Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

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, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

TTN has engaged in massive edit warring relating to redirection over a large number of articles
Please see. While far more evidence of TTN's edit warring could be provided, the template at the top of this page states that my evidence is limited to 100 diffs. Furthermore, as I have exhausted my diffs in providing but a partial description of TTN's egregious edit warring, other editors will need to provide evidence relating to the other participants in this dispute. John254 00:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN's behaviour consistent with that of a Single-purpose account
As I am more on one 'side' of this debate than the other, this finding would ideally need someone entrusted by the arbitration committee or a committee member themselves to corroborate this - What I note is a lack of article mainspace contributions other than those involved with the processing of merging, redirecting and/or deleting and/or discussion of same. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN is showing behaviour consistent with being a Single-purpose account with the agenda of removing as much TV-related material as possible, and has become fixated upon it, whether rightly or wrongly. From the issues at AN/I and frequency of conflict I see an inability to interact constructively with others who do not share his (her?) point of view. If we are to presume this zeal is from a dedication to the project, I do not see anything in the way of contributing to the encyclopedia (though there was a little to start off with in 2006). In terms of antecedents, the only other notable occurrence is a block action on TTN on August 16th 2006 (see block log). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Though TTN has attracted the most controversy, other editors are behaving in a similar manner
To put this in perspective, TTN is one of several editors, the vast majority of whose mainspace edits relate to tagging or removing material. Thus, it is a systemic issue which needs arbitration on whether it is helpful or disruptive as a whole. Eusebeus, AnteaterZot, Judgesurreal777, Doctorfluffy and Pilotbob have engaged in similar behaviour, as have Jack Merridew and Gavin.collins with RPG material though to their credit they have been more communicative and acknowledged some sourcing when it has appeared. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: I have no idea how to show this in diffs other than to request that Arbcom look (or ask someone imaprtial to look) over the diffs themselves. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser of all parties suggested
Given the advantages of extra 'votes' or edits in AfDs or 3RR edit wars, it is a fair to assume sockpuppets would be advantageous in these standoffs. Given uncovering of socks in similar situations - eg. Burntsauce and Eyrian, with similar behaviours WRT article deletion, as well as vote stacking at AfD on the other side, most recently noted by Neil, and another requested currently here. - though this last can be stricken if proven negative.

Given the magnitude of this debate, which could stretch over thousands of articles, it surely must be a prerequisite to establish who is who (via checkuser), and who, if any, is violating the rules. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ned Scott

 * For anyone who hasn't noticed, this is very much in-progress

Unfair assertion on TTN's character and actions

 * User:Pixelface:

Other edit warring parties

 * User:Pixelface:
 * User:Tim Q. Wells:
 * User:Geni:

Sock and meatpuppet accusations for TTN are false

 * Suspected sock puppets/TTN (additional discussion)

Rebuttal to evidence presented by geni
Rebuttal to :

Man, most of that violated WP:NOR, and the only thing I see as a reliable source, which in my opinion is a bit of a stretch, would be afterelton.com. I mean, holy smokes, that's a lot of OR (and not a single source for it). You might want to pick a better example. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Evidence presented by User:Neokamek
I'm not sure it's a violation of policy to use rollback in a content dispute. In the past, admins would get in trouble when they did it, that was because it was considered an admin tool, and there is a blanket "no-no" of using any admin tool in a content dispute. Out of the four pages that talk about the rollback tool, Rollback feature (feature description), Rollback policy (proposed policy), Help:Reverting (help page entry), Requests for rollback (an optional process for requesting rollback), only the last one, Requests for rollback (an optional process for requesting rollback) actually says to not use rollback in a content dispute. Personally, I don't think rollback should be used in content disputes, but given those pages I listed, it would be a reasonable conclusion for an editor to believe they were not violating any policy with their action (in regards to rollback). -- Ned Scott 04:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal to evidence presented by White Cat
Re: Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence/by White Cat

This is a perfect example of White Cat's retaliation against anyone who disagrees with him. He creates this section after I subst his workshop subpage citing that it makes following the discussion harder, and asking him to check with an arb or clerk before doing it. Not a single proposal concerns me specifically in this entire case, nor does it concern Jack Merridew, but that didn't stop Cat from creating a huge paranoid section accusing him of sock puppetry. Wait a second, nether Cat or Jack are parties to this case.. but that doesn't stop him from using this arbcom case as a soapbox. -- Ned Scott 22:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence/by White Cat

Wow, just wow. White Cat really doesn't get it. Hey, where's the context? Where's the the list of pages we've edited? Are you counting talk pages? Templates? Which discussions? What was being discussed? None of that is available, just twisted numbers in a childish desperate attempt to lash out at people he doesn't like. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal to evidence presented by Durova
You can't define that as a bias unless the same editors are working on those articles for books, take no action, but do take action for TV related ones. That's not to say a bias doesn't exist for some, but for the majority of the people involved here, that is not the case. One example that springs to mind is Nurse (Romeo and Juliet), which TTN did not (and may still not) believe is notable or needed as an individual article. If more than that one example of evidence is requested, I'm sure I can find more examples, in many different mediums.

This is a situation where noticeable cases are being dealt with first, but are not being targeted because of bias. -- Ned Scott 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal to evidence presented by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Re:

While there are a few who take such an extreme, I don't believe that is the feeling that most of those who back WP:FICT/WP:EPISODE, etc, believe. Articles about episodes and characters can and are en, but that doesn't mean that a "just plot" version is the same thing. In other words, I'm asserting that the problem does not come from any misunderstanding of the phrase "encyclopedic content". A topic can be encyclopedic, but that does not mean the content of a given episode article is. That topic might some day have a very good article, but the content that was removed or redirected will bare little to no resemblance to that article, and be of little help in creating that article. Even when these articles are removed, we still want to cover these elements, but it just might not be in an individual episode format, due to the amount of encyclopedic content we have for that given topic (episode or character, etc). -- Ned Scott 03:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Chronology of notable discussions associated with this dispute
Below is a chronological list of incidents reported regarding this matter, as well as some other relevant discussions, which provides a history (not analysis or opinion) of this debate in which the named involved users in this case, the previous case, and the proposed earlier case participated. The below discussions will place the matter in context and provide a ready reference for any wishing to cite differences:


 * 15:23, 15 August 2006: Revert war at Naruto Uzumaki


 * 20:33, 23 December 2006: Zarbon


 * 01:09, 8 January 2007: User EaglesFanInTampa using nickname of 'Jimbo' in signature
 * 21:11, 15 January 2008: RFA Question


 * 12:15, 17 February 2007: Power level (Dragon Ball)


 * 19:16, 23 February 2007: Possible meatpuppet of User:TTN


 * 18:52, 23 April 2007: Disruptive mass merging and mass deletion by User:TTN


 * 21:46, 9 May 2007: Someone tell TTN to stop merging


 * 09:29, 13 May 2007: removal


 * 17:54, 16 May 2007: TTN


 * 06:55, 1 June 2007: User:TTN redirecting


 * 18:26, 3 June 2007: Deletion of useful, relevant, and interesting information


 * 08:24, 5 June 2007: Mass deletion of television articles by TTN


 * 22:06, 5 June 2007: 3rd opinion


 * 05:42, 6 June 2007: Fullmetal Alchemist episodes


 * 14:51, 7 June 2007: Are you sick of it as well?


 * 17:57, 10 June 2007: Do you disagree


 * 20:04, 14 June 2007: Merge


 * 02:57, 25 June 2007: TTN


 * 22:39, 4 July 2007: ATTN: TTN


 * 15:28, 26 July 2007: List of bosses in The Ocean Hunter


 * 08:28, 4 October 2007: Gavin.collins


 * 22:09, October 15, 2007: Episodes


 * 04:26, 20 October 2007: Possible new account of old user


 * 16:00, 9 November 2007: User:Doctorfluffy


 * 22:36, 21 November 2007: Frank West (Dead Rising)


 * 20:44, 22 November 2007: Episodes and characters


 * 04:42, 23 November 2007: Master Shake


 * 01:52, 24 November 2007: Frank West merge


 * 15:48, 27 November 2007: TTN


 * 19:44, 10 December 2007: A big campaign against articles about fictional events


 * 20:24, 23 December 2007: Using a mailing list to delete a template


 * 05:44, 25 December 2007: User:Pilotbob


 * 14:07, 28 December 2007: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes_and_characters


 * 19:13, 5 January 2008: Incivility and assumptions of bad faith by User:Blueanode


 * 23:32, 5 January 2008: Help needed with Dead Rising/Frank West


 * 07:33, 7 January 2008: User:TTN bulk redirecting episode pages


 * 18:44, 7 January 2008: AN/I vs. TTN - A AN/I_TTN subpage needed?!


 * 04:52, 9 January 2008: Bells (Blackadder) (2nd nomination)


 * 07:37, 9 January 2008: Ursasapien and WP:EPISODE


 * 03:30, 11 January 2008: Sonny (robot)


 * 02:37, 12 January 2008: Henrik Ebeltoft


 * 10:30, 12 January 2008: Jack Merridew


 * 00:57, 13 January 2008: Question from a new editor


 * 06:40, 13 January 2008: Episodes and WP:POINT


 * 22:18, 13 January 2008: Edit warring on episodes articles


 * 02:37, 14 January 2008: Request for Arbitration


 * 15:22, 14 January 2008: Death knight


 * 19:18, 14 January 2008: My Own Worst Enemy


 * 20:41, 14 January 2008: List of terms in Tales of the Abyss


 * 02:42, 15 January 2008: Freddy Newandyke


 * 17:02, 15 January 2008: A Scooter for Yaksmas


 * 17:54, 15 January 2008: Centralized Discussion


 * 19:18, 15 January 2008: Wendy Smith


 * 19:19, 15 January 2008: Kristin Westphalen


 * 23:01, 15 January 2008: Droid Army


 * 23:24, 15 January 2008: Xanatos (Star Wars)


 * 05:37, 17 January 2008: RFC Episode Notability


 * 18:59, 18 January 2008: Merlin (Shrek)


 * 02:04, 20 January 2008: Altair(Assasin's Creed)


 * 09:09, 20 January 2008: Evidence


 * 08:02, 21 January 2008: Cloverfield (creature)


 * 17:13, 21 January 2008: List of Jade Empire characters


 * 21:32, 21 January 2008: Chris Redfield


 * 00:40, 22 January 2008: Rebecca Chambers


 * 01:29, 22 January 2008: List of Sealab 2021 minor characters


 * 03:08, 22 January 2008: Dinosaur (Dungeons & Dragons)


 * 03:36, 22 January 2008: Jaina Solo


 * 10:13, 22 January 2008: Jacen Solo


 * 20:37, 22 January 2008: Enter Magneto


 * 22:11, 22 January 2008: Vampire (The Matrix)


 * 02:41, 23 January 2008: Mandalorian


 * 03:56, 23 January 2008: Current Arbcom with fairly broad implications


 * 08:26, 23 January 2008: Solaufein


 * 09:38, 23 January 2008: Your deletions are falling behind


 * 16:16, 23 January 2008: Television Episode Debate


 * 23:40, 23 January 2008: Tag-team vandalism: User:Kww and User:TTN


 * 01:21, 24 January 2008: Dyna Blade (Kirby) (2nd nomination)


 * 01:22, 24 January 2008: Waddle Dee (2nd nomination)


 * 01:22, 24 January 2008 (yes, this one was actually nominated in the same minute as the one above): Whispy Woods (2nd nomination)


 * 02:53, 24 January 2008: List of characters in the Ratchet & Clank series


 * 03:03, 24 January 2008: Akiha Tohno


 * 22:08, 24 January 2008: Owen Burnett


 * 00:10, 25 January 2008: Kracko (2nd nomination)


 * 22:12, 25 January 2008: Elbryan Wyndon


 * 22:17, 25 January 2008: Avelyn Desbris


 * 07:44, 26 January 2008: Jerec


 * 09:37, January 26, 2008: Jacen/Jaina Solo


 * 10:54, 28 January 2008: Slaad


 * 16:08, 29 January 2008: Articles for deletion/Shane Casey


 * 20:00, 2 February 2008: Articles for deletion/Death Roe


 * 02:09, 3 February 2008: Articles for deletion/Strongarm (Masters of the Universe)


 * 20:42, 12 February 2008: Articles for deletion/George A. Romero's Living Dead series characters


 * 12:21, 16 February 2008: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of resident evil 4


 * 16:45, 16 February 2008: TTN


 * 21:04, 16 February 2008: Articles for deletion/Mia Jones


 * 19:47, 17 February 2008:Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Request for Comment

Other disturbing edits

 * 08:49, 16 January 2008: In this edit, Jack Merridew uses such language as "sin" and "Their day will come" when discussing his opponents in this arbitration case. Such religious fanaticism (something also expressed by other editors on that side of this disagreement) and extreme assumptions of bad faith have NO place on Wikipedia and cannot be tolerated.  We have discussed this edit here.
 * 16:34, 19 May 2007, 00:36, 23 May 2007, 21:47, 17 October 2007, 03:36, 29 October 2007, 19:28, 18 January 2008, 23:47, 22 January 2008, 19:41, 23 January 2008, 20:00, 23 January 2008, 02:39, 29 January 2008, 02:41, 29 January 2008, 02:50, 29 January 2008, 02:56, 29 January 2008, 12:58, 30 January 2008, 17:54, 7 February 2008, 9 February 2008, 20:42, 17 February 2008, 03:08, 18 February 2008, etc.: In these edits, various users refer to other contributors' contributions as "crap," "cruft," or even "idiotic." And those editors who wish to keep such articles are similarly denigrated.  As others have argued, such unfriendly words unnecessarily insult editors and just cause a needless rise in tensions.  Finally, at least one of the editors who made some of the above listed edits has been indefinitely blocked.
 * After giving up on an active AfD when the discussion did not seem to be going his way, TTN first attempted to unilaterally remove material from the article under discussion while others are still working to improve the article to justify its place on Wikipedia (and some who had earlier voted to delete and then merge and now to keep even suggested it could be potentially a GA) and when that effort was reverted is instead trying to canvass outside of the AfD.

Articles concerning episodes and characters are encyclopedic
While this dispute concerns behavior, the problematic behavior under question stems from a misunderstanding of what the phrase "encyclopedic content" encompasses. Per Five pillars, Wikipedia "includes elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." Many published specialized encyclopedias concern television episodes and fictional characters: The Encyclopedia of Fictional People: The Most Important Characters of the 20th Century, Disney's Junior Encyclopedia of Animated Characters, Encyclopedia of Walt Disney's Animated Characters, Comic Book Encyclopedia: The Ultimate Guide to Characters, Graphic Novels, Writers, and Artists in the Comic Book Universe, Mystery Women: An Encyclopedia of Leading Women Characters in Mystery Fiction, Vol.1 (1860-1979) Revised, Doctor Who Encyclopedia, The Burroughs Encyclopaedia: Characters, Places, Fauna, Flora, Technologies, Languages, Ideas and Terminologies Found in the Works of Edgar Rice Burroughs, The Unauthorized X-Cyclopedia: The Definitive Reference Guide to the X-Files, "Star Wars" Encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows, The Encyclopedia of TV Science Fiction, Encyclopedia of Monsters, Encyclopedia Galactica: From the fleet library aboard the Battlestar Galactica, etc. These are not mere fan sites, but published books. Thus, suggesting that episode or character articles are uncyclopedic is not factually accurate or reasonable.

Evidence presented by Yukichigai
These first two sections are the same evidence I presented last time, but it's still relevant. I intend to do more detailed analysis of editor actions since the end of the last RFArb, but that takes time.

...well, intended anyway. It appears that other editors have stolen most of my remaining thunder.

More than 80% of TTN's edits are an effort to remove content
This one is a little difficult to show with diffs, because it is an evaluation of every contribution TTN has made to Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I think I can make my point. Roughly 3000 edits to Wikipedia is the point at which TTN starts merging and redirecting articles on a large scale basis, though interspersed with some non-removal contributions to articles. (particularly Dragon Ball Z related ones) After 4500 edits however his edits are almost solely merges, redirects, or parts of efforts to accomplish either of the former. (such as AfDs or merge discussions) With his roughly 25000 overall edits (at last count) that means, conservatively, 82% of his edits are those which either remove content or seek to remove content.

I want to make it clear that I am not rallying for (or against) the merit of the articles TTN has merged/redirected. My only point is that with the vast majority of his edits being those which remove content and their number and frequency being so great, his edits have become disruptive rather than helpful.

TTN's attitude towards opposing editors is dismissive and unnecessarily inflammatory
There are countless discussions in which this is demonstrated, but since Eusebeus has already linked to Talk:List_of_Drawn_Together_episodes#Episode_notability (permalinked, just in case), let's start there:

Once the discussion was started, almost immediately TTN, then subsequently suggests that despite starting the discussion there's no real point since. Later he not only dismisses all previous arguments out of hand, but. (A statement he makes a ) The next statement is his often-seen argument, eventually followed by. After someone with a result TTN finds unfavorable, he, which is  by a self-described deletionist. After this TTN, then follows that already inflammatory statement with.

With the exception of the opening of the discussion and , the above paragraph details the entirety of TTN's involvement in the discussion.

TTN's edits routinely prompt editors to complain on his talk page
Examining TTN's talk page and archives, the sheer number of complaints cannot be ignored. Regardless of the potential merits of the edits which led to those complaints, the fact that there are so many, particularly for a non-administrator user, should be worrying. Here is a brief examination of his talk archives:


 * November 2007 to January 2008 - 26 threads complaining about or questioning TTN's behavior, including this one
 * September 2007 to October 2007 - 25 threads complaining about or questioning TTN's behavior, including this lengthy discussion and an inquiry by a concerned and previously uninvolved admin
 * August 2007 - 21 threads complaining about or questioning TTN's behavior
 * June 2007 to July 2007 - 15 threads complaining about or questioning TTN's behavior
 * June 2007 - 17 threads complaining about or questioning TTN's behavior. Also notable is this AN/I thread filed as a continuation of one of those discussions.

...more to come

It is common practice for articles about episodes and fictional characters of notable works to not assert notability
The article Homer's Odyssey, about a television episode of The Simpsons, has existed for over five years and does not contain "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." The episode is still considered notable.

The article Luke Skywalker, about a fictional character from Star Wars, has existed for over 4 1/2 years and does not contain "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". The character is still considered notable. The article Baldrick, about a fictional character from the television series Blackadder, has existed for over 6 1/3 years and does not contain "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." The character is still considered notable.

Wikipedia has articles for every episode of Angel, Arrested Development , Babylon 5 , Battlestar Galactica , Blackadder , Bottom , Buffy the Vampire Slayer , CSI: Crime Scene Investigation , Doctor Who , Family Guy , Fawlty Towers , Firefly , Futurama , Heroes , House , Lost , Only Fools and Horses , Prison Break , Red Dwarf , Robot Chicken , Seinfeld , South Park , Star Trek: The Animated Series , Star Trek: The Next Generation , Star Trek: The Original Series , Star Trek: Voyager , Stargate Atlantis , The 4400 , The Boondocks , The Office , The Office , The Prisoner , The Simpsons , The Sopranos , The Wire , Ugly Betty , Veronica Mars , Yes Minister , etc.

Not all of those episode articles contain "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" yet the episodes are still considered notable. WP:N and WP:EPISODE do not describe common practice regarding articles about television episodes and fictional characters.

Jack Merridew has performed multiple reverts regarding notability tags on D&D character articles
On January 13, 2008, Jack Merridew performed 7 reverts on the Bhaal article. 

On the Bahamut (Dungeons & Dragons) article, Jack Merridew restored the notability tag thirteen times from December 16, 2007 to February 3, 2008.  The article was protected on February 3, 2008 by Black Kite.

It should be noted that sockpuppets have been edit-warring over notability tags on some D&D character articles, and this request for checkuser case on Grawp is related to that. Anonymous editors have also harassed Jack Merridew  on his talk page.

TTN has continued to repeatedly revert articles with no discussion even after the committee's prior decision
While not violating the three-revert rule, TTN has participated in drawn-out revert wars on articles such as City of Bones     , Animal Farm (Oz)     , and Pee-wee's Playhouse Christmas Special. TTN has continued to revert articles and has not discussed his edits on the talk pages of those articles   even after the arbitration committee's prior decision.

TTN has been redirecting episode articles under a mistaken belief
TTN has repeatedly referred to WP:EPISODE as the "notability guidelines for television episodes"     , but WP:EPISODE is not , and has never been, a notability guideline.

TTN redirects articles even when notability has been established
On October 18, 2007, I added a mention of 2 Emmy Award wins to the To Tell the Tooth article, about an episode of the television series Pee-wee's Playhouse. Two days later, TTN redirected the article anyway. 

Articles such as Pee-wee's Playhouse Christmas Special have been subject to long revert wars, even though the episode was nominated for 3 Primetime Emmy Awards. The article was protected on January 23, 2008 and TTN had reverted it twice that day

TTN removes much of the information establishing notability added by editors during AFDs
On December 20, 2007, TTN nominated the Nights (video game character) article for deletion. On December 21, 2007, I added real-world information to the article such as developer interviews and coverage by videogame critics. It took me a few seconds to perform a Google search for "Takashi Iizuka interview." The article survived AFD because of my improvements. On January 3, 2008, TTN removed most of what I added , removing all but one small quote from the developer of the character. This removal was reverted by Geni, TTN then reverted that edit , and TTN's edit was reverted again. Over 22 hours later, TTN removed it yet again.

TTN has also edit-warred on videogame character articles
On the article King Dedede, about a character in the Kirby videogame series, several involved parties performed reverts on the article and TTN edit-warred.


 * Jack Merridew
 * Sesshomaru
 * Tim Q. Wells (rv to article)
 * TTN

On the article Meta Knight, about a character in the Kirby videogame series, several involved parties performed reverts on the article and TTN edit-warred.


 * TTN (redirect) (rv to redirect)  (rv to redirect)


 * Jack Merridew (rv to redirect)

On December 17, 2007, the article was protected for edit warring.


 * Sesshomaru (rv to redirect)

On January 20, 2008, TTN nominated the article for deletion. The AFD result was no consensus.

On January 29, 2008, TTN redirected the article. This was reverted and TTN reverted that. This was reverted and Sesshomaru reverted that.

On January 31, 2008, the Meta Knight article was protected for edit warring.

On February 14, 2008, Quickmythril reverted back to an article "pending discussion at Talk:List of Kirby characters." Jack Merridew reverted back to a redirect. Yair rand reverted back to an article. Then DGG protected the article until March 6, 2008 ("expected time for arb case"). DGG then restored the article to the February 3 version per a discussion on DGG's talk page.

Doctor Wily On November 22, 2007, TTN added a merge tag to the article, with a discussion here. On December 15, 2007, TTN added some information (less than 250 words) from the article (over 1000 words) to List of Mega Man characters. 
 * TTN turned the Doctor Wily article into a redirect 8 times from December 15, 2007 to January 13, 2008.
 * Geni removed the redirect from the Doctor Wily article 8 times from December 20, 2007 to January 13, 2008.
 * Eusebeus turned the Doctor Wily article into a redirect 2 times on January 7, 2008.

Koopa Troopa On October 16, 2007, TTN added a merge tag to the article.

On October 31, 2007, TTN redirected the article per a discussion at WikiProject Video games (not Talk:Koopa Troopa or Talk:List of Mario series enemies &mdash; where it currently redirects as of February 20, 2008).

On December 28, 2007, an anonymous editors reverted it back to an article

On January 2, 2008, TTN reverted back to a redirect. Indrian reverted back to an article. TTN reverted back to a redirect.

On February 14, 2008, an anonymous editors reverted back to an article.

On February 15, 2008, TTN talks to Seresin and says "The Koopa Troopas have been featured in the cartoons of the series, so the injunction should technically apply there." Seresin responds, "While, technically, they are "free game" under the letter of the injunction, they probably aren't under the spirit. I advise you to not begin redirecting videogame articles." TTN replies, "I'm not going to go on any redirecting sprees, but I am going to make sure the above articles stay redirects, though while avoiding any wars. I just want to make sure that someone is able to back the edits just in case another person tries to use the arbitration enforcement again."

On February 16, 2008, TTN reverted back to a redirect.

In addition to appearing in several videogames, Koopa Troopa was a character on the television series The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!. TTN appears to have been aware that the injunction applied to the Koopa Troopa article, although Seresin's comments may have led TTN to believe the article did not fall under the injunction.

Eusebeus
Eusebeus has made inappropriate comments, "Why are you ruining Wikipedia for everyone? We are part of the Imperial Cabal of Evil Deletionists, and the campaign to ruin Wikipedia is simply a first step toward the larger goal of Total World Domination." , "Bitching about it on the Scrubs talk page is not going to change what is a larger consensus-driven view of what does and does not belong here." , "That is not to say that I am not evil AND ruining wikipedia for everybody." that have inflamed the situation.

Rebuttal to Evidence presented by Seresin
I have not edit warred. On January 13, 2008, I removed the redirects on 99 Scrubs episode articles because there appeared to me to be no consensus for the articles to be redirects on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes.

On January 13, 2008 at 22:18 (UTC), Corvus cornix initiated an AN/I thread and said "Pixelface is reverting all of TTN's edits. I don't know who's right here, I just know this needs to stop." That claim was false.

On January 13, 2008 at 22:22 (UTC), after I had removed 96 redirects, Corvus cornix left a ANI-notice on my talk page. Corvus cornix left no prior message on my talk page asking me to stop removing redirects from Scrubs episode articles. After I saw the ANI notice on my talk page, I removed 3 more redirects and then stopped removing them.

Six minutes after I saw the ANI-notice, Eusebeus left a message on my talk page and said "We know what you are trying to prove, but our policies run the other way, so this is achieving very little." I replied on my talk page to that comment and said "There is no consensus to redirect the articles I've brought back."

Later I noticed Eusebeus had left a comment on TTN's talk page and I left a reply there that was a bit uncivil.

During the ANI thread, Black Kite threatened to block me, accused me of "stalking" at WP:ANI and told me, "Following another editor's contribs round and undoing them all is disruption unless those edits are vandalism." I was not following another editor's contribs and undoing them all. I was not stalking.

There may have been some kind of consensus for those episode articles to be redirects at one point in time, but I could see no consensus for the Scrubs episode articles to be redirects on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes when I started removing them. --Pixelface (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TTN is not even carring out a basic view of the articles he reverts

 * Redirect per WP:N. This should only be brought back if information like director commentary and reviews can be found


 * article contained such things.

User:TTN has rejected further debate on the issues

 * here to be exact.

TTN continues to engage in unrepentant edit warring
While being careful to not go over 3RR, and indeed, even while this case is going on, TTN continues to edit war, bullying articles and editors into his preferred version here and here  and here  for example, until the page was protected by an admin. This is just one article. Nothing seems to stop this behaviour.

TTN takes drastic action without consensus or discussion
On the talk page of Bulbasaur it can be seen that during and after the edit war about the most recent redirect, (diffs in above section) there was absolutely no attempt to gain consensus for the action, discussion about the action or attempt to notify editors of the article that the action was being contemplated. While it is true that the people who reverted TTN did not discuss either, TTN has shown a consistent pattern of doing this, to the point that because other editors know how he acts, I believe they feel it is useless to try to discuss. Already thousands of words were written about this case, it was shown that consensus to redirect was not gained, and instead TTN has lurked around, waiting for enough time to pass that he can get his way. Frankly, the discussions then required are exhausting to other editors and I believe this is part of his mode of operation, to wear everyone out until they are tired of getting the same consensus against him over and over. As DGG so recently and eloquently put it, "Fighting it out by stamina is an absurd way of decision."

(Note) - there is a discussion on the page currently but that was started by me, days after the edit warring. As can be seen here and  here no one but TTN thought the article should be a redirect, even in the most recent discussion.

TTN tries to assert ownership over articles
Comments such as this edit summary, written in a manner that neither facilitates or even allows for the possibility of discussion and appears to assert ownership of articles are made by TTN.

TTN uses projects dubiously to further his agenda and assert ownership over articles
One case is WP:POKE where TTN and a few others decided that all the character articles should be eliminated, including Bulbasaur. Then he claims he has consensus when such discussions are not even announced on the talk page of the actual articles. Even when the article editors complain en masse TTN asserts the project has precedence.

TTN and others use extreme and inflexible interpretations of guidelines and policy to get articles redirected
Academic and peer reviewed articles simply do not exists for many of the topics in this area. This doesn't mean that they aren't highly relevant and notable in culture however. In the case of Bulbasaur, there are many sources that can be (and are) quoted, no OR has taken place and cited things can be verified. To suggest that an article isn't notable because someone hasn't written a PhD thesis on it is detrimental to the mission of collecting the sum of human knowledge.

TTN disregards standard merge procedure for his own comfort
"Merges can be done any way that we would like. There is no automatically correct procedure or anything like that. The normal way is to use the tags, but with close to 500 articles, that is a little annoying to do."

TTN has no grasp of WP:NOT Paper and the encyclopedia's purpose
In his constant crusade to eliminate episode and character articles (and a look through his history shows that he has done this for thousands), TTN has demonstrated that he does not understand that Wikipedia is here to gather the sum of human knowledge, not just the knowledge he deems fit for inclusion. It is my opinion that the reason this case has come up again, is mostly due to his stubborn and narrow minded view of what is fit for inclusion, and unceasing attempts to force this over consensus.

After edit warring to make the Bulbasaur article a redirect to the List, he then removed added information from the List article. The information has then been repeatedly removed by people who think the List article should be summaries only. (I re-added the information also, and found that was the consensus.) However, the redirection orphaned the information and left it with no home. TTN's edit warring and insistence on a redirect led to nearly all the information from a cited, former FA being removed from wikipedia. Obviously if there is too much information for a summary, and article should exist. However, TTN still believes the article should be redirected.

I believe his lack of grasp of this principle is contrary to the goals of the encyclopedia and as can be shown in the above example, results in good, cited information being removed from the project.

Editors in the "Get rid of episode/character articles" camp deride the editors of content they think is unfit for inclusion
While not everyone agrees on what is important, derision is not acceptable. These editors often and automatically assume that everyone is a "fan" if they disagree with them. This is hardly true, for example, I hate Pokemon, am not a fan in any way yet think that articles about it and the Bulbasaur article in particular should exist.

"consenus in the policy-backed sense, not number of screaming fans" (Seresin)

"For getting rid of all of these useless and uneeded episode guides and fancruft from this cite."

"Yeah, but there is no point if obsessive fans keep reverting" (TTN)

"I have no interest in listening to fans ramble and misinterpret/wikilawyer policies and guidelines." (TTN)

"It's a sad shame that there are obsessed fanboys who just can't let go," (Sesshomaru)

"from dedicated fans who are apparently incapable of reading WP guidelines" (Eusebeus)

TTN's Redirects are de facto deletions, which WP has no good process to deal with
As noted by DGG in the DRV discussion "True, they (redirects) are not within Del Rev remit, and there is no real way to review them- . This is however a deficiency in WP which we should not treat lightly--a redirection is only technically an editing decision, it is in almost all cases a form of deletion. We do not have a process to make binding decisions on content, and thus there is this enormous loophole for deletion...

TTN has made thousands of episode article into redirects, often not merging (as in the Bulbasaur case) the lost content into the lists, thus creating what are de facto deletions without discussion or process. Since no process called Redirect Review exists, an editor like TTN is then able to use the lack of oversight to delete a massive amount of information. Neither DRV or AFD is technically set up to deal with redirects, but calling it a content dispute is absurd. Currently, the only way to dispute this is massive and repeated talk page discussion, or WP:RFC which honestly does not get a lot of attention from the community. Additionally, if an article that has been redirected by TTN doesn't get noticed or doesn't have a large contingent of vocal editors willing to battle it out with him for months, the redirect stands and the effect is the same thing as a deletion. Because TTN has redirected thousands of articles, listing each one on WP:RFC would be cumbersome to say the least. This has left him exploiting our procedures to cause hundreds of deletions, with many of them having no consensus from the community. Because he has repeatedly shown poor judgment in the area, every single one of his redirects needs to be reviewed, but there is no process or procedure to do this.

Redirects delete interwikilinks and broken connections are then ignored by TTN
When articles are redirected, interwiki links disappear and are not subsequently moved to the pages that redirected articles point to. TTN doesn't care about this a whit. 

Response to evidence presented by Seresin
While those listed may have edit warred, they generally only edit war with TTN. On the other hand, TTN edit wars with far more people, for example *anyone* who doesn't agree with him. Edit warring is not acceptable, however my opinion is that TTN provokes it with his "I am the final authority attitude" expressed in his edit summaries and opinions, shown by various editors above. Should the editors rise to his provocation? No, however it is difficult to ignore someone who makes such numerous changes, against and without consensus and for which (as I noted above) there isn't a good process to review. TTN is rarely willing to collaborate or discuss, so edit warring becomes the only way to deal with him. The shear number of redirects he does makes it ridiculous to leave a note on his talk page about everyone. Again, TTN is pushing his vision by overwhelming other editors.

Response to evidence presented by Jeske
While Jeske claims consensus was made to merge everything but Pikachu in the case of the Pokemon articles, this isn't true because consensus was only (and only sometimes) formed at the WP:POKE project, not on any of the article talk pages, no notification was put on the talk pages that any merge proposal was being considered and the merges were not done with any warning or templates, leading to de facto deletions again. Editors are not required to join projects so they need to put notification on the articles for non-members, and this is another case of a project overstepping its bounds after having gathered a bunch of like-minded editors that may not represent the community as a whole. In fact, it is clear from this discussion and this that there never was a consensus to merge Bulbasaur and others, even at WP:POKE. Torchic is a good example, another former FA. One can see here that TTN simply redirected the article, no notification or discussion or single mention of the action appears on the talk page, no merge tags...nothing. When other editors who didn't agree un-redirected it, TTN edit warred to keep it a redirect. The first step after people protested should have been a revert to previous state and a discussion but as you can see....that didn't happen. This is a huge problem when a small group decides they have consensus, then ignores protest from the general community when their plans are disagreed with.

Evidence presented by Serpent's Choice
As a preface, I am not involved in this dispute in any meaningful sense. So far as I know, I haven't encountered TTN in any of my Wikipedia work, rarely touch television issues, and only occasionally touch this type of article during my AFD perusals (fair disclosure: I linked a possible source to a below-cited AFD, with a neutral comment, during the course of writing this evidence). However, the general issues at hand here -- the manner in which fictional topics should be spun out, or merged in -- is becoming heated in topics far outside those directly cited in this context. Thus, I don't have a horse in this race per se, but rather an interest in seeing that some clarity can be provided for how consensus in these extraordinarily broadly scoped disputes should be approached, discussed, and determined. Before things get a lot worse, in a lot more places.

The content and policy aspect of the dispute, fundamentally, is about how the concept of article spinouts interacts with notability requirements. Whether or not ArbCom chooses to speak on that regard, I hope that a decision can be reached which will better the quality and quantity of communication on these issues.

Questionable claims of discussion
TTN and others often refer to previous discussions citing consensus for these merge actions. However, in the AFDs that drew my attention to this case, I am utterly unable to locate these discussion. Without regard to the merit, or lack, of the articles under discussion:

TTN AFDed Whispy Woods, claiming it "already been merged as the result of a discussion." However, the previous AFD closed keep.  The article's talk page has no discussion; it differs from the previous version in that TTN stripped it of Wikiproject affiliation. The putatitve merge target List of Kirby characters, has no applicable discussion on its talk page -- the merge discussion there relates to a different article.

Similarly, the AFD for Waddle Dee, also claimed it had "already been merged as the result of a discussion." This previous AFD closed keep but at least contemplated merger.  This talk page does include a merger discussion, but with only one participant, in November 2007. Again, TTN had previous stripped Wikiproject templates, and, again, no discussion whatsoever at the talk page of the putative target.

Another AFD, a few days earlier, also concerned me, revealing the nature of the discussions that have been involved. TTN cites as part of the justification for deletion that: "All of the other episodes of this series, except for the first episode, have been redirected, so this one also doesn't need to exist." It should be noted that TTN was the editor who redirected the other articles (  et al). As the AFD's overall tone degenerated, TTN commented that only "one editor that even touches these [articles]." Furthermore, TTN acknowledged that he had edit warred over this topic, claiming that others involved were acting in bad faith. Continuing the theme of minimal discussion, Enter Magneto's talk page is still a redlink as of this posting! There is, again, no merger discussion at the target page, but instead indication that at least one editor is attempting article improvement. It bears note as at least a historical curiosity, that the version of the list page promoted to Featured List status included links to spun-out episode articles.

Something I had noted previously, but not realized the scope of, is the removal of wikiproject tags on redirected articles. TTN has acknowledged this removal. Like almost all actions discussion in evidence, there is nothing wrong with removing project tags from a redirected article in and of itself. However, many of these redirections are contentious, viewed as a soft-deletion that subverts AFD, and become the subject of edit wars, as other editors have noted here. Because the project tags are not generally restored (that is, no one revert-wars over the talk pages), these articles remain without their former project tags. For projects that use these tags to index and sort articles, this cuts them off from a source of potentially interested editors whose views may very well differ from the determined "consensus".

Anti-vandalism automation is used for rapid deletion nomination
Also on the 22nd, three AFD were created within a span of 5 seconds  using the anti-vandalism took Twinkle (per edit summaries on the AFD openings, and on the page tagging itself   ), with boilerplate reasoning including the claim that "[t]here is no current assertion for improvement" and calling for a merger. Of course, AFD is not cleanup, and mergers are not deletions ("delete and merge" is not a valid closure). Like with all the TTN nominations that I have examined in my AFD browsing, there is no talk page discussion (only one of those 3 articles even had a talk page when nominated) and no discussion regarding merger at the target article. As a largely uninvolved editor, the goal here seems to be redirection, but since redirection has proven contentious, these articles are now being offered -- sometimes quickly -- for outright deletion instead.

Evidence presented by Seresin
''For transparency, I've been present in this debate peripherally (not the edit warring) under several names, so see that page for details. I'll probably add more evidence as it comes to me, or I feel like I need more diffs. For convenience, I have offset all of the logs to relevant dates and times.''

Other parties have edit warred
Although this case is officially about everyone involved with the edit wars, I note that with one exception, no evidence has been presented about parties who edit war against TTN; it does take two to tango after all. Geni has edit warred, and even created a sock account purely to revert war with TTN. The sock account's contributions. Here is an example of edit warring with this sock. He has also edit warred under another sock, Genisock2. Here is an example of a protracted edit war with TTN. This is a good example of an edit war under his main account.

In addition, users Pixelface, Tim Q. Wells, and Catchpole have been party to this, such as this string of reverts by Pixelface, this set by Catchpole, and this by Tim Q. Wells. Here is a protracted edit war, with TTN doing only one revert of the seven that were done. There have been several other short revert sprees by several users, viz. VivianDarkbloom and Astronaut with Calton and Sceptre on "TTN's side", but none were as extensive as the aforementioned; Vivan, Astronaut, Calton, and Sceptre.

I note that administrators have also acted inappropriately, specifically in their use of administrator tools. I note this misuse of administrator rollback in a dispute by (he was wholesale reverting dozens of TTN's edits using rollback). has also abused rollback here, with the first group of those his second revert on each article. Also, used her administrator tools to edit a page that had been fully protected due to an edit war and restore the version that was not protected, in blatant violation of the protection policy.

Response to response from pschemp
So it is okay to edit war, as long as it is with TTN, since he edit wars often already? It's okay since he edit wars a lot, and these people who have edit warred extensively (especially Geni) are ok, because, after all, they were provoked, and it's easier to edit war than discuss?

It only takes one person to initiate discussion on a talk page. If TTN refuses to discuss, as we keep hearing, then it should be easy to invoke the silence aspect of consensus, and get support for one's proposal. Then there would actually be consensus backing an editor, which almost no editor in these wars actually has.

As a side note, would someone care to show an example of where TTN has been asked in a calm and civil manner to discuss his changes, and refused to do so? Or where he revert warred against consensus that had formed (consenus in the policy-backed sense, not number of screaming fans)?

Some steps are being made to resolve the situation
Not really evidence as such, but more a note to indicate that ER to list entry (created around the time the arbitration case was filed) is now being actively used to keep track of the redirects. Category:Episode redirects to lists now contains well over 200 episode redirects. Another attempt to manage the process is Template:Merged episode lists (which should only be used on talk pages!), which hasn't caught on as yet. Carcharoth (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors engage in edit-warring with TTN in ignorance of strong community consensus
After advertisement on three different Stargate pages and a reasonable discussion period, consensus was reached in the Stargate WikiProject (no TTN) to transwiki all episode articles, then redirect unpromising episode articles. Such episodes were redirected with the edit summary ''Redirect after discussions in the SG wikiproject and the List of Episodes talkpage. Now transwikied to wikia. Please give significant real-world information when/if resurrecting this article'' (similar to TTN's edit summaries). Three weeks after the redirection, User:Catchpole, at the time reverting many of TTN's redirects, started to undo Stargate SG-1 redirects without leaving comments anywhere                (although one edit summary claimed no mandate for wp:episode inspired redirects), all of which TTN promptly undid. Both sides' behavior came up in an ANI/I thread. In the meantime, User:Geni and his sock User:Genisock2, and User:Galadree-el continued reverting TTN's reverts of the SG-1 episode The First Commandment.

Assertion: Editors critical of TTN's editing blanket-revert his edits without checking proper consensus, therefore participating in disruptive behavior while outnumbering him. (No comment about whether TTN's reverts outside of Stargate are disruptive or not).

Rebuttal of evidence presented by White Cat
Her evidence: ''Editors who wishes to purge wikipedia from episode and character articles which they feel are "unnecessary"/"non-notable" work/vote in groups for this goal. In such votes rather than the community opinion, their group voting dominates the xfd. Outside-wiki communication may be the case or they may be simply watching each others contribution to find out which articles are being purged. This is particularly important because any ruling promoting "taking disagreements to afd" will likely result more of this behavior,'' linking to Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 24 as evidence.

Rebuttal: The fiction-related templates discussed on that date were Wing Commander Craft (orphaned after successful AfD), Stargate Planets (folded into StargateTopics after nearly all linked planets were merged into other articles for WP:FICT concerns, now orphaned), and Stargate SG-1 (long-time orphaned template about in-universe team membership timescale). White Cat voted on the last one, stating ''Keep and revert episode blankings. Votestacking is ongoing here given I see similar dedicated faces.''

Assertion: Blanket bad faith allegations in disruption of seemingly uncontroversial cleanup work, unfounded.

Deletion-minded/Cleanup-focused editors suffer harassment on a grand scale
See vandalism of User:TTN's userpage on January 25 by five unrelated/different IPs (resulting in page protection), TTN's talkpage on January 24-26 by a new account and 15 unrelated/different IPs (resulting in two page protections), and Requests for checkuser/Case/Qwerty of Man in relation to "harassed" User:Gavin.collins and User:Jack Merridew.

Evidence presented by Firsfron
I am an uninvolved editor who has never worked on a TV episode article, but I see this dispute as worrisome.

TTN's mass "merges" border on vandalism
TTN has spent a great deal of time "merging" articles on Wikipedia. The "merging" consists of page blanking (removing the entire contents of the page and adding a redirect) without discussion, and he reverts when he himself is reverted. The material is not merged into another page; it is removed in its entirety. This is a de facto deletion. Thus the word "merge" is incorrect here. TTN continues to "merge" in this manner as of today.

These edits were originally made in good faith, but after many people objected, the behavior was never modified. TTN continues to "merge" articles by completely blanking them, despite many objections. TTN claims these "merges" are done with community consensus, but the community has never come to a consensus that thousands of articles should be "merged" by mass page blanking.

As correctly stated above by Yukichigai (with links), nearly all of TTN's thousands of contributions are dedicated to deleting content. Many of TTN's contributions have been reverted as vandalism. Rollback has even been used in several instances. Automated mass deletion of content without prior discussion has been viewed as "vandalism", disruptive, and unhelpful. A large number of "merges" have been performed by TTN which were conducted so quickly that it would not have been possible for TTN to read the articles before deciding whether or not to redirect: up to 10 per minute. All ten of these edits occurred during the same minute, at 17:28 on January 17th: redirect #1#2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10. Such mass redirects of dozens of articles at the same time are common in his editing history: there are hundreds of them.

TTN's actions have caused other users to misinterpret WP:EPISODE
User:Sesshomaru has stated he is strongly in favor of WP:EPISODE, and uses it to justify edit warring, as he is "strongly in favor" of the guideline. When reverted, he re-reverts, citing the WP:EPISODE guideline.

But the guideline actually states "To start this [merging or deletion] process, tag the article(s) with on the page." Neither Sesshomaru nor TTN have been doing this. redirect of an article which was never tagged for notability and even the talk page was never tagged, and there was no discussion about it. TTN, Eusebeus , and Sesshomaru all redirected the article (TTN and Eusebeus twice) without discussion or tag. This happened on dozens, if not hundreds of articles.

Actions which breach behavioural policies and guidance at Slowpoke (Pokémon)
At 14:19-20, 27 January 2008, User:Colonel Warden edited the article on Slowpoke (Pokémon), bringing back content from the page's history that had been redirected to List of Pokémon (61-80) over two months earlier. These were the first edits to the article in over two months. At 14:59, 27 January 2008 User:TTN restored the redirection with the edit summary ''Do not bring this back without real world information. If you think it can possibly stand, use a split tag or start a discussion somewhere. At 18:06, 27 January 2008 User:Colonel Warden reverted User:TTN with the edit summary Add another cite to the real world. At 23:04, 27 January 2008 User:TTN reverted back to the redirection with the edit summary If you want to bring this back, start a discussion somewhere. At 05:01, 28 January 2008 User:Tim Q. Wells reverts User:TTN with the edit summary there is enough real-world information. The information about the name "Slowpoke" is a good example. Two minutes later User:Tim Q. Wells adds an in-universe tag noting in the edit summary, since you think it needs more real-world information. At 05:47, 28 January 2008 User:Sesshomaru restores the redirect with the edit summary Enough now. Find the information first, put it here, and then we'll see if it may warrant a page, also pointing to WP:NN and WP:WAF. At 06:30, 28 January 2008 User:The Rogue Penguin reverts the redirect with the edit summary contested, tal;k stop edit warring, NOW. Between 13:16 and 13:58, 28 January 2008 User:Hiding (me) edits the article noting in the edit summary the edits are made due to various policies and guidelines. At 17:13, 28 January 2008 User:Sesshomaru removes a broken link. At 20:21, 28 January 2008 User:TTN reverts the article back to a redirect with the edit summary Merge to the list. Work from there until there is enough content to warrant a split. That is unlikely, so I suggest just fixing the entry up.''. (the page is moved here as well, but that's not really relevant) At 22:12, 28 January 2008 User:Colonel Warden reverts the redirect. At 22:15, 28 January 2008 User:TTN restores the redirect.

During all of this, User:Colonel Warden makes the only edit to the article talk page, and User:TTN and User:Colonel Warden also have a discussion    at User talk:Colonel Warden. No other discussion appears to occur.


 * NOTE This evidence is analysed at Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop as to the policy and guidance breaches. I don't quite understand the disconnect between the analysis and the evidence sections, so if that analysis should be here, forgive me. Hiding T 20:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of TTN's merges have the support of consensus
Not all of the redirecting/merging TTN is doing is unilateral. For example, the merger of all nearly-500 species of Pokémon (exc. Pikachu) into lists had consensus since about mid-2007. For history, see:
 * Wikipedia talk:Pokémon Collaborative Project/Archive 14 and its subthreads
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 15
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 15
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 16
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 16
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 16
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 17
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 17
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 17
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 17
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 18
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 18
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 18 and its subthreads
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 18 and its subthreads
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 18
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 18

Of these, one article in particular, Bulbasaur, is still hotly contested and was initially spared from merging (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 18 and its subthread and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 19 and its subthreads). Currently, there is discussion on its talk page regarding the article's future (it is currently still seperate). -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 07:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Latest outbreak of reverts by Eusebeus
Four hours after the proposed injunction here to stop any further edits on disputed articles, Eusebeus began redirecting episodes of Scrubs without any further discussion or acknowledgment of the discussion at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. 56 redirects took place (from to  ) in half an hour. Eusebeus had previously redirected these articles overriding discussion circa January 13.

Subsequently Eusebeus was blocked for 24 hours by Cowman109. 

Laynethebangs
Laynethebangs reverted 5 of Eusebeus edits above. ,, , , and then started a discussion at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes.

Me and Mr. Jonas and Mr. Jonas and Mr. Jonas
A redirect war involving TTN, Sceptre  , Everyking   and Jack Merridew  over the Hannah Montana episode (me neither) Me and Mr. Jonas and Mr. Jonas and Mr. Jonas.

The article was protected on January 27 for 2 days. and later redirected by Jack Merridew shortly before the injunction preventing such edits took effect. See Talk:List_of_Hannah_Montana_episodes for discussion.

Son of Stimpy wheel-war
Earlier this year I recreated an article for an episode of the Ren and Stimpy show - Son of Stimpy using reliable sources after a discussion at articles for deletion was ended delete all - seeArticles for deletion/A Scooter for Yaksmas.

This article was deleted by User:Seicer on March 5 2008. He did not revert when informed this deletion was in breach of the temporary injunction regarding this case. After posting for administrator assistance, User:Jehochman restored the article and shortly afterwards User:Jesse Viviano deleted it again. .

Use of the rollback tool
The rollback tool has been used in content disputes by both sides.

User:Sesshomaru:

User:Sceptre:

User:Casliber:

User:Black Kite:

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

TTN engages in consensus building and discussion
During the actions described above in detail, TTN has on many separate occassions requested outside comments. This is contrary to much of the evidence above, which describe a total lack of discussion efforts by TTN. I seek to establish the existence and (limited) sucess of discussion and demonstrate this with examples that counter the one-sided approach in some of the pieces of evidence above. I recognise that discussion is absent in many places. He initiated numerous threads on the talk page of WikiProject Video games, always inviting other editors to discuss his proposals. Examples of this include:
 * List of Mega Man characters, on List of Mega Man characters. Three editors from the Video games project responded to the request, and all characters but Mega Man himself have been merged into a single list after a normal discussion.
 * Characters of Chrono Trigger, on Characters of Chrono Trigger. Discussion on the project talk page led to no action.
 * Sonic the Hedgehog characters One Two, on List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games). The discussion is ongoing, and can be seen at WT:VG.
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 20, on Bulbasaur. Extensive discussion stalled after a few weeks, the article persists.
 * Meta Knight and King Dedede, on Meta Knight and King Dedede. After discussion where several editors commented at TTN's request, the articles were merged into the list of Kirby characters. Recently the merge was questioned. This is a good example of how the discussion process is sometimes awkward: a few like minded editors gathered, and decided that the article on Meta Knight should be split off again. None of the editors who originally supported the merge commented, and discussion continues.

Analysis of the broader discussion efforts
This section contains no diffs with bad behaviour, but primarily aims to provide Arbitrators with a "map" of the discussions that have been taking place in this case. Secondly, I seek to establish the fact that there have been many efforts at discussion, to counter User:White Cat and User:Serpent's Choice above. In an analysis, the discussions surrounding this case can be categorised into three main areas:
 * 1) Discussions on interpreting broad Wikipedia policies.
 * 2) Discussions that aim to codify the consensus achieved at #1 into concrete guidelines.
 * 3) Trying to enforce the guidelines written at #2.

Examples of the first kind of discussion include interpreting policies like WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Notability. This is done on pages like WT:Notability, but also on WT:Notability (fiction). From what I read, I think it is safe to write that this stage of the discussion is pretty much closed now. It is sometimes questioned, but these are usually fringe opinions. The second kind of discussion is ongoing, though a rough consensus is in place, and can be applied to unambiguous cases. These discussions are often detailed and long, as exemplified by the length of WT:Notability (fiction).

Finally, the third kind of discussion is more focused on actually making edits in the mainspace. This is where most of the edit warring etc. occurs, and where TTN makes most of his edits, as well as some of the other involved parties. There are several big problems in this third process, which TTN can describe best, so I will not do that here. My 'educated guess', and partial observation, is that he must be quite disillusioned by the whole discussion process; this can be observed in the tone and style, as well as the wording, in some of the diffs in the section above. Some attempts at organising this last part have been made, for example, the Video games project has a Cleanup department, see Video games archive 33, section "Characters".

Summary: At the risk of repeating myself, I want to stress that the point of the above is to provide evidence that TTN is not just a steamroller, and has made use of discussion pages and consensus building. This view was missing from this page. The extent to which he has and has not done that (discussing) is what the Arbitration committee should decide upon, and also whether it is needed to discuss at length every edit that is (evidently or supposedly, depending on side of the conflict) supported by a guideline that has consensus. The content under discussion, whether and when episodes and characters deserve their own articles, is being actively discussed as part of #2 (above), but in deciding what to do with the enforcement of existing consensus, a ruling is needed.

''Please do not place comments on my talk page, but use the appropriate venue within the subpages of this RFAR. 21:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC) ''

Bias against a medium?
Episodes of television series are viewed by hundreds of thousands of people at minimum, and usually rebroadcast. A given episiode of a successful syndicated show may be watched by tens of millions of people worldwide. Only the most successful books ever reach even the low end of that range, yet Wikipedia does not see comparable assaults against book articles. Arguably, the assault on television episodes represents POV bias against television as a medium.
 * Agatha Christie isn't particularly highbrow as book authors go, yet look at how many of her works have separate articles of their own. Agatha_Christie
 * See also Stephen King. Category:Novels_by_Stephen_King
 * Anne Rice. Category:Novels_by_Anne_Rice
 * Terry Pratchett. Terry_Pratchett
 * Robert Heinlein.

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.