Just some background for the arbitrators, I have been involved webcomic discussions with Snowspinner, Dragonfiend and Brenneman. I haven't had anything to do with webcomic AFDs for a while now, because I wanted to concentrate on content creation.

And I really cannot believe that it's come to this, it's a bit drastic isn't it? Whereas a few blunt comments on AFD may scare off a potential editor, this could probably scare off some established ones. I can't understand how it's come to the final solution, arbitration over the I apologise if this comment seems unfocused but it's late, and there really is a lot to respond to.

The nominations were made in good faith. And in general discussion with the "defendants", they seem to be civil and rational. I must also point out that it is very hard to maintain this when the deletion nomination in discussion decides to send all their readers towards the wiki. I must also point out, that many of those who do respond to the "call to arms" are not interested in the wikipedia project, but are purely interested in making sure their favourite comic has an article, either for kudos or advertising.

Snowspinner has produced a large amount of diffs, but I ask the arbitrators to please look through the discussions they were made in. Many of these heated debates had rather unsporting comments from both sides. And clear intention to disregard afd consensus is just false. The guidelines at WP:WEB were drafted with afd consensus and discussion at it's heart with the involvement of parties on both side of the afd divide. Maybe Brenneman thought that he'd be bold in changing a piece of the guideline, maybe he thought that webcomics should not have such a wider band of inclusion than normal websites. That's a tiny piece of talk on a change that was never made.

Altering Eric Burn's viewpoint on wikipedia? Brenneman and Dragonfiend are now held accountable to that?! I know the webcomic community has great respect for Eric Burns, I understand. But still, Eric Burn's comments and opinions are just that, his thoughts. in that way, we could hold Eric Burn's accountable and open up a RFAr for criticising wikipedia on his blog and driving off potential editors. Some of his comments are erronomous, hopelessly ignorant with wikipedia process and with loaded rhetorical questions.

The most ridiculous part of this RFAr is the assertion that these editors are going on some megalomaniac power trip in nominating articles, coming from a RFAr due to a bad faith assumption?! I would direct m:MPOV back towards Snowspinner, and the main evidence I present for this is this case itself. In my past discussions with him, he has repeatedly restated his expert knowledge on webcomics, expert knowledge which no one denies. Yet he also uses his expert knowledge to crowbar extra support for his arguments, he's an expert so obviously people should agree with him. This should absolutely not be the case, I would not question his edits on webcomic culture or content. But when he states that because he is an expert, they should also agree with his views on what is and is not allowed in webcomic deletion discussion then that's wrong. He has stated in the past for example, that he supported Eric Burns's 100 comics = notable criteria, should the community have agreed then, because he was an expert?

This RFAr seems to be an attempt to root out and alienate those opposed to large scale webcomic inclusion from the webcomic wiki-corner. I've only come accross this RFAr today, and I was flabberghasted that this dispute has been taken into the upper echelons of wikipedia bureaucracy. I again apologise for the rant, it's currently 6am here, and I've already spent too long on this. I need my sleep, but I hope that the arbitrators can glean some insight from what I've posted.

PS. Please take a look at a deleted RFC that was bought up against me Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hahnchen and it's talk page. It goes through similar arguments to the ones listed here.

Hahnchen 06:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you (almost) fully. Hahnchen, I think you might want to request undeletion of the RFC against you if you want it to be visible to everyone. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope that your referring to arbcom as the "final solution" was not a deliberate reference to the Final Solution? Phil Sandifer 03:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, hell no. I've never looked into the workings of arbcom - but it seems like its the "be all and end all" kind of thing. They seem to bold the "last resort" thing a few times, I thought it was an overreaction to the events that have happened. - Hahnchen 15:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank God - be careful using that phrase. It's really, as you see, a bit loaded. Phil Sandifer 21:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how the ArbCom intends to handle this case. I think, and feel free to explain this further, that you have one side that wants the more insignificant webcomics that wouldn't otherwise meet our standards for article inclusion (except that they are webcomics, and I don't see why that matters) deleted, and is using AfD to try to accomplish this (AfD being the legitimate and accepted way to do so); and then you've got one side, which is Snowspinner, that says an expert's vouching for a topic's notability should suffice. And there's some fuzzy talk from the latter side about "bad faith", which doesn't seem to have much basis and seems more like a front for the real argument. How is the ArbCom going to approach this? I mean, somebody give me an example of a potential ruling the ArbCom could make on this. If you rule on the content issue it will set a huge precedent. If you rule on behavior you'll be punishing people who've used the established mechanisms of process to do something that has a significant degree of community support. To think that either one of these things will be the outcome is hard for me to believe. Everyking 10:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this doesn't seem like it should be an ArbCom matter. I don't like the recent wave of attempts to delete webcomic articles, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that the people in question are acting in bad faith. Dragonfiend legitimately thought that Checkerboard Nightmare wasn't notable, for instance. It's as if an editor who didn't think math was notable nominated dozens of articles like Wallis product, then accidentally tried to delete Fermat's last theorem without realizing how well-known it was. That would not be a problem with the editor; it would be a legitimate difference of opinion, which Wikipedia should allow. I'm glad the arbitrators have said they won't be judging the deletion policy issues, and I expect they will find that the users' conduct has not violated any policies. Factitious 20:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more about not automatically assuming someone is a sockpuppet and not attempting to exclude or alienate people. It's less about the AfD itself and more about the fallout of the way people were treated during the AfD, both on that page and on their individual talk pages.--Rosicrucian 22:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, the way the ArbCom works now, acquittal is virtually impossible once a case has been accepted. In practice, acceptance of the case is basically a conviction; the subsequent process is just to work out what the sentence will be. So it seems to me like it'll be tough for the accused parties to get out of this without some measure(s) being taken against them, even though I don't really see that they did anything wrong. Everyking 04:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there'd be any serious measures taken against them. It could be as mild as a reminder not to bite the newcomers, and a suggestion that they avoid AfD for a little while. Factitious 23:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's hope so. But I think the only way that will happen is if the ArbCom decides to change course in mid-stream. On the rare occasions it has handed down "soft" remedies like you're predicting, it has been in cases where it had rushed to judgment and then realized they were wrong, so they devised soft rulings so they wouldn't completely lose face. Everyking 04:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My God, are you completely incapable of good faith? Phil Sandifer 04:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This coming from you? Was I supposed to take that as a joke, or what? Everyking 08:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No - as an expression of shocked horror. Phil Sandifer 21:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize in advance for the length of what I'm about to write. I hope it doesn't bore folks too much.

1. The first issue is that Arbitration is set up to mediate and ameliorate the bad behavior of users, and therefore that should be addressed first. The behavior in question here is the nomination of web comics, in particular, to AfD. Now, to have nominations that draw any debate at all classified as a matter worthy of arbitration, it seems to me, one has to make several assumptions. First, one must assume that nominating an article for AfD is a sign of bad faith. To say that User X "assumes bad faith in an article creator" by nominating for discussion under AfD requires that one believe that AfD is 1) punitive, 2) hostile, and 3) that nomination implies a desire to delete. In fact, although deletion occurs in 70% of AfD discussions, it does not occur in 30% of cases, and nominating something is in no way a sign of hostility. It is not an effort to delete. It is an effort to deliberate. If one believes that deliberation has broken down, then that is a matter for other remedies.
   1. The labelling of nonce accounts in voting is a longstanding practice. It should be done. It is no mark of hostility. So long as votes are not tampered with (strike-throughs or removal), there is no issue present.
   2. A systematic nomination of any class of article for AfD cannot be considered action against a user. There is no one user responsible for all of these articles. Therefore, there is no conflict of User X vs. User A. Instead, there is a desire by User X to see if this class of article bears scrutiny, no matter the authors. If there is no prejudicial prosecution of users, then there is no user conflict. This is a vital point.
   3. ArbCom is being asked to consider not the actions of a user, but a class of user: this class is "those who nominate(d) web comics to AfD." That this class includes three people at this point is coincidental, as the prosecution and complaint is most emphatically not lodged as against user behavior with regard to other users, but solely upon a group of actions against a class of article.
   4. The purported harms being considered are that some users "left." Some have said that they left because their article lost on AfD. Note that it is not the nomination, but the deletion. The nominators were not all of the voters. The people who left have done so because of the deliberative result, not the openning of that deliberation. Further, although that is the stated reason of some, we cannot verify it. Would these editors have left after writing the one article anyway? Would they have left at the next conflict? Would they have left when a vandal hit their article? Would they have left when they went on to write an article about a character from the web comic and gotten that listed at AfD? What, exactly, is the harm that is alledged? Were there examples of vile language used, personal attacks, or deletions out of process, or is the harm that these editors faced what all editors can face: listing of an article on AfD?
2. Since this arbitration is being considered on the basis of the listing of a class of articles, rather than on the non-policy actions of any user, and since it is a totally unprecedented group ArbCom, what is really going on here is an entirely illegitimate attempt at getting ArbCom to set deletion policy.
   1. I will not cast aspersions on the plaintiffs, but I will say that some of them have, in the past, sought policy change away from voting. I share that user's frustrations with the sluggishness of policy change, and I share everyone's frustration with deletion processes, but turning to ArbCom, of all things, to set a policy on article inclusion is insane.
   2. ArbCom is being asked to consider (and has, inexplicably, agreed to consider) the question of whether web comics should be included in Wikipedia. It is unwise and, I think, far out of process to even make the consideration.
   3. Only if ArbCom decides that web comics are valid and beyond consideration by AfD and, furthermore, that they were at the time of the nominations can it suggest that listing for AfD was an out-of-policy action.
3. ArbCom is being asked to weigh the content of users' hearts rather than the effects of their actions. It is being asked to assess whether the defendants were performing in bad faith and whether or not they had assumed bad faith, and it is being asked further to rule that the contents of their hearts was such that they should face injunctions.

No one has asked me, really, but I can't see the basis of acceptance, and especially not the mission creep of allowing deletion vs. inclusion, into this deliberation. I can only hope that this kerfuffle ends quickly, decisively, and in exoneration, with, perhaps, an injunction against asking ArbCom to ever again make deletion policy changes nor to consider cases where the mere nomination to AfD is considered a crime. Geogre 15:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think nominating an article requires an assumption of bad faith. It requires an assumption of error. But the nominations are not themselves assumptions of bad faith - if they were, I would be hard pressed to name Aaron as a participant in the case, since I don't think he's made any nominations himself. Phil Sandifer 15:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How many edits makes someone a "nonce" account? I have searched but have not been able to find that number. At the time that my comments were struck through, I had 75+ edits over 4 months. Is that level of contribution that of a "nonce"? If not, is it not possible that Aaron's practice was causing a predjudicial view of comments that misled Jtkiefer to disregard comments/votes that were valid? That, not the deletion nomination itself, or the deletion process, is part of what is at issue here. Aaron, especially, acted in a way that, in my view, made Assume Good Intent difficult for others. The cites have been given, and they give the appearance (whether accurate or not) of plotting to get his way regardless of process, regardless of consensus, by prejudicing comments, by planning to try again once the furore died down, and so forth. Further, my reading of what the ArbCom members voting for acceptance said is that they explicitly rejected the notion of evaluating the deletion process. So while I agree with Geogre that the process ought not to be evaluated in this way, I don't think that's what is being suggested, or being done. ++Lar 02:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If he made a mistake, then he made a mistake. Strike-throughs are a thing that I think we all disagree with, although labelling how many edits a user has made is a thing I hope we all do agree with if that number is low. "Low" is wiggly. Aaron felt that the deliberation was getting spiked by non-Wikipedians. This is a matter of malice? Take a look at any micronation AfD/VfD debate. The fact is that this is a longstanding practice on VfD, and the horror that people are expressing (not in the case of a strike-through, which I disagree with) shows to some degree that they were new to the project or at least hadn't much experience with VfD/AfD (which is to say with the deletion policy). People do not get into arbitration over a mistake like that. Assuming Good Intent is a piece of advice. It's not a policy because it cannot be evaluated. The content of one's heart is not something that ArbCom or anyone else can assess over a computer screen. If one feels that there is a rally coming from outside of Wikipedia, holding a second AfD is pretty normal. Again, see what has happened in the past when there have been vote floods. The reason is not that these people are bad or dirty people, nor that their input is not of value, but rather that they are not aware of Wikipedia's deletion policies. The AfD page is all about whether an article fails the deletion policy, and it operates more smoothely when people know the policy. Geogre 19:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that User:Aaron Brenneman has left Wikipedia as a result of Snowspinner's repeated harrassment. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• I haven't seen him say that. He's just said he's going for a break, implied it could be permanent, but didn't say it's Snowspinner related as far as I've seen. You got evidence? J•A•K 03:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not see any indication as to why he left, nor any indication as to whether he will return. I can't say as I can see what purpose claiming it's because of Snowspinner is supposed to serve. Please do not spread rumors regarding an ongoing RfA.--Rosicrucian 00:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]