Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics

Case Opened on 22:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 02:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Complaining witness

• Snowspinner (talk · contribs)

Nominal defendants

• Dragonfiend (talk · contribs)
• Aaron Brenneman (talk · contribs)

Statement by Snowspinner

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Several users, most notably Aaron and Dragonfiend, have engaged in a persistent campaign to reduce the number of articles that Wikipedia has about webcomics. In doing so, they have engaged in a consistent pattern of assuming bad faith, biting the newbies, ramming Wikipedia policy through on talk pages with minimal consensus and no outside eyes, and often disregarding the expressed consensus of Wikipedians on AfD in setting their policy. They have, most gallingly, actively declared a lack of concern as to expert opinions on notability in AfDs, accusing experts of having "conflicts of interest" whereby they might use their professional work for the sole purpose of establishing notability on Wikipedia, and thus that their opinion should actually count for less than the opinions of people who know nothing about the subject.

Assumptions of bad faith: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] (Planning a second AfD before the first one has even concluded) [19]

Note particularly [20] where Aaron begins edit counting AfD contributors to discount their votes including Eric Burns, who, although he has 29 edits, has also been around for a year, edited plenty of non-AfD articles, and is, by almost any standard, not a sock. Note also that he signs his edit counts not as himself but instead as the users he is counting the votes of.

Clear intention to disregard established AfD consensus in drafting policy: [21] [22]

I would note also that this issue is doing serious damage to Wikipedia, as evidenced by the transformation of Eric Burns (One of the foremost authorities on webcomics, involved in both of the major webcomics review sites, as well as running his own blog, Websnark, which is huge in the webcomics community) has made regarding Wikipedia. Around a year ago, he wrote [23]. Recently, he wrote [24].

The poisonous atmosphere surrounding webcomics is driving off good-faith contributors. It needs to be stopped.

Trivial clarification by Snowspinner

I don't see this as a case regarding deletion policy at large. I do think it's a case involving assumptions of good faith, the fact that Wikipedia exists primarily for its readers, and the fact that it is not acceptable to try to craft policy under a relative cloud of secrecy and them to use it as a hammer to reshape consensus. I also don't think that any of these principles are remotely in doubt or need of review. Although I object to some of the webcomic nominations - most extremely Dragonfiend's nomination of Checkerboard Nightmare, I am prepared to accept that they were all made in good faith, if not in good judgment. Regretably, this separates them from much of the conduct surrounding this issue. Phil Sandifer 00:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to Sjakkalle

With all due respect, that's just not true... this isn't a case about a few bad AfD nominations. It's a case about a campaign to rid Wikipedia of undesirable content, conducted without care to who it drove off, on the implicit assumption that people who only contribute about webcomics aren't real contributors anyway. It's about a "by any means necessary" attitude towards deletion that results in trying to secretly change the rules because you don't like consensus, in trying to call suspicion on every advocate of the other side you can, and in continually declaring bad faith on the part of those you disagree with. In short, people are operating under the influence of m:MPOV. That's what's poisonous. Making a dumb AfD nomination isn't - we've all done that. Phil Sandifer 15:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Statements by nominal defendants

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by Aaron Brenneman

How about an RfC first? - brenneman^(t)(c) 21:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Dragonfiend

I see no reason to suspect that this issue can't be resolved with the earliest steps of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. -- Dragonfiend 18:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Statements and comments by others

Outside view by Sjakkalle

This looks like a weak case.

Like several other categories of article, some webcomics are deleted by AFD consensus and some are kept, and I see no reason for the ArbCom to get involved in making rulings about the deletion of such comics in particular. All the AFD nominations appear to be in good faith, whether or not I agree with them. Marking votes with a very low number of edits, even if they have a long time present is also common and should not be interpreted as a bad faith action. It is left up to the discretion of the AFD closer to decide whether or not to count those votes. If the webcomic deletion nomination was ill-advised it will attract a flurry of "keep"-votes anyway and the article will be kept, so no real harm done. The AFD system has its problems, but as a regular closer of AFD debates I think the system can handle this without the ArbCom getting involved.

Regarding the discussion in the diffs provided it looks like a somewhat heated but altogether controlled discussion between good-faith contributors with a genuine disagreement.

I recommend that the ArbCom reject this case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Rich Farmbrough

While the zealousness of those attempting to dispose of surplus comix may have been a little to much for some of the more expert in the webcomix community, essentially sound procedures were followed where I have looked. It is perhaps unfortunate that the involvement of the external webcomix community was not seen as expert opinion rather than ballot stuffing, and that the AfD process was seen as by the webcomix community as a personal attack. I would like to see those who know webcomix encouraged to support the webcomix project, and to help the AfD process run more smoothly. There are currently several hundred webcomix on the 'pedia, and we need help to distinguish the wheat from the chaff. I urge the proposers to withdraw this case. Rich Farmbrough 22:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not entirely certain we can ignore this issue. We cannot rest on the letter of the law at the expense of the community spirit. That "essentially sound procedures" were followed does not change the crux of the issue: assumption of bad faith and its effects upon the willingness of those outside the Wikipedia community to contribute.

I believe the bottom line here is that if the Webcomix Project is to be representative of the community it is dedicated to, Wikipedia cannot afford to alienate knowledgeable people such as Eric Burns.--Rosicrucian 22:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by David D. talk

This is a response to snowspinners comment above of : "The poisonous atmosphere surrounding webcomics is driving off good-faith contributors. It needs to be stopped."

Just out of interest why should wikipedia care what bloggers in general think. If wikipedia jumps every time a blogger gets pissed then you may as well just throw out the WP:V and WP:CITE requirements and accept everything. A wikipedia with everything will be more of a joke than a wikipedia with a few NN things missing. And when I say everything, I mean all schools including day care, all the cafe's in England that serve tea, etc. Everything is not better.

So often it seems that wikipedia does not acknowledge it's own quidelines, a type of mob rule seems to exist. If this is the reality that now exists I would suggest wikipedia just gets rid of the rules. Banning Afds would be a start. I see many people wasting editing time in these Afd, Rfc and arbitrations rather than filling the huge holes that exist in this encylopedia. By the way it's the huge holes of real content (just check out the science articles) that make wikipedia a joke, not to mention enough of it is factually incorrect to drive away knowledgable users (who might have otherwise become contributors if they thought it was a worthwhile resource). Personally, I think the fact that wikipedia does not have EVERY pokemon, darlek or webcomic might actually be seen as an asset by many users. Wikipedia claims to be bringing all human knowledge to one place. Unfortunately, to many, it looks like wikipedia is bringing together all information while the knowledge bit is secondary to the trivia, arguing and preening.

If this web comic becomes more notable then it can be added later. If it is already notable it will be kept. I find Dragonfiends nomination perfectly acceptable. She has set a different line with regard to notablity than Eric Burns but I don't see why she should be hung draw and quartered for having such an opinion. Either get rid of the rules or stop bringing this type of subjective Afd to arbitration. It is a waste of everyones time. This type of nomination will hurt wikipedia 10,000 times more than any bloggers comments in cyperspace in wasted man hours. David D. (Talk) 22:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I just want to point out that i do not think that wikipedia is a joke and I think it can become a very useful compliment to text books and other resources. What is frustrating is to see how much time is wasted in Rfc Afd and arbitration. If you think Afd is broken get rid of it but don't waste time arguing about where to draw the NN line. It is too subjective to be a serious discussion. David D. (Talk) 23:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm responding here for the sake of not having a half dozen sections with my name on them - if it's a problem, feel free to move my comments wherever you feel appropriate. But I don't care what "bloggers in general" think. I care what Eric Burns, a reasonable person who knows webcomics cold, is important within the community, and is someone I have found to be respectable and knowledgable in every aspect that I have seen him in thinks. Beyond that, I think you miss the point of the case - I don't object to the Checkerboard Nightmare nomination. Well, I do, but I don't doubt that it was made in good faith. Nor do I object to an effort to draw the NN line, or the existence of a NN line - at least, not here. What I object to is the widespread bad faith - which isn't a question of nominations. It's a question of attitudes, responses, comments, etc. A dumb nomination can be good faith. But to assume bad faith - and to assume bad faith is the default - is poisonous. Phil Sandifer 23:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this is appropriate. So why not just ditch Afd. What purpose can it serve when the line for NN is so subjective. Other than causing huge arguments? David D. (Talk) 23:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, why don't you try to move AfD to a "historical pages" category and see what happens. Phil Sandifer 23:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict on edit with Phil) Another point I was going to make was that the school Afds are ridiculous, and i'm sure many other Afd topics are heading that way too. With regard to the "historical pages" category I'm not quite sure i get the jist of your comment? David D. (Talk) 23:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

If you are wondering why I don't do away with AfD, try doing away with it yourself - you'll see the degree of doomed in the prospect. Phil Sandifer 23:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you offering me one of Hercules' tasks? Anyway wouldn't this be a top down decision? I'm sure exactly no one will listen to anything i suggest. David D. (Talk) 23:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I think what he is proposing refers less to Hercules and more to Sisyphus.--Rosicrucian 21:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point, although, given I am no Hercules it amounts to the same thing. David D. (Talk) 05:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Zordrac

Hi there. I got directed here from Wikipedia_talk:Websites as a request.

I have been reading up about the deletionist policy used by many users, and there is evidence that it has significantly swayed voting towards delete. See: User:Zordrac#Big_note. Therefore, I think that people steamrolling votes towards delete generally need to be discouraged. Whilst hypothetically we have an undelete option, the reality is that it is cumbersome and rarely used, and deletions generally are a one way street.

This case is a premium example of deletionism used in its extreme. It is likely due to a hatred of webcomics generally, although it may be against a particular user, or else just because someone likes to delete things a lot. I don't know why it is. I don't know why it is that someone would sit there and make 5,000 votes for deletion in a month and vote "delete" on 92% of them - yet someone did that too (thats more than 15 per day - a lot of work). Is that suggesting that people only ever vote full stop when they are thinking of voting delete? If so, the process is wrong.

I think that the reality is that 90% of people who vote on AFDs are either voting as a split second unresearched decision or else they are just deciding that they want to delete just because they like to delete things (or conversely vote keep just because they like to keep things). This is why I am saying to everyone to vote in all deletions, if they are interested in fairness. I am not saying to everyone to vote keep every time, far from it. But research everything, read the article and firstly see if it makes any assertions of notoriety - if it doesn't, then its an automatic delete. Then do a google check. Google usually picks anything up that you're going to notice. Then decide. There are many examples where people were actually voting speedy delete on very popular and topical issues - purely because of a lack of research and effort that was put in. When I showed the facts, most people changed their votes.

So when we have people going around telling lies about things to try to steamroll votes, it is going to enormously affect the voting habits. If someone puts in a WP:V or a WP:WEB or WP:MUSIC or any of the other nice little WP shortcuts, then people tend to automatically believe them, without even thinking.

My opinion is that it is the process that is the problem, not the users responsible. I think that the deletion process should be improved to the point where voting is largely unnecessary. I think that articles made in good faith should be protected from being able to be deleted for a period of time, and that this should be an automatic thing. And I think that voting should only be a last resort. Most things should be automatic.

Steamrolling votes is a serious problem, and I have seen enough evidence here to see that that is what definitely happened. In my opinion, an appropriate punishment is to prevent them from being able to make AFDs, and, possibly, prevent them from being able to vote. Of course, if they are willing to calm down, then perhaps negotiation can work too. Zordrac 10:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to David Gerard by Splash

Yes, encouraging the Arbitrators to enter into a case for the purpose of prejudging it is dead right. -Splash^talk 21:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I would say David's clarification is more than reasonable. I would also point out the irony of assuming bad faith in an arbitration request whose subject is assuming bad faith.--Rosicrucian 21:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/1/1/0)

• Recuse, but urge acceptance - David Gerard 21:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Specifically, on the conduct issues - the perpetuation of an assumption of bad faith as standard is grossly damaging to the Wikipedia community and the AC needs to send a message that it cannot be tolerated - David Gerard 16:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Accept to review conduct of editors involved, but not to review deletion policy generally. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. The assumption of bad faith by so many parties is deeply disturbing. James F. (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reject per Sjakkalle and Rich Farmbrough. The arbcom is not here to review deletion policy. Raul654 02:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC) Changed my vote - accept *only* to consider the behavior of the involved editors. Raul654 03:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 00:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reject, policy dispute Fred Bauder 16:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Assume Good Faith

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

Passed 8-0

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.

Passed 8-0

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.

Passed 8-0

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.

Passed 8-0

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.

Passed 8-0

Civility

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

Passed 8-0

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." [25] 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.

Passed 8-0

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.

Passed 8-0

Findings of fact

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" [26]. 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 [27], [28], [29] 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 [30]. 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": [31]

Passed 7-0

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."

Passed 8-0

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" [32]. Dragonfiend compiled a list of webcomics by Alexa rank on her user page, and moved the contents into her user space [33] [34] after being advised to do so by Aaron Brenneman because "it does give the appearance of a purge" [35].

Passed 5-0

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 [36] . 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" [37]. Brenneman also claimed that Snowspinner's arguments "do not have the support of the non-footwear cummunity" [38], an accusation of sock puppetry against editors supporting Snowspinner in the AfD.

Passed 7-0

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 [39] [40], including linking from Wikipedia his own expressions on other websites which contain remarks that are uncivil in the context of Wikipedia [41].

Passed 6-0

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?" [42], referring to such debates as "contaminated" [43], referring to the participants in the discussions as "foaming at the mouth" [44], accusing Eric Burns of participating in "the mugging of an AfD" [45], and describing them as "a sock puppet invasion" [46].

Passed 7-0

Dragonfiend's deletion nominations

7) Dragonfiend has nominated 11 webcomics for deletion [47], [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]. 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.

Passed 7-0

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.

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.

Passed 7-0

All parties cautioned to remain civil

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

Passed 7-0

Enforcement

(none)