Jack Merridew (talk | contribs) |
Jack Merridew (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
:::: It would, providing that it does not include reverting contentious deletion/redirection. - [[User:PeaceNT|PeaceNT]] ([[User talk:PeaceNT|talk]]) 13:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
:::: It would, providing that it does not include reverting contentious deletion/redirection. - [[User:PeaceNT|PeaceNT]] ([[User talk:PeaceNT|talk]]) 13:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::: I'd be ok with that tweak. As long as all sides know they all have to chill or else, this can work. --[[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] 13:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
:::: I'd be ok with that tweak. As long as all sides know they all have to chill or else, this can work. --[[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] 13:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::: Addendum: might be a good idea to include semi-involved editors (such as myself); i.e. anyone who has been involved in a significant way. --[[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] 14:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===Second question - opinion sought=== |
===Second question - opinion sought=== |
Revision as of 14:03, 21 January 2008
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.
Motions and requests by the parties
Truce
1) The involved parties must cease all AFD nominations as well as all redirecting of televison episode articles and character articles while the arbitration case is ongoing.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. --Pixelface (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- PF - aside from this arbitration, if you concentrate on getting third party refs as requested by TTN etc. this will be most productive. Then, if deletions continue despite sourcing this can be taken further. If you have already done this let me know - I saw the one Peewee episode. Did you want to resurrect that now? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Certainly people need to be more flexible and relaxed about these issues, since there's so much heat right now, but we don't need to come to a total halt. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, extremely one-sided "truce" and some of that redirecting/merging is being done on already reached consensus among projects and editors in the articles. Collectonian (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed. --Pixelface (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Pretty one sided truce ... can we delete all episode articles created while this arbitration is being processed?Kww (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse, once the dispute is on-going, the validity and reliability of in-questioned guideline must be taken into consideration and the excessive application of this problematic guideline like now is intolerable. @pple complain 17:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse as continuing doing so will only raise tensions as we discuss the matter. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse I'm all in favour of calling a halt and discussing properly. We need consensus before continuing. Astronaut (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Absurd — One might be tempted to counter with:
- All episode articles are summarily deleted and may only be recreated in a solidly notability-establishing state.
- --Jack Merridew 11:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Truce
1.1) All involved parties must cease editing episode articles as well as character articles while the arbitration case is ongoing.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. Less one-sided version of 1). --Pixelface (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - while it is a good idea, I'm too involved in the Doctor Who WikiProject that it would effectively stop my editing entirely - in fact, just before this case was opened, I've been collaborating with another editor to get a set of episode articles to GA. Also support a wording that doesn't cut off the valid creation of Torchwood, Lost, or Simpsons episodes. Will (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - just try sourcing what is still around and work from there. They want sourcing so let's get some cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose obviously. -- Ned Scott 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose just as one-sided and even worse for those of us in the TV and Anime/Manga project whose primary work is with such content. Collectonian (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, sorry, but I agree with Casliber. I think this is a good time for us to improve and source some articles as examples of what they can be. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Oppose per Sceptre. -- Scorpion0422 02:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps another route could be something like "all parties work to reference, improve" episode and character articles instead? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, by the way. per Tim Q Wells. Astronaut (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Temporary Halt to Activities
2) Involved editors will avoid performing the actions under contention of this RfA (tagging for notability, merge proposals, redirection for merging, undoing such actions, and nominating articles for deletion) for television-related articles during this process; though they may continue to participate in any other acceptable form of editing and involvement. Involved parties are discouraged from creating new television-related articles during this process.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Support. --Pixelface (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support, though the only creations I can possibly see right now due to the the WGA strike are actually Torchwood, Lost, and The Simpsons (and all three are covered by non-parties) Will (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not to accuse or expect this from anyone, but this is to prevent one of those involved from creating more episode articles to deal with after this is over while there's a moratorium on deleting or merging them. --MASEM 02:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It's the forcing of the issue that needs to be cooled down, not a total stop. -- Ned Scott 03:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I realize that ArbCom is looking at behavior and likely not content, I agree to some extent, but it seems fair to me that until this matter, which is running adjacent to the notability of episodes RFC, that the parties hold off on these questionable changes until behavior issues are addressed as well (if any) content ones. --MASEM 06:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- The behavior in question is the act of redirecting. There wouldn't be any need to restrict tagging or even sending things to AfD. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I realize that ArbCom is looking at behavior and likely not content, I agree to some extent, but it seems fair to me that until this matter, which is running adjacent to the notability of episodes RFC, that the parties hold off on these questionable changes until behavior issues are addressed as well (if any) content ones. --MASEM 06:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, it is part of the work I do as a member of the two related projects, particularly tagging and suggesting merges. The parties calling this RfC claim the "deletionists" claim their issue is with people NOT tagging and discussion merges, so now they are saying not to even do that? Collectonian (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed to balance out 1, non-restrict general editing per 1.1. --MASEM 02:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- What's the enforcement measure if someone were to violate this, may I ask? Wizardman 03:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. Maybe a block would be preventative actions if somebody blatantly violates this. @pple complain 17:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that we should focus on this discussion for now, rather than starting new, potentially contentious AfDs. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree TTN has been redirecting 20-100 articles per day while this RfArb was being considered. He's refused to make a response, and is not engaging people to discuss. If his redirects get reverted, he simply repeats it the next day. This is disruptive. The non-response to the considerations of an ArbCom issue where he is the most discussed party shows contempt for Wikipedia as a process. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Oppose Though I concur with User:SchmuckyTheCat's view, it should be noted that the proposal includes "tagging for notability, merge proposals, redirection for merging, undoing such actions, and nominating articles for deletion" (emphasis added). If one party persists on tagging or merging, there is no sense in expecting the other party not to undo such actions. - PeaceNT (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose like PeaceNT, I agree with SchmuckyTheCat's view, but a halt to all activities would not give us the chance to undo TTN's disruptive edits should he continue to ignore this RfA. Astronaut (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose This is not the right direction. Nothing to prevent others from stepping-in (from either camp). --Jack Merridew 12:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Proposed temporary injunctions
Proposed injunction
1)
- No party to this case shall contentiously delete, rename, merge, or redirect, an article covering a TV series, an episode of a TV series, or a significant character in a television series, nor apply a contentious tag or process to such an article aimed at these actions or related to notability issues.
- If a party to this case wishes to perform any of these actions prior to the close of the case, then it may only be performed following consensus on the talk page or some other appropriate venue.
- Until the case closes, any uninvolved administrator who is not a party to the case and is uninvolved in TV episode related disputes, may revert any such change that modifies these pages contentiously and block for up to a week any party who breaches this injunction, and such an action should not be repeated until consensus is obtained.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed recognizing that no wording will suit all parties. We are talking about a brief period of a week to 2 weeks, at a guess, and during that time it is less harmful to allow content creation (and later remove if decided) than content destruction. That said, if a genuine consensus exists and has been sought (one of the main themes of the case is removal without consensus seeking) then there should be no problem. This injunction would therefore affect removal of content without consensus only, and only for a limited period. I am aware it would create a "green light" for some residual undesirable content addition and/or tagging, however if abused then consensus should not be hard to obtain to genuinely list it for AFD, or genuinely tag it, or seek uninvolved help to decide the matter. If some form of "truce" is sought, this may be a way that's readily possible. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This (or something like it) is being considered by the Committee. This post at /Workshop is mostly for parties to consider improvements that might be made in its wording before listing, and consider and let Arbcom know what other issues they feel need to be considered before a temporary injunction is proposed. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed recognizing that no wording will suit all parties. We are talking about a brief period of a week to 2 weeks, at a guess, and during that time it is less harmful to allow content creation (and later remove if decided) than content destruction. That said, if a genuine consensus exists and has been sought (one of the main themes of the case is removal without consensus seeking) then there should be no problem. This injunction would therefore affect removal of content without consensus only, and only for a limited period. I am aware it would create a "green light" for some residual undesirable content addition and/or tagging, however if abused then consensus should not be hard to obtain to genuinely list it for AFD, or genuinely tag it, or seek uninvolved help to decide the matter. If some form of "truce" is sought, this may be a way that's readily possible. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- What if parties, or others, should take this as a green light to undo some large number of redirects and restore episode articles that are in violation of various policies and guidelines? I am concerned that this is one-sided and would prefer something that constrained editors in a more balanced fashion. --Jack Merridew 13:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Would adding "...nor contentiously revert actions of these kinds" do it? FT2 (Talk | email) 13:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- It would, providing that it does not include reverting contentious deletion/redirection. - PeaceNT (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd be ok with that tweak. As long as all sides know they all have to chill or else, this can work. --Jack Merridew 13:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Addendum: might be a good idea to include semi-involved editors (such as myself); i.e. anyone who has been involved in a significant way. --Jack Merridew 14:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Would adding "...nor contentiously revert actions of these kinds" do it? FT2 (Talk | email) 13:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- What if parties, or others, should take this as a green light to undo some large number of redirects and restore episode articles that are in violation of various policies and guidelines? I am concerned that this is one-sided and would prefer something that constrained editors in a more balanced fashion. --Jack Merridew 13:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Second question - opinion sought
Do people (parties and others) feel the case should proceed in parallel with discussions at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability and Wikipedia talk:Television episodes? Or should the case pause a bit to see what happens there? Quick comments sought? FT2 (Talk | email) 13:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
Proposed final decision
Proposals by John254
Proposed Principles
Extreme edit warring
1) Massive edit warring over a large number of articles is highly disruptive, and may result in an extended site ban.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Support both this and 1.1. - PeaceNT (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Couldn't agree more. @pple complain 17:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support as well. Wizardman 18:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Support" generally isn't added by anyone other than arbitrators, because you're not voting or anything, the comments are just there to say that you think something shoudl be adjusted or whatever, or you don't think the arbs should agree to it, so it's not adding anything.--Phoenix-wiki 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support This seems like common sense to me. Ursasapien (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
TTN
1) TTN has engaged in massive edit warring over a large number of articles. John254 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed, per my evidence. John254 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support. While I have not seen TTN violate the three-revert rule, I do believe this line from WP: EW fits: "Edit warring occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert content edits to a page or subject area." --Pixelface (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Appears to be true per the evidence. Wizardman 02:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Definitely. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unsure, isn't edit-warring defined by breaking the 3RR rule? AnteaterZot (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - It's one of the ways it can be defined, but there are numerous other things which are indicative of an edit war. WP: EDITWAR covers this in detail. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 05:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - This is like having a finding of fact called "The sky is blue". -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 05:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Takes multiple parties to war, and TTN should not be singled out as the sole transgressor.Kww (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - it takes two to tango. Will (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- To the two above, I don't think anyone's saying he's the sole responsible party with the above FoF. It's pretty obvious that he one of the said transgressors though. Wizardman 15:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. Nothing about this FoF precludes other editors from being identified as participants in edit warring. (Hell, the next FoF does just that) If it "takes two to tango" as you suggest, then identify the other person(s). Just because someone else is edit warring doesn't make it okay for TTN to do so. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 22:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - when the obvious needs to be spelled out. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2:008 (UTC)
- Support, it's not difficult to find a bulk of evidence backing-up this naked truth. @pple complain 17:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support Ursasapien (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Pixelface
2) Pixelface has engaged in massive edit warring over a large number of articles.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Oppose. This is false, as I've explained in my statement. And I'm not sure, but this proposal should probably go in a Proposals by Wizardman section (although I've never seen this format at arbitration before). --Pixelface (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- One notable aspect of Ned Scott's evidence with regard to Pixelface is that all of the reversions he cites appear to have occurred on the same day. The evidence certainly doesn't establish sustained edit warring, as my evidence with respect to TTN does. While the actual number of diffs is identical, I believe that TTN has engaged in a greater total quantity of reversions, based on his edits between 22:42, 9 January 2008 and 19:09, 14 January 2008, a period of time for which I cannot personally provide evidence due to the limitation of 100 diffs per user. I would encourage other editors, however, to submit additional evidence of TTN's edit warring. John254 05:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, I only just started my evidence section a few hours ago. I plan to go through Pixel's edit history with a fine comb. Also, not every revert is an "edit war" or else we'd call reverting vandals or disruptive users "edit warring" when such reverts are normally encouraged. -- Ned Scott 06:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's conceded that "not every revert is an 'edit war' " -- however, hundreds of reversions in an active content dispute between good-faith users in a single month certainly rises to the level of edit warring. John254 06:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- There's no such thing as a "good faith user". We assume good faith, but that does not mean the end result is always acceptable. Some users, while acting in good faith, become disruptive, or have arguments that are flawed. Having good intentions is not a free pass to over-riding strong, logical arguments, that are backed by policy and guidelines. In the last month I've probably reverted 20 edits where a user or IP will come along and say "X character has a crush on Y character". I don't even talk about it with them, I just revert it. Yes, there is something to be said about the scale that this is happening on, and not all of the arguments are flawed, but, it is very important to remember that for the vast majority of the time TTN has to deal with users just like the ones who add shipping to the articles I watch. Being a "good faith" user doesn't change that. -- Ned Scott 07:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's conceded that "not every revert is an 'edit war' " -- however, hundreds of reversions in an active content dispute between good-faith users in a single month certainly rises to the level of edit warring. John254 06:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, I only just started my evidence section a few hours ago. I plan to go through Pixel's edit history with a fine comb. Also, not every revert is an "edit war" or else we'd call reverting vandals or disruptive users "edit warring" when such reverts are normally encouraged. -- Ned Scott 06:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. As far as episodes and characters go, Pixel has only done a single mass revert to the Scrubs episodes. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. These two seem to be among the worst offenders. Wizardman 02:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose until I see more evidence. Ursasapien (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Proposed 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.
TTN Banned
1) TTN is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed, per the extreme edit warring principle and the TTN finding. John254 00:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - one-sided. Will (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- This proposed remedy does not preclude the issuance of remedies against other users involved in the edit warring. However, as TTN appears to have edit warred far more extensively than any other user involved in this case, a severe sanction is justified. John254 00:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Pixelface has done a lot worse. Will (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence to that effect, though you are welcome to present some.TTN's edit warring has been so extensive that I'm probably going to use all of my 100 diffs in describing it. John254 00:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)- John, I'm going to make a prediction, and it's going to come true. TTN will not be banned from Wikipedia at this point. The reason we're at arbcom is because it can't be established that what he's doing is even disruptive. I want TTN to use better methods, but that doesn't mean he's actually done anything wrong. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Pixelface has done a lot worse. Will (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- This proposed remedy does not preclude the issuance of remedies against other users involved in the edit warring. However, as TTN appears to have edit warred far more extensively than any other user involved in this case, a severe sanction is justified. John254 00:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Major over kill. TTN hasn't even done anything that bad, but we just need to make sure that everyone knows that there are some situations we have to slow down on. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose A ban will only encourage people who want to keep non-notable episode articles. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think a one-year ban would be too harsh, especially in light of the current wording of WP: N — I just think the wording of WP: N lags behind the practice it describes. I would however probably support some other editing restrictions in light of the edits TTN made after the committee's previous remedy. --Pixelface (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, insanely harsh, and seems very biased and one-sided. There are far worse editors out there who are far more disruptive who have never gotten more than a month ban. TTN may have aggrevated people with some the redirect/merging, but he also has done a lot of good work and despite the frustration felt by some editors, his actions also resulted in some of the related parties getting off their virtual tushes to deal with issues they've let slide for far too long. Collectonian (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sitting on fence momemtarily - what I see is someone who has not made a mainspace edit for over a year except in the purpose of pruning or redirecting, and who appears unable to negotiate with others except those who agree with his aims. Other contact very quickly becomes adversarial. Between complete exoneration and a ban I can't see any middle ground. TTN is absolutely convinced he is correct in his actions, and has not changed practice in over a year. For mine, the inability to negotiate or accept outcomes different to what he feels are the favourable ones indicates an incompatibility with a collaborative project. However, I would like to be proven wrong on this. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- I don't agree necessarily with TTN's actions, but a complete ban is overkill. Wizardman 02:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Absurd — TTN has done a lot of good work. --Jack Merridew 09:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Absurd.Kww (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure what the best solution is, but we do need to do something to stop the unconstructive edits that have resulted in potentially good articles on notable episodes and characters being destroyed. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware this was a straw poll... Anthøny 22:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support Given TTN past refusal to engage in reasoned discussion or to slow his "project", I think it unlikely he/she will abide by the results of this RfA. Frankly, TTN is destroying parts of this encyclopedia in some mad rush to impose his opinion on everyone else. That's usually called vandalism and repeat offenders are usually banned. With around 20,000 edits of this type, I think TTN more than qualifies as a repeat offender. The ONLY mitigating factor - something I'm pretty amazed at - is that this user has received no cease and desist warning as yet. Astronaut (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I would prefer blocks of increasing length for continued edit warring. Ursasapien (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Proposals by Kirill Lokshin
Proposed Principles
Fait accompli
1) Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Our failure to pass this the last time around has apparently resulted in an unclear message. Kirill 03:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and I would like to hear from users who have transgressed this principle in the past as to how their actions fit with a collegiate attempt to write a better encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Support. --Pixelface (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support and personally, I believe this is all that needed to resolve this case. I'm a bit surprised that the arbcom didn't opt to just re-vote on Fait accompli instead of a whole new case. -- Ned Scott 03:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support findings in this need to be unequivocal with as little room for interpretation as possible to avoid this carrying on further. I am also concerned that TTN promised more discussion (as per this opinion) after the last hearing though his behaviour since is not consistent with this. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe TTN is going to discuss more, but honestly feels this is a situation where consensus was established and people are trying to wiggle out of that. I actually agree with him in that, but acknowledge that the dispute, the anger this is causing, is more of a problem than the episode articles at this point. It's one of those situations where we need to discuss more than normal, because so many people are not aware of the existing guidelines and policy, because it's a large scale change to a very active group of articles. There is a difference between improvement when working with other users, and always working the way you want someone to. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Here we go again - [1] - surely AfD would be a place to generate discussion? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- A horrible example that doesn't show what you assert. There is a difference between undoing an undiscussed change when there was previous discussion and consensus support for a merge/redirect vs using reverting to establish the consensus itself. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Here we go again - [1] - surely AfD would be a place to generate discussion? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe TTN is going to discuss more, but honestly feels this is a situation where consensus was established and people are trying to wiggle out of that. I actually agree with him in that, but acknowledge that the dispute, the anger this is causing, is more of a problem than the episode articles at this point. It's one of those situations where we need to discuss more than normal, because so many people are not aware of the existing guidelines and policy, because it's a large scale change to a very active group of articles. There is a difference between improvement when working with other users, and always working the way you want someone to. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, while I agree in theory, this is, again, one-sided as Kww has pointed out. Needs to be more balanced to address both sides, particularly when, despite complaints, the reasons behind the merges/redirects/etc support guidelines and policies while those guarding "their" articles are just claiming they like it. Collectonian (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support Tim Q. Wells (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Yes, yes, a thousand times yes - Not only should this principle pass, it should be incorporated into Wikipedia: Disruptive editing and probably deserves its own shortcut. (WP: FAIT) -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 05:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can't support with this intention - Fait accompli is indeed a bad thing. But isn't this what the episode article creators have used? Tens of thousands of plot summaries, created over the course of years, that need to get scrubbed out. I could support with a balanced phrasing that recognizes that the episode article creators are at least as guilty.Kww (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - You can't have a principle condemning the good-faith creation of articles that happen to be out-of-policy because we don't bite the newbies here. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 22:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- While I agree that many of the worst articles are created by newbies, by no means are episode articles restricted to newbies. Also, by the time someone has created multiple tens of articles, are they still a newbie?Kww (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Experience (or a lack thereof) isn't determined by the sheer number of edits a user possesses. And as far as the creation of obviously out-of-policy articles by users who know better, "this applies to many editors making a few edits each" covers them just fine; article creation is a type of edit. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 23:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- While I agree that many of the worst articles are created by newbies, by no means are episode articles restricted to newbies. Also, by the time someone has created multiple tens of articles, are they still a newbie?Kww (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - You can't have a principle condemning the good-faith creation of articles that happen to be out-of-policy because we don't bite the newbies here. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 22:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support, and TTN should read this. I've observed many episodes-characters-related debates (ANI, RFC etc) and seldom seen TTN add his or her voice. (My best guess is that s/he is too busy deleting/redirecting articles and has no time left for discussions?) - PeaceNT (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support, pathetically, I doubt if TTN bothers to read this. @pple complain 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- That is very uncalled for. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support per above. -- Scorpion0422 19:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support as well, seems to make sense of the situation. Wizardman 05:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support If too much is done too quickly, people become disinclined to argue. Therefore Fait accompli is bad for the integrity of the encyclopedia, but it needs a definition such as "number of edits to a topic per hour made by someone". Astronaut (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support I actually believe this applies to both sides. The present message is that sheer obstinance and force of will determine consensus. Ursasapien (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Template
2) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed 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.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by uninvolved User: Masem
Proposed Principles
Notability describes what topics should be covered on Wikipedia
1) While Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information, and its notability guidelines should be used to judge whether a topic should be covered in depth — that is, having it's own article. While notability is a subjective value for any topic and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, using verifiable, reliable third-party sources to demonstrate why a topic is notable, sets a minimum, objective standard for all topics on Wikipedia while upholding its core policies.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- I agree that the presence of reliable third-party sources suggests a topic is notable. However, if an article currently lacks reliable third-party sources, that doesn't mean the topic is not notable. Perfection is not required when editors create articles. --Pixelface (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. While notability is a guideline purposely, it should be taken that, particularly in its presently language, it represents the common consensus of inclusion across all of Wikipedia; no class of articles should be allows to be singled out as requiring less notable demonstration than any other article. However, notability still is a subjective measure, and while requiring "significant coverage in secondary sources" sets a baseline, it is still a "presumption" of notability. --MASEM 16:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose: Notability itself is not quantifiable. At best, some of the child guidelines detail the concept of awards or news coverage, however not all awards or news agencies are made equal. Verifiable, reliable, third-party sources are in my opinion what describes what should be covered by wikipedia. This is a more explicit quality that something either has or does not have, and does not call into debate arbitrary lines (such as sales figures). Additionally, your wording of the proposal implies content on wikipedia, whereas your proposal explanation deals with articles, and these two categories typically use slightly different definitions of notability (namely content notability is within the context of the article). LinaMishima (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, my explaination should be consider to be "topic" based - in that articles and possible sub-articles (by Summary style) are what consistitute the coverage of a topic. Note, however, I'm not trying to spell out exactly what sources are to be used, only that at minimum, they are reliable third-party sources. It is up to more specific guidelines to outline appropriate sources for that form of medium, though not to disclude any that would be allow for other articles. --MASEM 00:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support — We have a winner. This is fundamental to being encyclopaedic. --Jack Merridew 10:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Editors should notify others of articles that fail to meet policy and guidelines
2) An editor should provide notification to editors of an article if he feels that the article may fail one or more of WP's core policies or guidelines, and lacks the knowledge or ability to correct the problem himself. At bare minimum, this notification is done through cleanup templates on the article, but it is highly recommended to include a talk page message on the article to describe the deficiencies, or to contact a parent article or related Wikiproject at large about the subject.
In the case of obvious and egregious violations of policies, such as those dealing with biographies of living persons, an editor should boldly remove that content without notification, but leave appropriate edit summaries and possibly talk page messages to describe why the content was removed.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment, most, I think, are doing this, but at what point is it considered enough? If the article being tagged is unnoticed by editors, its unlikely an article talk page message would be. For notifying a WikiProject, I think this would be better handled if the various cleanup categories could be broken down by topic. Most of the projects have people who watch for articles with issues, but due to the lack of categorization, find it easy to miss any. Now the Anime and Manga project has a section specifically listing articles with various issues, so could the editor add the article to the appropriate sections(s) and be considered as having notified the project? Collectonian (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- This suggests that it may be used to seek out a solution whereby if an article is tagged, and it is associated with a WP, we can get a bot to place that article into a special category for the project(s) of interest, in addition to the usual "cleanup category" templates. We have the ability to make automated tools and this seems like a useful purpose to put them to use. Mind you, I feel that just tagging en masse and not really trying to explain why you tagged them is still a problem, but for one-offs, this isn't a bad idea. Also, I've an idea to create the reverse approach of a watchpage, a list of users interested in a page, such when any significant cleanup or other change in the WP handling of the article is made, those uses are notified via a bot on their talk page. --MASEM 20:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, most, I think, are doing this, but at what point is it considered enough? If the article being tagged is unnoticed by editors, its unlikely an article talk page message would be. For notifying a WikiProject, I think this would be better handled if the various cleanup categories could be broken down by topic. Most of the projects have people who watch for articles with issues, but due to the lack of categorization, find it easy to miss any. Now the Anime and Manga project has a section specifically listing articles with various issues, so could the editor add the article to the appropriate sections(s) and be considered as having notified the project? Collectonian (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Obvious yet core to case; the question is, do we want to expand or require more for cases of large mass merges? --MASEM 16:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support — True, this is core to this case. For large batches, talk post/discussion should be on a centralized talk page such as that of the LOE (as WP:TV-REVIEW did). I'm intrigued by the bot suggestion as it would address a number of complaints from both camps. Bot would presumably key off articles appearing in some class of categories. Perhaps we could have a mode where the trigger was an article's removal from a category to aid in dealing with mass-tag-removal. --Jack Merridew 10:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Good faith efforts should be made, and should be given time, for improvement
3) As part of the editing process, when editors of an article are notified through either cleanup templates or through talk pages that the article fails to meet core policies, they should make good faith efforts to improve the article in the area in question, and be given time for such efforts to occur. While there is no deadline to perfect any article, an editor may be bold and make the necessary corrections if no good faith efforts for improvement, or further discussion of the specific cleanup area, are made no less than a month after the page editors have been notified.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. We should give the benefit of doubt for cleanup up of articles, and particularly for established articles, allow editors time to establish what is needed (in the specific case of notability). However, if no such work is done on an article, or editors continue to work on the article but do not address the specific issues raised by the tagging/notifying editor, that editor should be free to correct it himself. The month period is the bare minimum to be allowed, given that WP is voluntary, people take vacations, paper resources are not as fast or easy to collect as web ones, and so forth. --MASEM 16:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support — All very reasonable. I would suggest adding an admonishment about removing clean-up tags with out addressing the issue. --Jack Merridew 11:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Consensus may not always reflect the majority viewpoint
4) Consensus building is a key part of policy creation and settling disputes on Wikipedia. Consensus is a discussion forum to propose acceptable solutions, and is not a voting process, and thus may not always reflect the majority viewpoint. Agreements and decisions reached by consensus must still fall within Wikipedia's mission and its core policies and established guidelines; if, within a consensus, the majority appear to support one resolution that violates policy or guidelines, that resolution is not an acceptable solution, though editors are encouraged to consider if previous consensus for that policy or guideline no longer holds true in addition to seeking middle-ground solutions that are acceptable within current policy. Editors should seek uninvolved, third-party editors to determine consensus after appropriate discussion is made, and follow appropriate dispute resolution channels if no decision can be made. Decisions reached through consensus cannot be required to satisfy all parties involved, but should strive to satisfy as many as possible.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. This may be obvious, but a lot of what is involved with this debate is pitting "what readers want" vs "what editors want", and in many cases what readers want is (as I see it) incompatible with current policy and guidelines. Somebody is going to be disappointed by whatever results between here and the RFC. However, save for Foundation edicts, nothing in WP is written in stone, and if there is consensus to change core policy, it should be investigated. (Here, specifically, is WP:IINFO and WP:PLOT.) --MASEM 16:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- support: This has been something I have been discussing as part of the wider debate. Namely, the nature of wikipedia culture, even at its best, is not something that all users (readers) of wikipedia wish to be involved with. Those readers, however, generally support WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and to some extent WP:NOT, as these are all core aspects of what brings them to wikipedia - core aspects of an encyclopaedia. LinaMishima (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support — but am concerned that reasonable adjudication of consensus has proven elusive; interpretations vary widely. --Jack Merridew 11:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Editors should not create "edit wars"
5) Editors are free to boldly make changes to any article on Wikipedia. However, if an editor's change is reverted, that editor should not simply re-revert the change without question but instead should seek guidance, offer suggestions, and obtain consensus on the appropriate talk page (aka the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle). Editors that instead engage in "edit wars" by reverting and re-reverting repeatedly should be reprimanded appropriately.
This does not apply to edits and reverts that egregiously violate core policies and guidelines (including vandalism, libel and slander, and other harmful statements)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Oppose, obvious. I don't see how this would help at all. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed - Obvious statement, but a core issue to this. --MASEM 16:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support, though WP:BRD is not a policy, WP:3RR is one. Being bold is not an excuse for reverting continually, though it may often be used as such. - PeaceNT (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support Surprised this is not already a policy. Although elements of it are spread through many other policies, a new policy here would be a good idea. Astronaut (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support — and would like to assert that simply removing reasonable clean-up tagging amounts to vandalism and restoring them is not edit warring, it an appropriate response to such out-of the box thinking. --Jack Merridew 11:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is not demonstrated by only existence of articles
6) Consensus is not built by simply demonstrating that one or more articles exist to support that consensus without any further discussion. Consensus can only be gained when there is discussion on whether those articles represent the consensus, how they fit into current policy, and resolution on those issues. Even with that, case-by-case considerations should always be made for any article in question.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Strongly support, the existence of other articles is not consensus, otherwise consensus would be "vandalistic, hoax, and personal articles are all great and welcome at Wikipedia!" Collectonian (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that consensus is not demonstrated by only existence of articles. But I think there is a difference between consensus among editors on the wording of guideline pages (such as WP:N, WP:EPISODE, WP:FICT) and consensus reached as a natural product of the editing process on hundreds or thousands of articles. There are editors who edit articles and have never even looked at the talk pages of those guidelines. If a guideline does not document common practice, but only reflects the opinions of a small group of editors who participate on a guideline talk page, the guideline may not have actual consensus. To determine what practices are common, you must look at other articles. To determine what is considered acceptable among editors, you must examine the state of articles that have existed for a long time. For example, it appears to me that WP:N became a guideline because it described a common practice seen in AFDs — people were arguing to delete because they felt a topic was not notable. Common practice among editors who participate in AFDs and common practice among editors who edit articles and have never participated in AFDs are two separate things. --Pixelface (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- The point to this is that while there may be a large number of articles that support a certain consensus, that automatically doesn't create it - guidelines and policies are written by taking what appears to be standard practice and codifying it, presenting it to the community at large, and then seeing if there truly is consensus through discussion and other talking points. --MASEM 20:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Phirazo, that assumes the articles I linked to in my evidence are considered "bad." --Pixelface (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed - This is an assertion of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which, while an essay on deletion arguments, is quite applicable to the case at hand since it involves episode article notability, which determines if articles should remain or be deleted. --MASEM 18:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support This is something WP:AfD deals with all the time - the mere existence of bad articles does not imply that all articles of that type are OK. This is a wiki, and anyone may create an article. Sometimes well-meaning contributors mistake "encyclopedia" for "pop-culture guide", and the feedback loop of "well, there is already an article on X means there should be an article on Y" needs to be broken sometimes. --Phirazo 01:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support and specifically oppose Pixelface's interpretation. Common practice is often at odds with established consensus. Examples, speeding, cheating on taxes, creating episode articles for every one ever shown. --Jack Merridew 11:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Editors are not required to participate in specific tasks
7) Wikipedia is a voluntary project, which anyone can participate in. As long as one's actions are not disruptive or inappropriate under policy and guidelines, an editor is free to participate in any form they see fit to improve Wikipedia. There are no requirements on what editing activities an editor must participate in, or on what requirements they must have before they edit certain articles.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed - Several people have stated that TTN should also try to help improve these articles and point to the fact his main namespace edits of the past year are almost all redirection/merge related, and that he should be required to know the work or to help find notability should he want to continue. Now, there is the issue that his edits are considered disruptive, and that aspect must be acknowledged, but in generally, we cannot control how anyone interacts with Wikipedia, nor should we be trying to. --MASEM 12:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed 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.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by Y|yukichigai
Proposed principles
Proposed 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.
TTN's redirecting limited
1) TTN is limited in changing existing articles into redirects to no more than five times total per every 24 hours, for the next 6 months.; this limit does not apply to edits reverting or otherwise eliminating blatant vandalism.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- I would support some kind of remedy like this, although I don't know if 5 redirects per day is the best limit. If a remedy like this passed, TTN could just nominate the articles for deletion instead. I think thousands of redirects is still preferable to thousands of AFDs. --Pixelface (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - True, but if he starts AFDing articles too fast the provisions of AFD will get him banned very quickly. Since AFD is admin-patrolled it's easy to spot abuse of the system. Besides, AFD is hardly biased towards deletion, barring votestacking which is also easy to spot. (and be banned for) I contend it's one of the most pure forms of establishing consensus on Wikipedia currently. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 07:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would support some kind of remedy like this, although I don't know if 5 redirects per day is the best limit. If a remedy like this passed, TTN could just nominate the articles for deletion instead. I think thousands of redirects is still preferable to thousands of AFDs. --Pixelface (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed - I suggested this last time, but despite receiving only minimal opposition it wasn't adopted. (Probably because the arbs felt it was too early, or not warranted... whatever) Things have changed since then though, so I feel this may be an appropriate remedy. TTN shouldn't be discouraged from participating in Wikipedia, he should just be discouraged from inadvertently burning it to the ground in an effort to improve it.
- I went to great lengths to explain my reasoning behind this proposal last time, and my reasoning still stands. Therefore, I'll just re-post the explanation below, rather than having to type out something new which says the same damn thing (bleh):
- First off, I'm not trying to dissuade TTN from editing Wikipedia. While he has been (let's call a spade a spade here) a douche about episode articles, he's shown that he can contribute constructively to Wikipedia. (Particularly on Dragonball Z related stuff) The last thing I want to do is stop any sort of constructive editing to the project, constructive being the key word here. That brings me to my second point.
- The fact that TTN spends so much time redirecting articles is not only disruptive to Wikipedia, it's destructive to him as well. I think if you look at some of his early talk posts from when he first started "cleaning" article space and then compare those posts to some of his more recent interactions, you'll notice a very, very significant change. Spending almost all of his time on Wikipedia merging, blanking, and/or redirecting articles has taken him from a relatively level-headed editor and turned him into some raving, near-rabid embodiment of cruft-hate who is willing to do just about anything to accomplish his goals. It's frightening and, frankly, I think it's something that's feeding itself. The more he "cleans", the worse he gets. He needs a vacation from it, and I suspect an enforced break from it is the only way he'll slow down.
- Finally, I'd like to ask everyone this: when did we get to the point where any one editor must redirect more than 5 articles a day on a regular basis? I don't think I've redirected 5 existing articles in my entire time on Wikipedia, much less in a day. Now I'll admit that there may be a problem with an excess of fiction articles that need to be trimmed, but if consensus is clearly in favor of doing so (and it very well may be) then there should be dozens of editors willing to take up the slack. There's a very good chance they'll be a lot more nice about it too, and really that's what this is about: TTN has had his shot at being on the "front lines", and I think he's shown he isn't suited for it. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 05:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I know what you are trying to get at, but this is the wrong approach. What if TTN finds a legitimate set of articles (say, a 26-episode series) that can be merged, that no one is consenting against but also not helping to merge? Forcing him to 5 a day means the job's going to take 6 days to complete, which might result in a rather sloppy or incomplete task. My suggestion, if at all, that TTN may not revert any reverted redirections of an article unless 1) it is truly vandalism or a necessary part of the editing process or 2) the issue is discussed on the talk page of the article in question or another appropriate forum.
- Also consider that there is no requirement of where people feel they can help on WP. If someone wants to be on merge/redirection of non-notable article patrol, that's their choice. --MASEM 06:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- If there is a consensus to merge such a set of articles then there should be plenty of other editors who can (and probably will) do it, and if all else fails he can ask someone else to get involved. Normally, no, we don't restrict where and how WP editors are allowed to participate in the project, but I think it's very clear that it is TTN's involvement in merging episodes (unilaterally in many cases) that has in no small part led to this entire debacle. In situations where an editor's involvement is overwhelmingly disruptive to a certain area of Wikipedia then it is perfectly acceptable to prevent them from participating in that area.
- I will contend that there should be an exception for situations of blatant vandalism, but as I've said, if there is consensus for a merge then there will be editors other than TTN who are willing to participate. If nobody else will participate it's likely there isn't consensus. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 07:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I still think this is not the most apt solution because it is addressing the wrong part of the problem; it is not how fast he does it, but how aggressively he goes for merges that he's been accused of (with examples cited as not waiting long enough or doing it against consensus of the editors). Any remedy towards TTN or other editors should be along the lines that he may not merge articles until he's given parties X days to address the issue, and even then, making sure there is consensus to do so, with enforcement being that if he does break this, he then is temporarily blocked from editing. It's a very subtle difference, but I think it's important that the remedy is addressing the core issue that is accussed, that is, TTN's aggressive merging behavior, as opposed to his speed. --MASEM 16:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Theoretically, TTN's already under an existing restriction (imposed by WP:CONSENSUS) to wait for consensus before redirecting an article. We've all seen how well that works. Any restriction placed on him needs to be clear and unmistakable; otherwise we'll go right back into this asinine pattern of "well I clearly had consensus to merge those articles, you can't prove me wrong." -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 22:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I still think this is not the most apt solution because it is addressing the wrong part of the problem; it is not how fast he does it, but how aggressively he goes for merges that he's been accused of (with examples cited as not waiting long enough or doing it against consensus of the editors). Any remedy towards TTN or other editors should be along the lines that he may not merge articles until he's given parties X days to address the issue, and even then, making sure there is consensus to do so, with enforcement being that if he does break this, he then is temporarily blocked from editing. It's a very subtle difference, but I think it's important that the remedy is addressing the core issue that is accussed, that is, TTN's aggressive merging behavior, as opposed to his speed. --MASEM 16:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Amended - Now takes into account possible instances of vandalism. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 07:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- 5 redirects a day sounds rather high given the raw scope of his actions. Maybe limit it to three? We need to make it so that he can't do it single-handedly, but if he can get consensus then it's okay. Wizardman 15:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose — TTN's doing work that needs doing. Focus on the approach Masem is suggesting above. --Jack Merridew 11:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Proposals by Wizardman
Proposed principles
Extreme edit warring
1.1) Massive edit warring over a large number of articles, with limited or no discussion, is highly disruptive.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Not this wording. I agree with the statement, but the way it's worded almost makes it seem like single article edit warring is somehow okay. Or that edit warring with discussion is okay. I doubt that was intended, but it could be how some people take it. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
1) The Bold, revert, discuss cycle, although not an official policy, has been largely ignored during this conflict.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Wizardman 16:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Proposed 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.
Proposals by Pixelface
Proposed Principles
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
The prevalence of episode/character articles can no longer be avoided
1) As long as episode/character articles that do not cite reliable, third-party sources exist (like the ones mentioned in Pixelface's evidence), editors will see them and continue to create episode/character articles that do not cite reliable, third-party sources. It is common for editors to think that X show has an article for every episode, so why not Y show? The episode articles mentioned in Pixelface's evidence can no longer be avoided. Their existence influences editors to create similar articles, which lead to edit wars over notability.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. --Pixelface (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support, per Pixelface's evidence. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose this attempt to sneak a form of OTHERCRAPEXISTS into the arbcom case. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Agreed in that a clear statement on notability, appropriate content for such articles, and such must be established better than presently given. This is presently part of the WP:FICT/WP:WAF rewrite but also should be considered as part of WP:EPISODE. --MASEM 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ArbCom doesn't make content decisions. --Phirazo 04:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment — I just looked that list of shows over and saw none that I feel should get a free-pass on being required to cite reliable third party sources that firmly establish notably for any episode (or character) article. All such articles should have significant independent commentary cited. The idea that some articles are getting a free pass is a strawman. I'm all for culling the Simpsons and Star Trek articles. --Jack Merridew 10:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed 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.
Striking the root
1) The episode articles linked to in Pixelface's evidence will be nominated for deletion, and the major contributors to the articles will be notified on their talk pages, WikiProjects will be informed, a message will be posted to the WikiEN-l mailing list, and a watchlist notice will be created so it can be determined whether such articles are acceptable to the Wikipedia community or not.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. There are a handful of editors hacking at the branches of episode articles, but no one who is striking at the root. --Pixelface (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Bad idea. NOT for experimentation. Will (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose, that is not the appropriate way to deal with the articles and is a pointed suggestion that proposes basically repeating TTN's actions with added canvassing. As per Masem, the appropriate steps should be followed of tagging the articles and a reasonable amount of time given to allow it to be corrected first, then deal with AfD/merges. This was done recently with the The Ren and Stimpy Show episode articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Scooter for Yaksmas. The articles were tagged for notability in November 2007, giving appropriate projects plenty of time to deal with. No notability could be established so they were first PRODed (one last change), then the whole group AfDed when the PRODs failed. All relevant projects notified and the result was that ALL are being deleted. Collectonian (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see how this would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I assume that TTN will eventually get to the articles I linked to in my evidence. It's a matter of time. As long as those articles exist, editors will continue to create articles for individual television episodes. We can deal with them now or wait for another arbitration case to be opened later. If these kinds of articles are not supported by the community, the articles will be deleted with little fuss. AFD may be extreme, although another remedy could be used — letting editors know on each talk page of the list of episodes articles that a centralized discussion and RFC is taking place at WT:EPISODE. --Pixelface (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I started a section in my evidence to assert that Pixelface fails to understand certain concepts on the wiki. At this rate I might not need to even say anything for the arbcom to understand that. -- Ned Scott 05:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed. There are a handful of editors hacking at the branches of episode articles, but no one who is striking at the root. --Pixelface (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Immediately going to AfD for these articles is a bad faith first step. I suggest short term program instead should be put in place:
- What is notability for fictional works and subsequently episodes needs to first be established through WP:FICT/WAF/EPISODE (which is already underway), and broad announcement of such should be made.
- Once the episode notability guideline is established, the Television Wikiproject should be given at least one month to review all episodes of the evidenced series as well as any other series, performing any steps to either establish notability or to merge articles to episode lists/move to other wikis. During this time, episode articles should not be put up for AfD - call it a grace period. This also should be a broad announcement to get as many editors involved.
- After this period, uninvolved editors should review all episodes for the evidenced series, and for any that do not show notability or progress towards demonstrating such, should be then started toward the AfD route. --MASEM 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- WP:POINT, pure and simple. Especially since the emerging consensus on WP:EPISODE seems to be in favour of a guided process to merge articles into meaningful list entries. LinaMishima (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Silly rabbit — WP:SNOW that the AC will sanction this, so why is this even here? Pixelface is welcome to try this on his own now that the likely consequences have been pointed out. It would reduce the din a bit. --Jack Merridew 10:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Immediately going to AfD for these articles is a bad faith first step. I suggest short term program instead should be put in place:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User (template)
Proposed Principles
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed 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.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: