyone who does it by reference to "expertise" is violating Wikipedia's founding assumption that we use account names rather than real names. See above. Geogre 15:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... what? [34] That assumption doesn't exist. Hence User:Jimbo Wales and User:Larry Sanger. Phil Sandifer 16:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
1. Per their choice. If you go to the account page, you will see quite clearly the language in use. Please don't introduce a red herring to try to invalidate the point. When Wikipedia becomes real-name only, quite a few of us will be packing our bags. Geogre 19:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

I firmly believe that Snowspinner is who he says he is, and very knowledgable on webcomics. Everything in this finding of fact is true, and if the ArbCom wants to give him a compliment I think that's very thoughtful. However, if the implicit goal in the statement above is to imply that Snowspinner's level of expertise makes it inappropriate to argue with him, I object strongly to that. -- SCZenz
See my extensive discussion under the Opinion on specialist subjects heading. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:21, 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 ☎ 15:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum rolled in to one! --Tabor 20:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawn proposed remedies

[edit] A note to the community

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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)

Comment by parties:

This will be, I imagine, controversial, but I think it can be done without stepping into the deletion policy quagmire at all - both sides of this debate have been less civil than is desirable, and this is far from the only acrimonious deletion debate on Wikipedia. Without targetting anybody specifically, and without taking sides, it is worth warning the community on this point. Phil Sandifer 05:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Let the message to the community be embodied by a strong finding on consensus and policy-formation, which I believe to be at the heart of this case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree with Kelly on this one, the arbcom is not in a position to issue general instructions to the community, especially in cases such as this. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Webcomics_Workshop_Withdrawn_e362.html"

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop/Withdrawn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Withdrawn proposed principles

[edit] If in doubt, don't delete

[edit] Opinion on specialist subjects

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

[edit] Looking for proposed principle 9?

[edit] Use of edit summaries

[edit] Use of edit summaries in disputes

[edit] Use of html comments in discussion is deprecated

[edit] Deletion is aggressive

[edit] Playing to win

[edit] Wikipedia is for readers

[edit] Opinion on specialist subjects

[edit] Withdrawn proposed findings of fact

[edit] Aaron Brenneman's approach to deletion policy

[edit] Aaron Brenneman's approach to deletion policy

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

[edit] Webcomics community, Wikipedia, and alienation

[edit] Webcomics community opinion

[edit] Webcomics community opinion

[edit] Eric Burns

[edit] Campaigning to delete articles on webcomics

[edit] Dismissing contrary opinions of outsiders and newcomers

[edit] Unreasonably dismissing reasonably argued expert opinion

[edit] Unreasonably dismissing persuasive expert opinion

[edit] Failure to assume good faith by Snowspinner

[edit] Snowspinner

[edit] Withdrawn proposed remedies

[edit] A note to the community

Views

Navigation

Search