Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, one Arbitrator is recused and one is inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Assume Good Faith

1) Wikipedia editors are strongly encouraged to assume good faith in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Raul654 20:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Deletion process

2) Administrators 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 can be determined solely by fixed rules.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?)
  2. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Raul654 20:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Treatment of new contributors

3) New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore a valuable resource. We should treat newcomers with kindness and patience — hostility or elitism often scare away potentially valuable contributors. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things. See Please do not bite the newcomers.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Raul654 20:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Consensus

4) Wikipedia works by consensus and is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting is not the only factor in interpreting a debate; the points made in the discussion itself must be weighed along with the statistics and persons involved. Strongly held beliefs do not excuse ignoring consensus, abusing official processes, or alienating other contributors.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Raul654 20:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Dismissal of opinions from new users

5) 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.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Raul654 20:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Civility

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

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Raul654 20:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Wikipedia is 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." [1] 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 primarily for its readers, and that the activities of the community must be dedicated to that purpose.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Raul654 20:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] No personal attacks

8) 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.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Raul654 20:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Aaron Brenneman's edits to deletion policy

1) On 7 October, 2005, without discussion, Aaron Brenneman removed a longstanding section containing "If in doubt, don't delete" from the deletion policy, with the edit summary "Removed material added by anonymous user" [2]. This admonition had been added to the policy on 28 March, 2004 by 62.49.153.193 (talk · contribs), and had remained there more-or-less uncontested [3], [4], [5] ever since. 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 words "if in doubt, don't delete", with an edit summary that referred to a discussion elsewhere [6]. 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 statement. He also again altered some of the disputed section along with "remov[ing] some fluff": [7]

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Outside opinion on Wikipedia's handling of webcomics

2) Eric Burns is an established writer on webcomics who has a history of published writing in comics, short fiction, role-playing games, magazines, and poetry. 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."

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Raul654 20:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Aaron Brenneman and Dragonfiend nominate webcomics articles for deletion

3.1) 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".[8] Dragonfiend compiled a list of webcomics by Alexa rank on her user page, and moved the contents into her user space [9][10] after being advised to do so by Aaron Brenneman because " it does give the appearance of a purge" [11].

Support:
(note that this doesn't imply it being done in bad faith) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


Oppose:
  1. James F. (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC) This, as phrased, is I think a content ruling. See alternative.
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC) As per James.
  3. ➥the Epopt 16:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 3.3 is the best worded.
Abstain:

[edit] Less of a content ruling

3.2) Aaron Brenneman and Dragonfiend believe that they are improving Wikipedia by attempting to delete 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" [12]. Dragonfiend compiled a list of webcomics by Alexa rank on her user page, and moved the contents into her user space [13] [14] after being advised to do so by Aaron Brenneman because "it does give the appearance of a purge" [15].

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC) I am not at all comfortable in ruling that people are "improv[ing] Wikipedia by deleting a number of articles". That is not really for us to decide, as it smacks more than a little of being a content ruling.
  2. Fred Bauder 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. We should not rule on what they believe ➥the Epopt 16:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 3.3 is the best worded.
Abstain:

[edit] Deletion activities of Aaron Brenneman and Dragonfiend

3.3) Aaron Brenneman and Dragonfiend are attempting to delete a number of articles on webcomics which they assert are unsuitable for Wikipedia. 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" [16]. Dragonfiend compiled a list of webcomics by Alexa rank on her user page, and moved the contents into her user space [17] [18] after being advised to do so by Aaron Brenneman because "it does give the appearance of a purge" [19].

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 16:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC) Note the wording change regarding their assertion.
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC) This is fine, too.
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC) This is OK with me as well.
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Dismissal of AfD results

4) 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 [20] . 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" [21]. Brenneman also claimed that Snowspinner's arguments "do not have the support of the non-footwear cummunity" [22], an accusation of sock puppetry against editors supporting Snowspinner in the AfD.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Uncivil remarks by Snowspinner

5) As part of the overall debate on the inclusion of webcomics in the encyclopedia, Snowspinner has at times been uncivil [23] [24], including linking from Wikipedia his own expressions on other websites which contain remarks that are uncivil in the context of Wikipedia [25].

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC) I suppose.
  3. Fred Bauder 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Brenneman's warnings to new users

6) Aaron Brenneman has used inflammatory language in attempts to warn new contributors about participating in AfD "OMFG don't delete, are you kidding?" [26], referring to such debates as "contaminated" [27], referring to the participants in the discussions as "foaming at the mouth" [28], accusing Eric Burns of participating in "the mugging of an AfD" [29], and describing them as "a sock puppet invasion" [30].

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Dragonfiend's deletion nominations

7) Dragonfiend has nominated 11 webcomics for deletion [31], [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. 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.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attacks by Snowspinner

8) After Dragonfiend's nomination of Checkerboard Nightmare, Snowspinner informed her that she was "not capable of making reasonable judgements" [42] and stated that her views should be rejected as invalid "on sight" [43].

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC) (note that I agree with Kelly and Jay here as to why this is a personal attack Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC))
  2. Fred Bauder 20:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. A judgment is not necessarily a personal attack, but the manner in which a judgment is presented can amount to a personal attack. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC) A "judgement" presented this way is a personal attack.
Oppose:
  1. A judgment is different from a personal attack. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Agree with Ben.
  3. ➥the Epopt 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[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] Aaron Brenneman admonished

1) 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.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 20:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] All parties cautioned to remain civil

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

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 20:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Once FoF 3, in one of its instantiations, passes, there will be nothing left, so close. James F. (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. close ➥the Epopt 02:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Close case. Neutralitytalk 21:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Close Fred Bauder 23:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Close. Jayjg (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. close. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)