Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Proposed decision

Comments

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

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

My good grace is exhausted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Cavernous schisms he has helped create"

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

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

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

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

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