Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

21 November

 * 04:43 21 Nov 2005
 * Aaron Brenneman tags a few votes on Articles for deletion/Checkerboard Nightmare, and adds a warning at the top to non-Wikipedians who may have been told to come and vote. (This diff was presented by Snowspinner in his complaint)
 * The votes tagged are
 * DrHot's vote. The vote is indeed DrHot's first edit.
 * Eric Burns' vote. The vote is indeed Eric Burns' 29th edit.
 * Plaid Phantom's vote. The vote is indeed Plaid Phantom's first edit.
 * User:138.251.224.11's anonymous vote. The vote is indeed this IP's fifth edit.
 * 04:47 21 November
 * Aaron Brenneman tags some more votes from accounts with few edits
 * User:Nedlum's vote. The vote is indeed Nedlum's fifth edit.
 * User:Sdalmonte's vote. The vote is Sdalmonte's 35th edit.
 * 04:51 21 November
 * Aaron Brenneman tags more votes from accounts with few edits
 * User:Nowhereville's vote. Vote is indeed Nowhereville's 35th edit.
 * User:Meeowth's vote. Vote is in fact Meeowth's 14th edit (not 15th, unless Meeowth has since had an edit deleted).
 * User:Catnik's vote. Vote is indeed Catnik's 21st edit.
 * 05:15 21 November
 * Aaron Brenneman tags more votes. This time he also tags a few votes as having a considerable edit history, pointing out that User:SeanDuggan, and User:Ravenswood both have 250+ edits.
 * 05:16 21 November
 * Aaron Brenneman marks two more votes, User:Cyberskull has 250+ edits, User:Bobulus has three.
 * In a series of edits around 01:00 22 November, several votes are in fact discounted by Jtkiefer, the administrator who closes the debate and keeps the article.
 * Jtkiefer strikes out votes he intends to discount
 * Jtkiefer strikes out Phantom Plaid's vote
 * DrHot makes another comment while JtKiefer is in the process of closing
 * Jtkiefer finally closes the debate as a "keep".

November 21

 * 02:34
 * Snowspinner posts on Dragonfiend's user talk page, using the heading "WP:POINT".
 * 02:49
 * Snowspinner tells Dragonfiend, among other things: "Your nomination sucked." and "you specifically should never nominate another webcomic for deletion again.".

Evidence presented by Snowspinner
Deletion of content is a necessary part of Wikipedia. However, it does mean deliberately destroying something that somebody has put work and effort into. In some cases, a sense of humor, skepticism, or a generally cavalier attitude can make trudging towards the abject stupidity of some of our content easier and more bearable, when these attitudes carry over to discussions of content into which sincere effort has been put, they become the foundations of a culture of poisonous bad faith. I do not object to having a discussion about whether Checkerboard Nightmare should be included in the encyclopedia. I object to the discussion being carried out in a way that takes as its basic premise that those who support its inclusion are bad guys who must be thwarted.

Civility
Incivility on the part of Aaron Brenneman:      (The "standard we all agree is bunk" is exactly what was under discussion, and was the standard that had just been employed in showing Able and Baker to be notable)

Incivility on the part of Dragonfiend:

Dismissal of those who disagree with them
On the part of Aaron Brenneman: (Dismissing all those who support webcomics syndicates as sockpuppets)  (Particularly the summary of the newbies views as "OMFG don't delete")

On the part of Dragonfiend: (Dismissing Eric Burns's comments on Wikipedia wholesale. Note that Eric Burns edits Wikipedia under User:Eric Burns, albeit infrequently)

Outright Declarations of Bad Faith
On the part of Aaron Brenneman: [  ("Snowspinner has re-inserted this merely to influence to results of an ongoing AfD")

On the part of Dragonfiend:

Abuse of process/"Playing to win"/Disrespect for consensus
Both Aaron and Dragonfiend have displayed a disturbing tendency to be more invested in "winning" than in consensus or productivity, leading to tactics whereby, when they appear to be getting a result other than what they want, they simply redouble their efforts instead of bowing to consensus. This has involved ignoring consensus on other pages, continually pushing the point until their desired consensus is reached, and suggesting things like nominating articles over and over again until they get their desired result. This "play to win" attitude goes a long way towards contributors whose contributions they want to delete feeling driven off and unwanted.

On the part of Aaron Brenneman: (Making plans for a second AfD before the first one has even concluded)  (Making it clear that he does not intend for the proposed webcomics guidelines to reflect recent decisions on AfD) Spamming talk pages to try to win a straw poll he started to change the webcomics guidelines in clear contrast to the consensus on several AfDs:.

On the part of Dragonfiend: (Refusing to read 21-12 in favor of keeping as a clear sign of a community desire to keep the article)  (Challenging that there's an agreement that Dayfree Press is notable, immediately after an AfD that established just that)

Harm to Wikipedia
Wikipedia depends on new contributors. Thankfully, the idealistic nature of the project often leads us to acquire idealistic and eager contributors. One such can be found in Eric Burns here:. A year later, Eric Burns's opinion on Wikipedia was this:. Eric Burns is a smart fellow - a respected figure in the webcomics community (Probably the single most respected webcomics critic, in fact). He knows his shit. He is not some random newbie. That he - and, as you can see on the second entry, so many of his readers - have so soured on Wikipedia speaks to the fact that something is wrong.

Comments on edit counting evidence above

 * 1) Edit counting of non-meatpuppet contributors is not a normal or accepted practice, and creates an atmosphere of suspicion.
 * 2) Wikipedia exists for its readers. When those readers show up in force and are angry, they should not be treated with suspicion and derision - a serious effort to figure out what has suddenly outraged them should be undertaken. Dismissing them as "meatpuppets" is exactly what should not hapen happen.


 * marks the edit where Brenneman began his suspicion against users. Note specifically his description of those users who came in from Websnark as having the opinion of "OMFG don't delete." Nowhere up to this point had "OMFG" "fuck" or "fucking" been used in the discussion - to ascribe the term to the vote was dismissive and belittling.

Response to Dragonfiend
The bulk of the comments he cites as incivil were made off of Wikipedia, in a thread where, at the time I made them, I had no reason to expect Wikipedians to visit. Stressed and frustrated by the incivil and bad-faith-assuming attitudes on the Able and Baker nomination and the discussions of the guidelines. I took the opportunity to blow off steam, and I did this off of Wikipedia. When I later posted the thread to Wikipedia, I'd forgotten about my comments. I intended the thread to illustrate the real consequences of the debate we were having. When this point got ignored in favor of focusing on off-handed comments that I had never intended to inject into the discussion, and that were not arguments but my venting semi-privately, I got frustrated, and was less civil than I should have been. I felt as though, deliberately or not, Dragonfiend was ignoring my point in favor of trying to find a way to render the Websnark thread some strange form of "inadmissable evidence" in the debate, I was tired of fighting out inclusion issues, and I got testy. I apologize to Dragonfiend for my incivility, and can say only that I'm glad my words did not drive anybody off of the project. Phil Sandifer 16:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The "Conflict of Interest"
Among the notability guidelines that I proposed was that coverage in one of three major sites for webcomics - the Webcomics Examiner, Comixpedia, and Websnark - would constitute notability. I contribute to two of these sites - I was forthcoming about this - see User:Snowspinner/Webcomics. As a result, Aaron and Dragonfiend both accused me of a conflict of interest. Their reasoning was the possibility that I might use these sites to force notability of a webcomic. This constitutes a grave assumption of bad faith on my part, and further, an insult to my professional integrity - my work for these sites is something I put on my academic C.V. To suggest that I would use them for something as petty as "winning" a deletion debate is, frankly, insulting.

Dragonfiend's comments on this matter:   (In which he attempts to use my off-site comments as though they were made on the site and to him for good measure)

Aaron's comments:

Evidence presented by Jtkiefer

 * More general discussions regarding the issue to shed light on the issue itself and due to complexity of conversations getting diffs on every piece of the conversation is all but impossible. My apologies for the lack of diffs.  Jtkiefer T  22:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

''all threads of mine on this issue can be found easily at User_talk:Jtkiefer/Archive11


 * websnark posting
 * Websnark post leading to massive suspected meatpuppet voting and hard feeling towards Wikipedia and especially the AFD process from members of the webcomics community due to their perception of bias in AFD's and AFD noms against webcomics


 * User_talk:Jtkiefer/Archive11
 * User:Snowspinner disagrees with my closing AFD vote as 'no consensus', I later re-evaluated and closed as keep


 * User_talk:Jtkiefer/Archive11
 * User:Fangz, User:JohnLynch, User:RMG, and User:Lar disagree with my vote discounting method


 * User_talk:Jtkiefer/Archive11
 * User:J%E2%80%A2A%E2%80%A2K, User:JohnLynch, User:Scix, and User:Fangz yet again unsatisfied with my previous answers both on my talk page and on the web snark posting to which as the closing AFD I discussed the issue

Evidence presented by Fangz

 * 06:20, 21 November 2005
 * Comment on Dragonfiend's talk page by Brenneman declaring intent to re-afd once webcomic community's attention is gone.


 * 18:16, 21 November 2005
 * Anti-wikipedia post from websnark.
 * COMMENT: Note - no call to action, no proposal to spam the AFD. No probable cause to suspect sockpuppetry. The majority of editors do appear to have a mature and reasonable attitude. Websnark is also unaffiliated with CxN.


 * 21:27, 21 November 2005
 * Angry thread on Dragonfiend's talk page.


 * 00:20, 22 November 2005
 * Comment on snowspinner's talk page by Brenneman expressing opinion new members on the AFD represented a mob with only 'self interest' in mind.

Evidence presented by Tony Sidaway
This is mainly concerned with the activities of Aaron Brenneman.

In my opinion the activities of this editor suggest a persistent strategy of turning Wikipedia into a free-fire zone, where the onus is on an article to justify its existence, rather than those who propose to delete it to argue for its deletion.

(All times UTC, timestamps are linked to the diffs)

07 Oct, 2005

 * 01:25
 * Deletion policy: Aaron Brenneman's first attempt to remove "If in doubt, don't delete" from the policy: "Removed material added by anonymous user."

17 Oct, 2005

 * 06:28
 * User talk:Tony Sidaway. Tony Sidaway had said on the subject of his undeletion of the article Albert Wolters: "Deletion policy has this: if in doubt, don't delete. Honestly we should not be deleting good stuff, because it's a stupid thing to do."  Aaron Brenneman responded: "No, it doesn't.". Edit summary: "A small correction."
 * 16:15
 * Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy: Tony Sidaway says: "This important part of deletion policy seems to have been removed recently without discussion. It's been part of deletion policy since March 30, 2004 (Theresa Knott compromise version). Whoever did that, don't do it again. Please don't remove aspects of deletion policy simply because you may personally find them inconvenient."
 * 16:19
 * Deletion policy: Tony Sidaway: "Restore section that seems to have been deleted without discussion. If in doubt don't delete has been present in this policy since 30 March (Theresa Knott compromise version"
 * 16:48
 * Deletion policy: Tony Sidaway: "Hmm, this more recent formulation is clearer."
 * "If an article is constantly being deleted and re-created, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article. Administrators should always be responsible with the power that they have. If in doubt... don't delete!" -> "f an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article. Conversely, if an article is repeatedly nominated for deletion, this is not in and of itself evidence that it should be deleted even if there are valid concerns about the quality of the article. (Cleanup may be appropriate.) In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete!"
 * 23:14
 * Deletion policy: Aaron Brenneman again removed "If in doubt, don't delete", with an inflammatory edit summary: "This particular piece of drivel if refered to as if it's the word of God. If whomever inserted in wants to argue that it belongs, let them bring ot to the talk page."
 * 23:47-23:49
 * Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy:
 * Text of Aaron Brenneman's comment reads:
 * Added by anonymous editor without discussion.
 * Adds nothing to actual policy except a pithy catch phrase.
 * Don't act like a dumbshit. If you've forgotten how to read an edit history, perhaps you should had in your admin badge.
 * A small edit war followed, and the text remained.


 * 23:58
 * Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy: User:Kappa says " don't see that the source is relevant, especially since it's over a year old."

18 Oct, 2005

 * 00:13
 * Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy: User:JYolkowski appends to Kappa's comment: "Agreed. This is a significant paragraph, and removing it from a policy page without discussion shouldn't be done"
 * 00:15
 * Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy: User:RN replies "Huh? I didn't realize this was a content dispute - I thought it was just some random thing kappa inserted as it seems out of place in a policy page. It needs a rewrite at the very least."
 * 00:25
 * Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy: SimonP says "This issue was discussed earlier this year here. Fvw suggested it be removed, others disagreed. The section was rewritten and everyone seemed to accept the compromise."
 * 01:13
 * Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy: Aaron Brenneman says "That was hardly an extensive discussion, and fails to mention the apparently sacrosanct phrase [If in doubt, don't delete] that heads this section"
 * There was quite a lot of discussion in addition to this.
 * 04:53
 * Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy: Rossami edits some of Aaron Brenneman's comments under Remove personal attacks and adds:
 * "I strongly disagree. This was necessary when we were small and remains necessary today. As SimonP says, the basic principle of "if in doubt, don't delete" is an important control and has been a part of our philosophy for a very long time. Having said that, I'm less concerned about whether it stays on this page. The principle remains in effect as part of the Deletion guidelines for administrators regardless."

8 Nov, 2005

 * 05:14
 * Deletion policy: Aaron Brenneman again removes "If in doubt, don't delete.". Edit summary: "Per this talk page and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_undeletion/Vfu_header#.22If_in_doubt.2C_don.27t_delete.22"
 * 15:53
 * Deletion policy: SimonP restores: 'restore, it is an "authoritative pronouncement of deletion policy "'

04 Dec, 2005

 * 23:05
 * Deletion policy: Aaron Brenneman recasts "If in doubt, don't delete" as a matter of history, from "when restoration was impossible".
 * Attempts to remove this longstanding principle from the deletion policy continue at this moment. Nobody has as yet explained why one should ever want to delete an article if there exists doubt as to whether it should be deleted.

18 Oct, 2005

 * 07:41-07:44
 * A user IgnoreAllRules was created and made some mildly disruptive edits. Aaron Brenneman later admitted that he had done this.
 * 22:22
 * User talk:David Gerard: Accuses David Gerard of irresponsible use of checkuser.
 * 23:09
 * User talk:Tony Sidaway: Taunts Tony Sidaway who is asking what he knows about IgnoreAllRules "It turns me on...when you're coy." Note use of HTML comment: "And I knew David was your mate, too, of course".  (It's a matter of public record that David and I have known one another for ten years).

19 Oct, 2005

 * 00:12
 * User talk:David Gerard: Further accusations of bad faith.
 * 04:31-05:44
 * User talk:MONGO Aaron Brenneman admits that he did it, but continues to accuse David Gerard of "a much much larger breach than a brief spree of obvious vandalism".


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.

Third tranche: Abuse of edit summaries and html comments
(All edits below by Aaron Brenneman unless otherwise stated)

18 Oct, 2005

 * 23:09
 * User talk:Tony Sidaway: Use of html comment by Aarom Brenneman to add concealed statement: "And I knew David was your mate, too, of course."

19 Oct, 2005

 * 02:46
 * User talk: Tony Sidaway: Edit with the summary "You're just a petty, vindictive little man grapsing for power in an on-line forum."
 * 05:01
 * User talk:MONGO. Inappropriate use of html comment to add clarification: "To be explicit, I'm talking about David, not you"

25 Oct, 2005

 * 02:02
 * Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 2: Edit with summary "Dissenting view by Radiant - We're to take it as read then that regardless of Scimitar's willingness to test the communitie's faith in him you won't be taking the same admirable action?"

21 Nov, 2005

 * 05:26
 * Wikipedia talk:Websites: Edit with the summary "Syndicates again - Actions such as this based upon a sockpuppet invasion strain my ability to WP:AGF." Accuses Snowspinner of making arguments supported only by sock puppets.
 * 23:32
 * Wikipedia talk:Websites: Aaron Brenneman writes an edit with the summary "Syndicates again - Unless we see some more evidence, it appears that Snowspinner has re-inserted this merely to influence to results of an AfD" IN the edit, he also accuses Snowspinner of abusing his administrator powers.

28 Nov, 2005

 * 00:37
 * Accuses Snowspinner, in an edit summary, of abusing his administrator powers in a content dispute: "Please do not again mis-use administrative powers in content disputes."

25 October

 * 18:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Snowspinner linked to his comments on User: Eric Burns' blog : "The entire treatment of webcomics on Wikipedia is complete fucking crap right now. ... deletion on Wikipedia is complete fucking crap. ... this [is] utter shit in action ... [it's] the height of ignorance," and makes him really feel "Like killing." I, Dragonfiend, do not believe this is civil behaviour.
 * 21:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I, Dragonfiend, made a good-faith attempt to restore civility to the conversation. "let's have a discussion about the substance of those issues we disagree on; let's not have flame wars and toss insults at community members that raise issues we disagree with."
 * 22:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Snowspinner responded: "the deletion process on WIkipedia is shit. ... As for calling it shit, I don't swear for the hell of it." I, Dragonfiend, do not believe this is civil behaviour.
 * 22:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I, Dragonfiend, made another good-faith attempt to restore civility to the conversation. "please refrain from personal attacks against other Wikipedia editors. Thanks."

26 October

 * 04:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Snowspinner responded: "Oh for fuck's sake. Yes, this debate pisses the hell out of me ... if you expect me to not call bullshit on other sites, among a different crowd, you're out of your mind." I, Dragonfiend, do not believe this is civil behaviour.

30 October

 * 18:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Snowspinner has suggested, with no explanation, that this is an example of "Outright Declarations of Bad Faith" on my, Dragonfiend's, part. I disagree; this is me explaining to User:David Gerard that I think it's a mistake for editors to assume everyone who disagrees with them is less intelligent, or to assume that having some expertise absolves them from having to follow WP:V and WP:CITE. Nowhere do I suggest, nor do I believe, that people who make such assumptions do so out of bad faith.
 * 20:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Snowspinner has suggested, with no explanation, that this as an example of incivility on my, Dragonfiend's, part. The closest thing to an incivil comment I see here is, "In case they've slipped past your expertise, Tom Hart has been nominated for the Harvey, Eisner and Ignatz awards ..." This was an unnecessarily snide comment that I  sunk to out of frustration and I would like to apologize to Snowspinner for this.
 * 23:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Snowspinner has suggested, with no explanation, that this as an example of incivility on my, Dragonfiend's, part. I disagree. While I did express frustration that Snowspinner was either failing to communicate his positions clearly or was changing his positions without clearly retracting his previous positions, I believe I expressed this frustration in a completely civil manner.

15 November

 * 21:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I, Dragonfiend, made my 11th webcomic-related AfD. My ideas of which articles ought to be nominated for an AfD is well-supported by Wikipedia consensus -- eight of my eleven webcomic-related AfDs have ended in deletion, 7 of those unanimously, and of the three that ended in a "keep" result, two of those were by "no consensus." I've been complimented on my AfD "thoroughness,, and User:Snowspinner, when he votes on them, agrees with my webcomic-related AfDs 2/3s of the time. Here are all eleven of my webcomic-related AfDs, in chronological order: , , , , , , , , , , and.

20 November

 * 06:08 PM
 * User:Eric Burns posts a link to my, Dragonfiend's, 11th AfD nomination on his blog and writes, "Wikipedia is officially worthless for webcomics. ... who the fuck cares what Wikipedia thinks? ... There are people -- and Dragonfiend is clearly one of them -- who are clearly going through Wikipedia looking for articles that should be weeded out as non-notable. and they're doing it in fields they clearly -- I mean, clearly -- have no interest, experience or knowledge."
 * 23:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Eric Burns posts a personal attack on my, Dragonfiend's, 11th AfD nomination, "Clearly, whoever put this up for deletion doesn't understand even the most cursory elements of the artistic field [s]he's trying to 'edit.'"

21 November

 * 02:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * On my, Dragonfiend's, eleventh webcomics-related AfD,  Snowspinner "politely" made no reference to the reasoning behind his "keep" vote, but rather used AfD solely to post a personal attack: "Dragonfiend [should] stop nominating webcomics for deletion, as [s]he is very obviously not capable of making reasonable judgments of notability if [s]he is nominating this."
 * 02:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Snowspinner made an assumption of bad faith and suggested on my, Dragonfiend's, talk page that "... your nomination of Checkerboard Nightmare for deletion could readily be taken as disruption of Wikipedia to illustrate a point."
 * 02:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Snowspinner wrote on my, Dragonfiend's, talk page that: "Your nomination sucked," and how he feels I make "insane claims" and have an "ignorant perspective." Snowspinner said he is primarily voting on AfDs based on how he feels about the nominator, rather than on the merits of the article's topic: "that was my primary reason for wanting to keep the article - because you specifically should never nominate another webcomic for deletion again."

7 December

 * 03:06, 7 December 2005
 * Snowspinner wrote above that suggesting he has a conflict of interest is "an insult to [his] professional integrity" and "frankly, insulting." This, as well as his previous denials that a conflict even exists, seems to arise from a misunderstanding on Snowspinner's part as to what a conflict of interest is. "[C]onflict of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit. Having a conflict of interest is not, in and of itself, evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, for many professionals, it is virtually impossible to avoid having conflicts of interest from time to time. ... Someone accused of a conflict of interest may deny that a conflict exists because he/she did not act improperly. In fact, a conflict of interest does exist even if there are no improper acts as a result of it." My, Dragonfiend's, opinion that User:Snowspinner's capacities as an editor of Wikipedia and a writer for Comixpedia are a conflict of interest is not a presumption that improper acts will result from the conflict, and is therefore not an assumption of bad faith.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.