Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Proposed decision

message: 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: Nandesuka 06:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: And that context was known to the person?  It wasn't biting the newbie?  After all, someone was clueless enough to ask, and that seems to mean that the person was a newbie.  To be flippant in that response is the same as "biting a newbie" by, essentially, saying, "Haha, you don't know our policies!"  That's pretty much the definition of newbie biting.  Furthermore, these are comments on WP:AN/I, which the new user has every right to expect to be a bit more serious than "this is my playground, and I'm making a joke for my buddies."  I.e. If saying "as a new voter, your vote may not be counted" is newbie biting, then deriding a new user on WP:AN/I would be in a class above and beyond that.  Geogre 16:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cavernous schisms he has helped create" 

message: 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."  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)
replies: text: Well, let's be frank:  if the judgment is one that expresses criticism of you, we might be told that it "doesn't belong on Wikipedia."  Theoretically.  Nandesuka 17:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks very much for illustrating my point.  It is — and I am being sincere — a big help. Nandesuka 16:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, I'm simply expressing my opinion that you have made gross errors in the way you have pursued this RFArb — errors that you yourself have acknowledged — and that your judgment isn't up to snuff.  That kind of judgment is inevitable in a community like this.  Isn't it? Nandesuka 17:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I disagree with your characterization of my description of your behavior.  I think you have amply demonstrated that your determination of what is and is not a personal attack is not trustworthy:  you seem to take any criticism, no matter how delicately phrased, as a personal attack, but are willing to excuse any indiscretion by those you agree with, no matter how aggressive or crass ( is a great example), as "perfectly reasonable and funny."  I am sorry that you are determined to interpret any and all of my constructive criticisms of you as personal attacks.  But I can't control the inferences you make, and I certainly will not allow you to place responsibility for your inferences on me.  I will continue to treat you with civility, but will never let that stop me from pointing out the serious flaws in your behavior.  Kind regards, Nandesuka 06:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is. 

message: For the ArbCom to rule that "a judgment is different from a personal attack", would be a dramatic weakening of WP:NPA. If such a ruling were to occur, expect everyone who is accused of making a personal attack to be quoting this ruling. Obviously all personal attacks involve making a judgment. Saying to a presumably health adult that she is "very obviously not capable of making reasonable judgments" and all her opinions "ought to be opposed on sight" is most definitely an attack, and it couldn't be any more personal. Such statements are equivalent to saying "you are an idiot". To the arbitrators who don't seem to think it is, please consider how you would feel if someone were to say, "Neutrality and James F, having voted oppose on this, are very obviously not capable of making reasonable judgments — all their opinions ought to be opposed on sight". Paul August ☎ 03:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attacks by Snowspinner 

message: If these are the extent of the remedies the arbcom is considering, they may as well just cloes the case with four votes. Aaron has made clear on this page that he does not intend to take admonishment seriously. He has indicated with edits like  that he is going to continue treating all those who disagree with them with an assumption of bad faith. A ruling from the arbcom here that amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic is worse than useless - it sends the message that the way in which webcomics deletion has been handled - a way that is all too similar to deletion in many other topics - is more or less wholly OK. Phil Sandifer 01:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you get to tell ArbCom when to stop deliberating, Snowspinner.  At any rate, I would like to point to your phrase "similar to deletion in many other topics":  is it the center of your contention that any article about a web comic is somehow unlike an article on any other subject and that it should get a different sort of consideration for deletion (or not be considered at all)?  I had suspected, in my most satirical mood, that you were suggesting that web comics are "already determined" and that their subject was, according to you, a "get out of AfD free" card, but I hoped you weren't really suggesting any such thing, as that would mean that you filed an RFar for deletion policy clarification and to get the ArbCom to admonish people simply for not taking your word for what is and is not subject to deletion policy.  Geogre 23:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked, but I couldn't find a barnstar for "novel interpretation of what people say for the purposes of easier refuting their arguments." Phil Sandifer 23:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Snowspinner: Please see WP:CIV. - 00:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry... I'm not sure how to make "That's a complete straw man of my argument that totally ignores what I said" more civil. Humor seemed the optimal method. Phil Sandifer 01:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No - I would imagine a subject expert on any subject would be given a wide berth to say, "Um, wait just a second here, this is important," and to be listened to. Webcomics are the dispute in which this has turned viciously ugly and in which the opiniosn of experts are being most inexcusably dismissed. It is far from the only horribly uncivil deletion debate on Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 16:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how I think it ought to be too, but that doesn't seem to be how it actually is in practice. Many of the parties in this debate (especially among those who think Aaron did nothing wrong) seem to be saying that experts carry no extra weight, get no benefit of the doubt, but have to prove things in detail when they assert them, every single time, just like Joe Random Editor is expected to when he's talking about something he doesn't know anything about. All opinions about a subject are not, in my view, equal. The well informed ones ought to be worth more when its domain knowlege that is in question. (rather than the opinions of those with the most edits...) And as I've asserted before, I think that's bad for the long term growth of the encyclopedia. In my trawling around reading things, I have noticed experts in other fields also pointing this out.  How long has it been this way? ++Lar 17:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's always been that way and should generally always be that way in content issues - although there's at times a place for an expert to use their own research as a source for something. (Which is to say, there is a point at which NOR should be IARed). I continue to think it's absurd to demand experts be able to produce citations in five days or see the article nuked, and that it's absurd to treat experts as less credible than people who know nothing - both things that this discussion has moved towards. Phil Sandifer 17:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think WP:WORLD (which points out that the world does not revolve around any particular editor) has some bearing here, but as a converse. For many valuable experts the world does NOT revolve around Wikipedia! They are terrifically busy, and have a choice of where to devote their free time. Repeatedly providing bonafides or repeatedly defending the same article, or assertion, may be perceived by them as a waste of their time, and thus they will choose not to participate, and further, will start commenting about Wikipedia negatively. While it's reasonable to ask for sources and cites in article space, and even reasonable to ask for bonafides, the first time, in an AfD debate,  dismissing an expert comment with "user has 29 edits" is wrong. True, webcomics are pop culture, and are small potatoes compared to other more weighty topics, and ArbCom isn't being asked to rule on the general principle of treating experts with respect (nor should it be asked), but I nevertheless think Aaron needs to be admonished about this (with some enforcement teeth, there currently are none), as it is a bad precedent to leave standing, especially if it starts getting extended to other areas. We should not be chasing experts away, and we should not delude ourselves into thinking that all input is equally valid. IMHO. (Tangentially: I must apologise... I have misjudged you, Geogre, I had failed to WP:AGF, I had mentally pigeonholed you as something of a reactionary foamer, and I am sorry. I got a chance to read your user page and I realised there is a lot of very profound and thoughtful work there on what makes a subject notable, and how to comport oneself in AfD discussions, and most importantly, on what makes an article good... I think if you think about this matter with less regard to the personalities involved and more about the issues, you will realise that maybe I have a valid point about how Aaron comported himself, and about how we need to welcome experts rather than belittle them. for experts can make an article good much faster than those that know nothing about the topic. WP is an experience, you cannot separate articlespace from projectspace, and belittling experts in AfD debates will not endear them to WP, the experience, or motivate them to work on articles, which after all is the goal, right? To build the greatest encyclopedia man has ever known...) ++Lar 17:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one, "experts" or otherwise, should be "belittled". Aaron is not without blame, and this ruling currently recognizes that. The edit count annotations, whether good or bad, are a common practice. They have been used by many editors on many AfD's (as well as other places), for a long time. They can be used to "belittle" and even when not, they can still be construed as "belittling", especially by new editors. All that is unfortunate, and argues against the practice. However such annotations can also be very helpful to the closing AfD admin in weighing opinions appropriately. And when I see something like "user has 29 edits" I read it to mean exactly that and nothing more. I certainly don't read it as an attempt to denigrate (though of course it might be). As I've said before this whole expert thing is a can of worms. The reasons are several, not the least of which is that there is no way one can be sure of the identity of any editor let alone whether they are an "expert". Many people might consider me to be an "expert" in certain areas (I have a PhD, I've taught at the university level, I've given talks and published papers in reputable peer reviewed journals) but I don't expect, nor want to be, treated differently than any other editor. I think the level of respect any editor should have for me should be based on my body of edits, and nothing more. In fact as senility begins to set in, they should probably judge me more and more by my more recent edits, after all, as it says on my user page "C.V.": "Once considered talented". — Paul August ☎ 19:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Lar, I guess, for the compliment (but it was a bit alloyed).  Paul and I have similar "credentials," and there are other Ph.D.'s running around the site as well.  I agree, further, that no one should be belittled, but noting when an account has few edits does have a legitimate, non-hostile purpose.  Let's put it this way:  It's no longer a secret that my specialty is 18th century British literature.  Let's say that I went to C18-L after writing an article on Hodge, the cat of Samuel Johnson's.  If it went to AfD, I could get upset and tell the C18-L people that Wikipedia was "suppressing" articles and information on pets of the famous.  The people who would come to vote in the discussion would be highly, highly qualified folks -- all of them either doctoral candidates or professors of 18th century literature.  However, they wouldn't know anything about Wikipedia.  They'd know their subject, but not us.  The few edit labels are supposed to help us figure out when people have a lot of experience with Wikipedia.  Whether they know the subject or not is somewhat irrelevant: we want experts to be editors, and we want them to be welcome, but their point of view on what should and should not be in Wikipedia may be way off base and may be biased by the way that the debate was presented to them.  The label isn't supposed to say, "You newbie, you're worthless!"  It's supposed to say, "This person has little experience, based on edits, with Wikipedia."  (BTW, with Hodge the cat, I have favored deletion, but someone wrote a very clever article on him, more or less to spite me, I think.  I like Hodge, and it's a great article, but he should be discussed with Johnson rather than as a star of literature and life.)  More to the point, expertise is something that can help assess whether the fact claims of an article are true or not, but not really, I think, the importance or centrality of a topic.  If I tell you that Aphra Behn was not against slavery, you should probably believe me.  If I tell you that Aphra Behn is more important than Charlotte Bronte, you should no more believe me than the next person.  What I suspect is that expertise is being used here to suggest that the in/out decision must be left to the "experts."  Experts are experts on fact and truth, but not really Wikipedia and the importance of a topic to Wikipedia.  Geogre 18:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but if you tell me that Aphra Behn is more important than Charlotte Bronte (assuming she's C18L too, I'll pretend I have no idea and, for the purposes of this discussion, won't follow the links to see for myself), and you've already established your C18-L bonafides (regardless of how many edits you have here, that's irrelevant to evaluating notability once you know what it is), I AM going to take your word for it, way more so than if Joe Random Editor says so. I believe that IS the correct thing to do. If someone was proposing that a templatebox be added to AfD discussions that gave links to distilled (i.e. SHORT and TO THE POINT... coming up to speed on Wikipedia-culture is a big research project as it stands now, there are a lot of things to read, and I certainly won't claim to being all the way "up to speed") consensus on how to make a case for notability here and how to establish bonafides, I'd be all for that. But that's not what happened here. What happened in this AfD was that Aaron's actions gave the appearance (whether done in good faith or not, the appearance still stands) of callous disregard for opinions of anyone other than insiders, and his statements surrounding this AfD, coupled with Dragonfiend's statements (all as already detailed in the evidence), give the appearance (whether done in good faith or not, the appearance still stands) of a campaign against webcomics, and what seems to be the outcome pending certification in this arbitration is that he be told not to do it again, with absolutely no enforcement teeth, in the face of his statements that he has no intention of caring or heeding what ArbCom says. I call BS. ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's take a step back, as there is some history you should know about.  Aaron has been interested in deletion standards since he got to Wikipedia, or at least since I became aware of him on Wikipedia.  He has been systematic about it.  When a new category arises, whether those are sprite comics or web comics or blogs or forums, he tries to work out a project page for quantifying include/exclude decisions.  Now me, I'm not one of those.  I despair of anything concrete coming out of that endeavor and have suspicions about the way that such criteria will be used, but I agree essentially with the impulse.  The blogs are clear examples of a category of subject where few people think there is inherent usefulness.  Sprite comics are much the same.  Forums are harder, and web comics are very hard.  This is because there are some long time Wikipedians who are fans of these things.  Aaron wanted to get a guide anyway, and he plunged on heedless of who was on the other side.  I don't think he was on a campaign against web comics.  I think he was on a campaign to find a system for determining which ones, if any, should be allowed.  I don't want to put words into his keyboard, but that's the impression I get.  When this stuff turned acrimonious, he attempted a poll on criteria as part of WP:WEB.  Snowspinner took part in that.  Then this went to RFar, without the usual attempt at mediation or comment, and the stakes got raised.  I had previously been unaware of the WP:WEB debate, myself.  Speaking only for myself, I suspect that Snowspinner has worked to have personal preference rather than community assessment.  AfD may expose an article to the ignorant and unwashed, but it's the system we have.  Those non-experts, non-fans, non-viewers of web comics are, in a sense, the people who use Wikipedia to look things up.  I feel like we need to be dispassionate about it.  For me alone, I'd say that we should treat web comics like web forums and web sites: they need to have an effect beyond their own fans.  This will make some in, and it will make some very good web comics out.  If our mission were to preserve all information, this would be a crime, but that's not what we do: we're a tertiary source of information.  We're supposed to write about nothing that isn't being written about by other, verifiable, objective sources, and getting into experts who rank above outside references invites us to allow original research (which is one of those WP:NOT things).  Most of all, I object to the way this whole thing has gone out of process.  Geogre 02:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm starting to wonder if holding a bunch of (x)fD for x that are related to topic y is the right way to determine what the right level of coverage for y actually is. You say " Those non-experts, non-fans, non-viewers of web comics are, in a sense, the people who use Wikipedia to look things up." but I don't think that's true at all. The people who comment in AfD discussions are aren't anywhere close to a cross section of the readership. They're self selected. The regulars that comment do it (I perceive) because they are deep into the mechanics of WP, and therefore are quite a bit differently distributed, I suspect, than average seekers of information, and the armies of interested partisans that come in because of calls to arms aren't representative readers either. But this is way off topic for this RfAr and more suited to the general deletion reform discussions I suspect. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm confused.  Why do you think he was joking? Nandesuka 17:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I do no think he considers himself a deletionist vandal? Phil Sandifer 17:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: So?  Again: what does his love/honor/reverence for your position have to do with anything?  Since when do we suggest that someone's disagreeing with the process is evidence for the process?  This looks like another veiled personal attack/taunting-by-tattling.  Geogre 18:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This ruling

message: I believe referring to other Wikipedia editors as "people who know nothing"  ought to be avoided. -- Dragonfiend 17:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snowspinner and "people who know nothing" 

message: The purpose of an arbitration remedy is to stop the problems identified in the findings of fact from recurring. The findings of fact verge on the painfully trivial. The remedies say "yeah, so play nicely". That can't be enforced, even with the Might of the Arbitrators behind it (or there'd be no arbitrators). Why did this need any kind of arbitration, and what do the Arbitrators (and the parties) think is going to be achieved by this? Perhaps you all just wanted a blood-letting. Please confine such activities to the privacy of your own homes in future. -Splashtalk 23:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been fairly explicit about my dislike of this ruling for basically these reasons. Phil Sandifer 00:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I imagine the arbcom would have, in this case, closed without findings. I take this to mean "This is bad. Not quite so bad that we're going to bust heads, but bad, and you all should make damn certain not to let it get worse." Phil Sandifer 15:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really need the ArbCom to tell us that? Anyway, I am personally quite satisfied that none of the remedies here involve sanctions against users who I all consider to be good and responsible. That includes you Snowspinner, I consider you to be a good and responsible contributor. Sometimes a bit too bold for my tastes, but in general a good faith contributor. I do think that a request for mediation or comment would have had a good chance of solving the problem before the ArbCom got invloved. Arbitration cases have a tendency to bring about hard feelings and the worst in people, something which is not always true of RFC and RFM. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason the findings of fact verge on the painfully trivial is that the complaints brought by the parties were painfully trivial.  That they coupled their trivial complaints with requests for heavyhanded and unreasonable relief does not give those complaints any more gravitas.  This RFArb is a shining example of why we have a general principal that other forms of mediation should be tried before arbitration.  The only thing this arbitration accomplished was to stir up ill will.  Please, please, please, Snowspinner - next time, try mediation or an RFC before trying to get people punished for the crime of disagreeing with you. Nandesuka 15:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I had in mind by "trivial" the notion that, given the series of diffs that any reasonably competent editor could have constructed, there is nothing contributed to them by the findings of fact: they merely make a trivial regurgitation of them. It didn't need arbitration to say what the findings of fact say, unless, as I said, people just wanted to have a shout about it. It is of course not trivial in the manner that Tony observes; but as he amply demonstrates, it doesn't take arbitration to reach those conclusions. -Splashtalk 03:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does this arbitrate