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

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&mdash;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.

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)
 * I agree that finding third-party references would be productive. Perhaps parties redirecting articles should be doing that as well. --Pixelface (talk) 03:19, 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)
 * Oppose, too broad; AfD is the correct location for articles that don't meet policy; and this suggestion would prevent merge/redirecting of articles that do have consensus for such actions, regardless of notability.  BLACK KITE  13:28, 26 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 Citrouilles Tally-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)
 * Oppose -- excessively broad and one-sided. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse for reasons pointed out by others. --User: (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- utterly one-sided; concur with User:Jack Merridew :- "Verify or die" -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless there is a similar moratorium on the creation of episode or character articles. This creates a situation in which anyone who wishes to can create any fragmented and unverifiable crappy stub with no cleanup process allowed. Edison (talk) 23:43, 13 February 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 Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that's a good idea. Astronaut (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, by the way. per Tim Q Wells. Astronaut (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per... well, just about everyone in the "involved" section, really. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- just as one-sided. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 08:49, 1 February 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)
 * True. I'd expect none of the three shows to have problem articles, though. Will (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem is - that hasn't stopped nominations before for shows of similar status, so I wouldn't take that as a given. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 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)
 * 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 Citrouilles Tally-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)
 * Weak Support -- Not the ideal solution, but considering that BOTH sides of this dispute are continuing to fight it out even as the case is going on, something's gotta be done. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree as pointed out by others. --User: (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Jack Merridew as an involved party
3) Jack Merridew made several comments in the edit warring on episode articles ANI thread. Jack Merridew said, "I agree that this issue is not limited to tv episodes; it includes tv characters, video game characters and locations, and D&D characters, modules, locations, spells, deities, hoards and a hundreds of other thangs; all non-notable, of course. Block the disruptive editors after one warning; 24h, a week, a month, a year." Jack Merridew has violated the three-revert rule and has engaged in edit warring on fictional character articles. On January 13, 2008, Jack Merridew performed 7 reverts on the Bhaal article.        Jack Merridew has participated in drawn-out revert wars on articles such as Number One (My Name Is Earl)    Jack Merridew also accused Pixelface of being a "troll" on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Proposed. --Pixelface (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Having an opinion on the matter does not automatically make one a party in this dispute. The Bhaal examples of reverts are unrelated, and completely appear to be vandalism reverting with an anon who keeps removing cleanup tags. The Earl example is pretty weak as well. This seems to be retaliation for Jack's comment to Pixel on List of Scrubs episodes. -- Ned Scott 00:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And yes, Pixel was inflaming the situation with his constant suggestions of going after Simpsons articles (such as the one made on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes). -- Ned Scott 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Further comment, Pixel leaves out that other editors were reverting the same anon, and that the article was semi-protected to stop that anon from removing the tags. -- Ned Scott 00:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've struck out the mention of WP:3RR (since it may have been sockpuppets that were reverted) and I mentioned the Grawp checkuse case on the /Evidence page. --Pixelface (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jack Merridew, in addition to this evidence, you've already claimed to be "semi-involved." Do you want to retract that statement? --Pixelface (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with my statements; some of yours, however, are of concern and are part of why I choose to participate here. --Jack Merridew 07:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support - if the crux of the debate is TV episode notability, then yes, if it is behaviour that is identified as a single purpose account like I outlined elsewhere then yes as TTN shouldn't be singled out for it, if it is for extreme rapidity of reversions and lack of conversation then probably not. All depends on what Arbcom define as the limits of this issue really. Personally I don't think it will go anywhere unless the scope is enlarged. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Another thing I would like to point out, arbcom is taken as a last resort in a dispute. No attempt has been made with Jack Merridew directly to resolve his role in any dispute, let alone be established that he's done anything wrong. As such I don't think it's fair to make him subject to arbcom's rulings on this matter. If Jack wants to add himself as a party, he can, but that is his decision. If any of you feel differently, start taking other steps in the dispute resolution process, and if that fails, then you might be on to something. With this in mind, there are other users currently listed as parties that I believe could be fairly re-evaluated and removed from the case, if anyone desires, with this same line of logic. -- Ned Scott 07:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Technical Oppose per Ned Scott, though I don't really see how it matters greatly.  BLACK KITE  13:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, especially when Roses2at is listed as a party. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a weak reason to include him. Consider the comment I made just a few lines above this, "With this in mind, there are other users currently listed as parties that I believe could be fairly re-evaluated and removed from the case, if anyone desires, with this same line of logic." If anyone wants to propose that some people be removed as parties, please do so, it might be a good idea. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a weak reason (which is why I used the comma and the word "especially"). Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:


 * Support per this edit and this discussion. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 00:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * re that second link, please note that I was undoing very pointy redirects of two lists of tv stuff. The discussion there endorses this view and the redirects were not ever performed again. --Jack Merridew 06:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I am not sure why he was not listed in the first place. He is certainly actively involved in this dispute before the ArbCom. Ursasapien (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support -- Merridew has been one of the more strident voices in the many ANI threads about this issue, and appears to have a similar editing pattern to TTN, Eusebeus, et. al. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, sorta -- I will agree that he is involved, but I wouldn't go so far as to single him out as one of the worst offenders. Unlike TTN and a few others Jack doesn't have the same habit of "brute enforcing" his edits, which is where much of the outcry and outrage from other editors comes from. Still, he's a vocal proponent of TTN's actions and a distinct figure in this dispute. His inclusion should be a no-brainer. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble argue  check ) 20:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, this user is a hard-working voluntary spokesman for TTN for a while. His recent increasing involvement supports this inclusion. @pple complain 15:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So my offense is one of speech? --Jack Merridew 16:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are similar to Yukichigai. If some of the people listed are considered involved that I've hardly seen anywhere, then Jack's certainly an involved party. Note that this doesn't mean he's at fault for anything, despite what he says; he's merely an involved person in the dispute, which seems pretty obvious to me. Wizardman  03:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Jack Merridew:


 * Petty snipe by Pixelface. I have already addressed the Bhaal stuff on the case talk page (nb: the checkuser cases have produced a lot of interesting results). And yes, I have posted opinions on the tv issue in various places, including the prior case. I believe this is primarily in response to some comments I've made re Px on this page. Glad to see that Number One (My Name Is Earl) remains a redirect. --Jack Merridew 06:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by utterly-uninvolved party
 * This appears to be establishing a doctrine that whoever disagrees with one side, is automatically to be hit with the spanner by the other side. This looks to me less like conciliation and more like aggravation. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with expressing disagreement. But edit-warring over redirects on episode and/or character articles indicates that an editor is an involved party. --Pixelface (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Ursasapien as an involved party
4) Ursasapien should be added to this RfA has a party. They have been disruptive and edit warred at WP:EPISODE, making multiple attempts to redirect the page despite not having consensus and being asked by multiple editors to stop attempting to enforce his own views against the guidelines under various claims. His actions were reported to ANI, but for specific links:


 * 00:32, 7 January 2008 - first done, despite no consensus on talk page, under the claim of "redirect per WP:BURO and WP:CREEP"
 * 05:52, 7 January 2008 - again, now claiming consensus when there was none (claimed it by randomly deciding to discount all discussion from before December 22nd)
 * 23:31, 8 January 2008 - instead of redirect, replaced the page with a "disambig" page
 * 23:59, 8 January 2008 - reverted the undo of his stuff
 * talk page discussions with him by multiple editors explaining why he was wrong
 * started a "poll" after discussion was obviously not going his way


 * proposed by AnmaFinotera diff


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Oppose unless he wants to be added. Ursasapien needs to calm down about some stuff, and he certainly is active with the discussion pages at WT:EPISODE and others, but no dispute resolution has been explored for his involvement in this, and I don't believe it would be fair to add him in unless he wants to be added. Similar to the reason I gave for Jack above. -- Ned Scott 07:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I am fine with being added to the arbitration case. However, I strongly object to AnmaFinotera's spurious accusations. She has continued to state that I was wrong and disruptive. She has assumed the worst faith in me from our first contact. She filed a vindictive ANI on me that was promptly ignored/dismissed. She has harrassed me and now is using this motion as a pretext to once again slime me. I tend to be easy-going and am loathe to report any but the most egregious editor conduct but I am nearing my limit. If Collectonian has the moral courage to file an RfC on my behaviour, let her. I am willing to be transparent and demonstrate my good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia. However, she should refrain from making any further scurrilous indictments of my character. Ursasapien (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose as premature -- This issue is thus far being dealt with adequately on WT:EPISODE and its subpages. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- There's nothing in Ursasapien's edits or the evidence cited that indicates anything more than a good-faith assumption of established consensus (mostly due to apathy from the "opposing side") and an editor having the balls to ask the hard questions that nobody else has stepped forward to ask. Like it or not there is question as to whether or not there's consensus for WP:EPISODE currently, and all I'm seeing after the initial redirects and reverts is an editor putting in incredible effort to gauge consensus as thoroughly as possible. If everyone involved in this dispute had put in as much due diligence as Ursa we wouldn't be at Arbcom hashing it out. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble argue  check ) 21:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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 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 13:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Inclined to support but I'm concerned about 'contentious' because the contention only happens after the merging/deleting/demerging has done. Would it be better to prohibit 'recklessly' merging/demerging articles without discerning consensus? Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * What defines a "contentious" tag? Heck, some people hate seeing an article tagged at all, or what if someone argues with one of us tagging an article for having no references, etc? Why should those of us who don't even belong in this thing have to stop 99% of our work because of the edit warring between a handful of people? I do a ton of work in the Anime and Manga and the Television projects. Part of that work includes tagging articles while going through unassessed articles, or tagging articles for issues and bringing them to the project's attention. I know some folks have already said "well just fix it yourself instead of tagging" but let's be realistic. I'm already actively an extensively working on a dozen articles, several of which are being worked on for FA/FL status. And what defines contentious renaming (didn't know there were any renaming issues)? If we see an article with the wrong name, are we just supposed to hope someone else fixes it? AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In a decision like this, an action or tag is usually said to be contentious very pragmatically - ie if there is visibly doubt whether all "parties" (or users on both "sides") in the dispute would agree it's non-contentious. Thus, a correction of a spelling error or a page refactor or edits and deletions both sides agree on, is usually non-contentious; actions one side agree and the other side don't (whichever way around) are often contentious. Admins who are not involved look into the discussion, the views given, and the basis and backing discussion (if any) for the action and form a view if the action did in their view have a reasonable basis in consensus and is not considered particularly contentious.


 * Injunctions like these are intended to help prevent (or reduce the chances of) a resurgence of the core area that "flares up", to allow editing to progress as much as possible without escalation, whilst a ruling is being considered. It's a reducer of wikistress. Once the case is closed - in a week or so - the injunction automatically then completely terminates. It's an interim measure.


 * The reason for an injunction like this is that a case does not reach and become accepted at arbitration because of trivia. This case is here because nothing else has prevented a small number of users having nuclear wars over reversions, deletions, tagging and the related issues described (so to speak). Whilst a fine tuned remedy is being considered, and whoever may be at "fault" if any, it is desirable to allow normal editing to proceed and to be disrupted as little as possible -- but not to re-allow the behaviors that have led to this case from arising. In this case, it would seem that listing the behaviors that (when carried out) have caused dispute, and saying these behaviors are not to be done by anyone on either side without consensus, and the consensus to be assessed by an administrator, is a way of giving the editors on both sides as much of normal editing as we feel can be handled without it reigniting, and also giving both sides the ability to do all actions of all kinds for which there is genuine consensus. For 1 - 2 weeks, it's reasonable and most editors see the sense and value of it. FT2 (Talk 02:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, but what about the contentious actions of the "other side" like attempting to use "be bold" as an attempt to redirect WP:EPISODE without consensus, and continuing to try different tactics to have it removed/redirected despite having no consensus and using the same bulldog tactics they accuse TNN of, of trying to wear down everyone who is getting sick of deal with the multiple attacks to policy-supported guidelines because they "don't like it." If we're supposed to be restricted from enforcing policies and guidelines, they should also not be allowed to continue trying to remove those same ones until this is done with. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Again, if you want to restrict something, restrict the reverting, not the cleanup that the project desperately needs. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Gee Ned can we drop the urgency? No-one finds these articles accidentally, they don't clutter anywhere. Gosh, shock, horror, maybe folks can go and improve sourcing on some health- or politics-related articles in the meantime? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Gee, it has nothing to do with urgency, it has to do with not restricting things that are not a problem in this case. -- Ned Scott 01:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Two weeks sounds fine to me. --Pixelface (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, mainly of the use of "contentious". Contentious does not mean "I don't agree with it", but should mean "this isn't particularly clear in regards to policy". Having said that, I'd guess that Wikipedia is not greatly harmed by the existence of multiple policy-violating pages for another couple of weeks.  BLACK KITE  13:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 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)
 * Support. This RfAr exists as a consequence of TTN's disregard for the first RFAR decisions, as well as the fact that his/her continually contentious actions have provoked considerable controversy and objection from the community. Thus, it is perfectly justifiable to request that TTN and other editors cease deleting articles when this case is still active and perhaps take some time to comment on relevant issues here instead (especially TTN, who apparently has been notified of this case, but mysteriously has not found the need to comment). At any rate, deletion/redirection which is based on consensus will not be prevented if this injunction is granted; they shouldn't be concerned. - PeaceNT (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. per Jack Merridew. I think this should help calm passions during this RfAr and may even lead to more commentary here. Comment to Ned Scott. There is no urgency. Clean up is no more desperately needed than the creation of a thousand more episode/character articles. What is desperately needed is careful thought, civil discussion, and consensus. Ursasapien (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I am already trying to steer clear of it until we get some direction here. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per Jack Merridew, PeaceNT. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - per the various reasons pointed out. --User: (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. per above. @pple complain 15:54, 25 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 13:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments:


 * Comments by others:


 * The discussions listed should be the decision on content, and generally they seem to be working well despite some strong disagreement. ArbCom is needed more for a few points of policy and mostly for civility and conduct discussion, from what I can tell. As such, these can proceed in parallel, and indeed ArbCom's rulings may help speed up the discussions. LinaMishima (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest keeping things going in parallel. I'm glad the other discussions are being held, and followed by the AC. I personally find the half-meg on that talk page unreadable and hence unfollowable. Of course, if this workshop pages expands as the last case's did, we may have the same issue here. (nb: I dropped 'talk' from your first link as I moved the RFC to its main page a few days ago) --Jack Merridew 14:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, I meant this page: Television episodes/Proposed Objective Criteria. --Jack Merridew 14:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The parallel approach seems to be working; there are some aspects here, but I think we are figuring out the content side pretty well without intervention (though we may need someone uninvolved to determine the right consensus, if needed). --MASEM 18:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1/ Noted, and 2/ build that into your decision-making process early. If need be or if there is doubt, a simple neutral formula is "the decisions of any polls (if not obvious) shall be agreed by means of a request to ANI/RFC/wherever for final uninvolved views..." or some such. FT2 (Talk 03:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This really isn't about who's right or wrong when it comes to the content decision, it's about how we handle the situation. However, arbcom should consider this is part of the attempt by the community to help resolve these disputes, both current and in the future. This second case really just needs to adopt and let the community handle the rest, and I still strongly urge arbcom to do just that. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't see any reason this case shouldn't proceed; the discussion at WT:EPISODE isn't going to resolve the issues involved in this case, while at least one of the parties to the case (TTN) refuses to participate in the discussion there. The discussion is about setting standards for episode (and, presumably, character) articles to follow; this case is about disruptive editing on both sides of the issue. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN stop removing content during the duration of the rfar
2) It seems like all TTN doing is adding to drama. Can arbcom please tell him to temporarily stop these edits not based on consensus. This is to allow dialog and help work for a resolution on this dispute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Support, although I'd be happy if TTN simply acknowledged this arbitration case by leaving any sort of comment on any case page. --Pixelface (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, even though I think that 90% of the time TTN is in the right, this is probably a good idea until the case ends.  BLACK KITE  13:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Initiator: If what TTN is doing is right explaining himself here would help arbitrators understand his perspective better. At a minimum "working together" requires some level of discussion right? -- Cat chi? 13:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Unfortunately, even the AfDs he is participating in are turning into intense debates:, , , , etc., where AfD is becoming something of a battleground, rather than just having a focused discussion here in this Workshop. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 19:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support; to borrow a phrase from someone discussing Richard Nixon's role in the Watergate incident, even if one is an administrator; they are NOT ABOVE Wiki-policy. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a side note, TTN isn't an admin. -- Ned Scott 08:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought he was at one point. My fault. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN stop removing content during the duration of the rfar
2.1) TTN to stop removing content in any way (redirectification, xfds and etc) during the duration of this rfar. This is to allow dialog and help work for a resolution on this dispute. See also:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
 * Articles for deletion/List of Jade Empire characters
 * Articles for deletion/Kracko (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Enter Magneto
 * Articles for deletion/Dyna Blade (Kirby) (2nd nomination)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Proposed, reworded above entry a bit. -- Cat chi? 13:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Support as many of those discussions listed above have been quite contentious and it still feels as if we're having the same discussion all over the encyclopedia rather than localized in this case. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Temporary injunction
3) For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or any currently existing article regarding fictional character(s); nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The main reason the prior injunction was limited to television episodes and characters is that only the editors on those articles are likely to be aware of the case and the injunction. I could support expanding the injunction if (i) evidence is presented of a problem on the broader group of articles, and (ii) the editors on the two groups of articles are substantially the same, or a way is found of letting the video game editors know about the case and the proposed injunction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * I support this. I assumed the injunction that passed applied to articles about all fictional characters, not just fictional characters from television. And I assumed it only applied to the involved parties. I think the phrase "no editor" should be changed to "no involved party." --Pixelface (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As an involved party that and has voluntarily become a party to this case, and one that hasn't had issues of mass redirection or edit waring over episodes or characters, I'm not happy at the idea that even I would not be allowed to tag articles or merge content. -- Ned Scott 08:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure the injunction still allows editors to trim content, merge content, and nominate articles for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since it's been clarified that this applies to editors that are not a party of this case, I must ask "WTF, arbcom?". We've painfully detailed to you who's been involved, who the key players in this dispute are, and yet you take this absurd extreme... for what? Why lump even non-controversial actions by uninvolved editors into this. This case is regarding editor behavior for a listed group of Wikipedians, it is not your place to get involved in content disputes that are unrelated to this case, especially the ones that aren't even disputed. -- Ned Scott 07:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Simmer, Ned. It's a temporary injunction, not a permanent one.  It's not uncommon for a temporary injunction to cover all possible interpretations of who is wrong, so to speak.  Side effects aside, this does a reasonably good job of stopping the actions of the dispute (though I've made it clear that I think other fictional characters should be included in the injunction) so that discussion can take place without people having to worry about whether or not a certain article will be redirected/un-blanked/etc. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble  <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 10:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I recently added evidence of edit-warring on videogame character articles to /Evidence, which can be seen here. The edit-warring over the Frank West article is also relevant. I can provide detailed evidence on it if anyone wants. --Pixelface (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - wording gives articles like Oceanic Six a free pass to speculate. Will (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:


 * A slight modification to the current temporary injunction, as it appears that the wording does not extend to a particular category of articles. My addition is italicized.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 05:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, this needs to be expanded. These contentious edits are focused primarily on TV episodes, but all manner of fictional characters are bearing the brunt of this as well.  I never took the title "episodes and characters" to mean exclusively those related to television, and I suspect many here didn't either.  Besides, this is about behavior, not content.  If an editor is using the same type of questionable tactics on two completely different topic areas do we say that it's okay in one area but not the other? -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble  <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 08:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What about fictional dinosaurs? Or fictional war axes or magic spells? (and what about non-fictional magic spells?) Then there is the question of fictional flowers that only live on a fictional island in a fictional sea inhabited by fictional mermaids.
 * Perhaps a better way of looking at the core issue here is that there are a lot of "articles" that amount to encyclopaedic hoaxes. --Jack Merridew 10:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we ought to follow Newyorkbrad's advice and make this modification when we have the evidence to back it up. As far as I can tell, TTN and others have not used the same tactics (certainly not with the overwhelming number of edits or revert warring) on video game character articles.  Perhaps someone else could review and, if this is the case, present evidence on the evidence page.  Ursasapien (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note As per the announced injunction, the following template is being placed at the top of AfD's that are currently affected by the injunction:

Category:Article for Deletion debates under injunction by Arbitration Committee Episodes and characters 2 case
 * FICTWARN -- RoninBK T C 15:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)-- RoninBK T C 15:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, hoaxes should still be okay to delete, but not notable articles like the on the Oceanic Six. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying Oceanic Six isn't notable - it might be one of the most notable things about the show. But notability isn't the only reason for deleting an article - speculative articles (such as that one) get deleted all the time. Will (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the speculative material can be removed and replaced by what is covered in the E! News and TV Guide articles with "Oceanic Six" in their titles that are found from doing a search of the phrase on sites like dogpile.com. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is true. I really should not have used that example, as sources do exist. A better example would be "My Bad Too", an episode that's purported to be the next episode of Scrubs. I've checked, no reliable sources exist. Should we really be allowing these sorts of articles free rein? Will (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being understanding in the case of the Lost article. Anyway, if the articles really have no redeeming value, then I doubt it matters if they stick around for the duration of the case and are just deleted afterwards, i.e. there's plenty of other work to be done in the meantime where it's probably not a big deal and maybe in the meanwhile someone will be able to salvage such articles.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Halt to activities, revised
4) For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or any currently existing article regarding fictional character(s) due to notability; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic due to notability, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Proposed to override the current, insanely messy injunction - while intended for good, it's allowing crystalballing a free pass when the injunction should really apply to notability. Will (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Support if it is clear that by fictional characters we also mean those featured in video games and movies. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparent violation of injunction
Please see Articles for deletion/Smallville timeline which to my view is precisely about the episodes and characters of this continuing fiction. the argument there is that it does not meet the definition. I'm involved, so I ask others to examine it. If this is not the right venue, I will move it elsewhere.DGG (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this is the right venue. This one's really tricky; IMHO it probably doesn't meet the definition, but it's very borderline.  Black Kite  18:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It could be under the definition, and I can see in some views how it could, but personally I don't believe it meets the exact definition. Regardless, I was under the impression that the AfD process wasn't actually a violation of the injunction, just something discouraged as well as ineffective (because it wouldn't be able to be closed or whatever during the injunction). -- Ned Scott 18:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that the injunction was intended to put a halt to deletion activities on this class of article, to allow for the arbcom to inderstand the problem and to formulate a resolution. I therefore think that the use of fictwarn template on this AFD was the correct thing to do.  It is probably better to casta slightly wider net that to cast one that is too small.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 21:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions to the parties
Not really a question... I have strongly urged TTN to read and participate in this RfA. Astronaut (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Question from uninvolved party User:Roninbk
1} What does the Arbitration Committee intend for administrators and the community to do with AfD's that are started during the course of this case?

Right now at Deletion review/Log/2008 February 17 is a case in which there are competing and contradictory interpretations of the injunction. One side has proposed that affected AfD's should be summarily dismissed as Speedy Keep, (this is what happened to the article in question). The opposing argument is that the discussions should continue, tagged with FICTWARN, and that they may not be closed as Delete, Merge or Redirect and should be relisted once the five day expiration date is reached. The current confusion is having a chilling effect upon the AfD process. -- RoninBK T C 13:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:



= Proposed final decision =

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:


 * Proposed. John254 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. --Pixelface (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Basically true, but totally unnessesary threat of a site ban. TTN follows our guidelines and policy, and if arbcom actually passes something like, I have no doubt he'll listen. The reason we are here a second time is because in the first case failed to give any kind of clear advice or direction. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, also, I don't see how not having this would weaken the credibility of the decision in this case. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per wording Yes it is disruptive, but do you want to siteban editors that are enforcing policy? I think not.  BLACK KITE  13:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There appears to be consensus on the evidence page, this workshop page and other AN, ANI threads, et cetera that User:TTN's actions constitute disruption; whether or not they are really enforcing "policy" (you mean guidelines?), however, is still in dispute. - PeaceNT (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear that way at all. We are here because a great many users are split on this issue. -- Ned Scott 03:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is to say, not for TTN's general actions. I do agree that there are times when he shouldn't keep forcing the issue, regardless of who's right or wrong. Forcing the issue at that point will cause an inevitable backlash, bad feelings (we are a community, and some considerations to that should be taken), anger, and even some "false positives". -- Ned Scott 03:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:NOR are policies. Many of these articles violate one or more of these.  BLACK KITE  11:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-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) -- there's clearly 3 pre-set spaces here:  for others as well as them  .DGG (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This seems like common sense to me. Ursasapien (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - common sense. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support -- This is the entire basis of WP:AIV and other anti-vandalism measures; failure to reiterate this would only weaken the credibility of the decision in this case. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support --User: (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Obvious. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * Support Tim Q. Wells (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per wording It takes two to edit-war (on in this case, a lot more).  BLACK KITE  13:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the discussion below before making a comment. - PeaceNT (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I did. I would support a more general finding of edit-warring, but not concentrating on a single editor.  BLACK KITE  13:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Findings are more helpful when they address an editor's conduct specifically, otherwise that editor might think we are not talking about them. - PeaceNT (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:


 * Support per the evidence. Wizardman  02:07, 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&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 05:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - This is like having a finding of fact called "The sky is blue". -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">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&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">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, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Ursasapien (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support It may take two to tango but it appears that TTN's dance card is the full one (Translation: TTN seems to be the common denominator in all of these edit wars). <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"><font color="#000">spryde | <font color="#000">talk  21:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because he's one of the few willing to deal with these situations. Don't be fooled by numbers, they mean very little on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 04:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I have been keeping up with the TTN situation, but I am not sure if the ends justify the means. You can be perfectly in the right when it comes to policy but if you use up all your goodwill in the mean time, you really are not getting the point of a collaborative project. You have to work with others, not steamroll them. Beating people over the head repeatedly with policy is never a good strategy. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"><font color="#000">spryde | <font color="#000">talk  12:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, which is why I strongly encourage TTN to find better ways of dealing with these situations that don't leave him looking like the "bad guy". Using force, even if you're right, can come back and bite you in the butt later on (which it has). I just don't think that him being the common denominator is the real issue. -- Ned Scott 01:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support -- Whether or not you support TTN's activities, he's been exceedingly aggressive in merging/"soft-deleting"/redirecting articles, and even more aggressive in "defending" his redirects by keeping them watchlisted so he can immediately reinstate them should they be reverted, even months later (and I wish I could remember what page it was where that happened so I could put it in evidence). He also has, as shown in Yukichigai's evidence, demonstrated a desire to intimidate editors who disagree with him into submission with threats of edit wars and a refusal to even consider opposing points of view, inducing a siege mentality in those opposing him. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Solution ignores edit warring and refusal to follow policy by those who oppose the mergers as well. Again, singling TTN out for punishment or bad behavior is wrong. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, if you feel there are other users who are edit warring, identify them and they can be sanctioned too. And, also again, other people edit warring doesn't excuse TTN edit warring. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't change the simple logical truism that, since an edit war involves two or more editors repeatedly reverting one another, someone else must be participating if it is asserted that one person is edit warring. Surely, we are not to believe that TTN is edit warring with himself? Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is simple. One editor goes around boldly redirecting every episode article s/he encounters, without proper explanation and discussion, let alone consensus. Then it turns out (not surprisingly) that s/he is reverted everywhere and faces increasing objection from a large number of editors in the community. Yet, instead of realizing it was about time to discuss, s/he kept on engaging "in massive edit warring over a large number of articles" with multiple users. I hope I describe the situation well, for as far as I am concerned, no other editors have performed as much controversial reversion as this particular user has on Wikipedia (note that vandal-fighters are left out, for their work is entirely non-controversial) So yes, s/he is not editwarring with self, or another specific user, but actually many other editors, hence the grave concerns. - PeaceNT (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that isn't such a truism. Consider the case where Alice makes a change, Bob reverts, Alice restores, Charlotte reverts, Alice restores, David reverts, Alice restores, Emily reverts, Alice restores, and so on through the rest of the alphabet; Alice is clearly edit warring, but there is not a "someone else" she is warring with. Whether or not that applies to TTN in general or in any particular skirmish is not something I will comment upon.
 * Even if there is another editor involved in any particular skirmish, that does not absolve TTN of responsibility for his own behavior. Instead of trying to excuse TTN, bring appropriate criticism on that other editor as well. Anomie⚔ 05:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Anomie said it better than I could. it is a fact that the user in question has been involved in massive edit wars. Period. Evidence is needed for accusation against other editors, though I find it rather offending that you would suspect for even a fraction of a second that "someone else must be participating" is the same amount of contentious edit war as this particular user has. - PeaceNT (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as Anomie illustrated, it is possible for TTN to engage in a one-sided editwar. Even when the weight of wider opinion is against him, TTN ploughs on regardless. Astronaut (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a quick question: "someone else must be participating if it is asserted that one person is edit warring." How exactly does this statement excuse the behavior of the first person? The short answer is simple: it doesn't. This is the Wikipedia equivalent of "well he started it!" The order in which the parties did things doesn't matter compared to what the parties did. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 08:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - evidence is clear, precise and there. --User: (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Per evidence, it really can't be denined. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Template
4) template
 * 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.

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)
 * TTN is the only editor who has been established, based on the current evidence, to have engaged in massive, sustained edit warring. Ned Scott's evidence against Pixelface and Tim Q. Wells shows only that these editors each engaged in a single set of reversions on a single day. While one incident of such edit warring over a large number of articles would have constituted grounds for blocking at the time, when considered at least several days later, it warrants little more than an admonishment not to do it again. Ned Scott's evidence regarding Geni currently shows only 10 reversions, which, while clearly not acceptable, fails to rise to the level of the sort of massive edit warring that would justify an extended site ban. TTN's extreme edit warring is clearly disruptive, and is not excused by assertion that edit warring furthers the enforcement of the notability guideline. John254 15:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We are here because the community at large does not agree that he's actually done anything outrightly wrong. I myself can only think of a few times, the minority of TTN's edits, where he should have backed down and not forced the issue, and in general I would welcome a tactic that is less harsh. We need adjustment here, not blood. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 22 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 &mdash; 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 Support (has not changed despited injunction, though strictly speaking is avoiding TV episodes as such) - 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)
 * Neutral Tim Q. Wells (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Support Tim Q. Wells (talk) 07:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose, utterly ludicrous.  BLACK KITE  13:43, 26 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)
 * Might be better to leave off proposals until all the evidence is in folks. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 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, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware this was a straw poll... <font color="#2A8B31">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)
 * Oppose While a block may be warranted for TTN's alleged edit warring, a one year ban is far too harsh. A short term block of two weeks to a month should be used first. --Farix (Talk) 15:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Farix. -- Scorpion0422 15:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Farix. TTN may seemingly need to be hit with a brick to get his attention, but a block of a month or less would be adequate for that. Note that I wouldn't be opposed to a possible one-year topic ban, but such a long overall ban is excessive and punitive. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too harsh. A week block and a threat would likely be enough. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Modify -- a month or so would be sufficient. If he returns to edit warring we can deal with it then, having established the precedent. But I think we need this, because it seems clear by now it will continue until we do something of this nature.DGG (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Wizardman. A year's kind of much to ban a user. If TTN was inserting malicious vandalism (such as, say, Mmbabies); I could go with that. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose as excessive, per Farix. Edison (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Extreme Overkill per Farix. Would only serve to inflame the situation.  Kamek  (Koopa wizard!) 20:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - blocks may be appropriate for any future edit warring (as is the case for all users), the users were taken in good faith and any ban at this stage would be completely punative and unlikely to have any kind of positive outcome. Guest9999 (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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 - - 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)
 * The fact that TTN is edit warring with so many different people is fairly clear evidence that he doesn't have consensus for what he is doing. <font color="#11A"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 07:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For some situations I agree, which is why I'm supporting this proposal in the first place, and why I added myself as a party to this arbcom case. However, the example article The Man Who Killed Batman is not a case where other people are going to discussion or giving reasons other than "I like it" to revert. It is not an example that backs up the assertion, but I do acknowledge that the situation does exist, and that TTN does need to cool it on some discussions (whether he's right or wrong). -- Ned Scott 05:58, 25 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)
 * Oppose - Great in theory, but this isn't the point. Policy overrides consensus. Yet when editors (including admins) try to enforce it they are continually reverted. If this was a BLP issue we wouldn't even be having this argument.  BLACK KITE  13:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP issues are considered special cases. There is a much greater sense of urgency with living people, mostly for liability reasons, as well as to avoid harming them in real life due to an incorrect fact or biased statement. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Yes, yes, a thousand times yes - Not only should this principle pass, it should be incorporated into Disruptive editing and probably deserves its own shortcut. (WP: FAIT) -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble  <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">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&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">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&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 23:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Newbies creating 10 episode articles over a couple of days is not fait accompli. Re-directing then in one minute is fait accompli. Astronaut (talk) 06:10, 21 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)
 * Full support Discussion is key. Stating X and ignoring questions and trying to battle through siege mentality, attrition and other methods is not how a collaborative encyclopedia is supposed to work. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"><font color="#000">spryde | <font color="#000">talk  21:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per Kirill, Casliber, Ned Scott, Tukichigai, PeaceNT, Astronaut, Ursasapien, and spryde (phew!). Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Great in theory, but... I agree with this in spirit, but I'm afraid it might be applied to one side only. What happens when someone is notified "Creation of episode articles is controversial, please discuss the appropriateness and sourceability of a particular article before creating any more", and continues to create dozens of them? (Or "many editors making a few edits" continue to do so?) Does the same principle apply to them? In principle, I agree with "discussion not force", but it must apply to both sides. If a freeze or slowdown is to be suggested or mandated, it must be applied to creation along with anything else. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Does the same principle apply to them?" Quite simply, yes, it does. Article creation would count as a type of edit here. Certainly a situation like you described (with some exceptions for new users, since as I said before we don't bite the newbies here) would go against the spirit of this proposal, and thus it would count. If there's another wording you think would make it more even, though, by all means suggest it. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 20:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Support. --User: (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Simple proposal, though unfortunately ignored. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not just restate WP:3RR: The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting multiple times, discuss the matter with other editors. If an action really needs reverting that much, somebody else will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable. Engaging in dispute resolution or requesting for page protection is often preferred over reverting. Hiding T 00:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because, quite simply, apparently that wasn't clear enough to stop certain editors from behaving in just such a fashion, and hasn't been clear enough to embiggen administrators enough to block or ban (or even sternly caution) said editors. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 12:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Show me where Arb-com re-iterated that position in the previous case. I can't see it. Hiding T 13:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No thanks. As Hiding says, this ground is already covered by policies and guidelines such as Three-revert rule, Edit war, Disruptive editing and Editing policy. This seems to be a move towards protecting the status quo. How would the great spoiler brouhaha have ended had this been part of arbcom's holy writ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Can be too broadly construed - it is difficult to do anything on Wikipedia these days without somebody complaining. The sensibility of their opposition must also be considered. As phrased, this would have prevented the much-needed scouring of spoiler warnings. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:



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.

Working group
1) The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the problem of editorial conflict over the notability of episodes, characters, and other topics related to fictional works. The membership, structure, and procedures of the group shall be subject to the approval of the Committee. The working group shall be free to develop recommendations of any form, including those requiring Committee action and those requiring community adoption of new or changed policies, at its discretion. The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case, and shall present its recommendations to the Committee no later than three months from the date of its inception.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Totally off-the-wall idea, but if this can be applied to nationalist edit-warring, why not here? It would presumably need to be coupled with a remedy limiting the extent to which people can edit-war over this in the meantime; the question is whether the bulk of the editors would be content to wait three months for this without tearing each others' heads off. Kirill 04:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:EDITWARS is the nationalist conflict one, for anyone looking for that. Kirill 01:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * I might have to think about this. My first reaction was "oh hell no", but then I started to think about it. This committee is just presenting recommendations? On one hand, I don't really like the idea because it doesn't really seem arbcom's place, but on the other hand.. If we just take for a moment and pretend that this isn't arbcom, but the same people in arbcom, wanting to find other users and take those users to form a committee to make the recommendations.. that's a very interesting idea, and could be a great way to get some new and fresh ideas. I find it hard to not take advantage of such an offer. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Questions: Is this aimed more at the process/behavior of dealing with such articles, the content of such articles, or both? Once recommendations are made, what is the process to make them guidelines and/or policy and to make sure there is community consensus for it (as well as to consider the fact that the community may outright disagree with the recommendations). I will also point that (personally) I think we're close, or a least a lot closer than 3 months ago to resolving the content issues at WP:EPISODE and subsequently WP:FICT. Also a consideration that 3 months is an awfully long time in wiki-time - enough to possibly allow more possible edit conflicts to come about, and the time between the last ArbCom case and this one was must faster than that. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 05:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I hereby propose Masem for membership in this group. --Jack Merridew 08:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. This could work. I'd be interested in a link to the "nationalist edit-warring" precedent you're referring to. I suppose my level of support for this would be linked to whatever other Principles, Findings and Remedies were served-up along with it. The edit warring does need to stop and I expect something re that; both sides, i.e. no mass resurrection of TTN's redirections wo/addressing the issues with whatever is under the redirects. I'd suggest a time-frame of no more than two months; let's not dawdle. --Jack Merridew 08:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How are the "experienced Wikipedians in good standing" to be chosen? If the wrong people are chosen, one side or the other will probably end up claiming that the working group was "stacked" or that their "side" was not fairly represented. Anomie⚔ 18:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps have the Committee ensure that the committee is composed equally (X number of people who have been largely in favor of individual articles, X number who have been largely against, and some number of people who have taken no position either way.) No one could claim "stacking" in such a case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't the best recommendation for resolving the problem of editorial conflict over the notability of episodes, characters, and other topics related to fictional works that editors follow the dispute resolution process? Hiding T 00:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's some more recommendations I found in policies and guidance, namely Your first article, Stub, Editing policy, Dispute resolution, Consensus, Assume good faith, What Wikipedia is not, Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and Disruptive editing.
 * if there are reliable sources with enough information to write about a subject, then that subject is notable and those sources can verify the information in the Wikipedia article. If you cannot find reliable sources (such as newspapers, journals, or books) that provide information for an article, then the subject is not notable or verifiable and almost certainly will be deleted. So your first job is to go find references.
 * When you write a stub, bear in mind that it should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it. The key is to provide adequate context — articles with little or no context usually end up being speedily deleted.
 * If, in your considered judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that. But preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change.
 * Discuss the issue on a talk page. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question.
 * Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome.
 * To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it. If this were not true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing. When you disagree with people, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project.
 * Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot.
 * Gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith, to deliberately thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship. Gaming the system is subversive and in many cases, a form of disruption. It usually involves improper use of (or appeal to) a policy, to purposefully derail or disrupt Wikipedia processes, to claim support for a viewpoint which clearly contradicts those policies, or to attack a genuinely policy-based stance. Examples of gaming include (but are not limited to) Wikilawyering.
 * A disruptive editor is an editor who rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.
 * Hope that all helps. Hiding T 02:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 'not necessary the community is already doing this at the discussion of NOT, of EP{ISODES, and at FICTION. 19:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the new "working groups" idea is one of the best that the arbcom has come up with in recent memory, and should be applied nearly routinely in cases like this where the arbcom accepts a case with a serious policy or content component. Such cases only reach the arbcom when the underlying issue has festered so badly that resolution is not in sight. The working groups provide a good model how to fix intractible and destructive policy problems. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * May not be necessary now, what with the TV Episodes RFC and the discussions at FICT and EPISODE.  Kamek  (Koopa wizard!) 20:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support After waiting this long I don't think three months will mean much, I think the temporary injunction or something similar should be left however while this group is working together. It is clear that the editorial conflict in fictional article needs to be reviewed by level headed editors in good standing; I don't think it is unfair to say most if not all of the current editors involved have become too polarised in the matter. --Sin Harvest (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:



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:



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 its 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)
 * This is basically true, and I'd support saying this in this case simply for all those who think this arbcom case will bring back past articles. Not core to the issue, but it would be beneficial to say. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support absolutely. This is the heart of the matter.  BLACK KITE  13:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as long as deletionists stop pretending that no sources exist. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 29 February 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. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 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. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 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)
 * Support with the caveat that more should also be done to make the appropriate policy pages and their discussions known to the Wikipublic in general; before the first time I bumped into TTN, I'd never even heard of WP:FICT or WP:EPISODE. Even with the Policy Pump and Proposal Pump watchlisted, I rarely hear that a policy or guideline is being examined for modification; the only reason I found out about what's happening on WT:EPISODE and its subpages is that it was mentioned in an ANI thread. We can't build consensus on policies and guidelines in a vacuum, and so long as these discussions occur on obscure talkpages without any notification to the community at large, we're going to keep facing these sorts of disagreements over policies/guidelines that few have heard of, and even fewer knew were being changed. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong bloody oppose. This is outside arb-com's remit and contradicts policy. Policies and consensus and the board on rare occasions decide what gets included, not guidance. Guidance can help us solve arguments, but it isn't the solution. We are. We use discussion to decide what is suitable for inclusion. Given the fact that notability is flagrantly ignored by half of wikipedians and disputed in may instances, I don't see how arb-com could even find in favour of this even if it was in their remit. 16:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Hiding T
 * Oppose This does not address mass blanking of works in progress. Stubs typically lack any kind of sourcing or a whole lot of content. lack of sources isn't an automatic redirectification. Also WP:SPINOUT explains that long articles on notable topics can be broken apart. WP:SPINOUT and WP:STUBS are not banned. -- Cat chi? 17:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * True. However, stubs should not be permastubs (that is, significant amounts of source material should exist, even if it has not yet been well-utilized.) By the same token, "spinoffs" should be notable in their own right. If we're placing a tremendous amount of emphasis on something very little source material exists for, we're giving it undue weight. That means it's time to trim, not give it even more by splitting it out! "Spinouts and stubs are alright!" is true, if the sourcing is there to support them, but that does not translate to "Write an article on whatever you want!" Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which policy is it which states that stubs should not be permastubs? Hiding T 10:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, giving something its own article gives it a significant amount of weight. The amount of independent source material out there should justify that amount of weight. NPOV, a core policy, forbids giving something more weight than sources justify giving it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean permastubs are banned from Wikipedia. In fact, one can argue that a permastub gives exactly the weight the topic deserves. More than you or me, and less than more important things. I'd say not allowing them more weight than you or I get is violating NPOV for the very reasons you stated. Hiding T 13:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This would affect a very wide range of short article that are permastubs, and basically involves a change in policy about them, which needs approval from the community, not just arbcom./ I think it an extremely poor idea--there is a range of importance, and articles should reflect this. In this particular topic, the many overlong articles about relatively low-importance topics is what reasonably encouraged people to feel that something needed to be done about it, though it should not have been done unilaterally without consensus. Short articles as appropriate would have dealt with it, but would have been in danger of rejection under this suggestion DGG (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, inprinciple, if not in exact wording. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a content decision. Regardless, I have to agree with the statement.  Kamek  (Koopa wizard!) 20:10, 15 February 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? AnmaFinotera (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. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 20:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Notification doesn't seem to be a real issue here. *shrug* -- Ned Scott 04:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Many guidelines are disputed (WP:EPISODE, WP:FICT, etc) and many guidelines contradict each other (for example WP:N and WP:SPINOUT/WP:SUMMARY). It's a little extreme to say an article "fails" a guideline. However, I do think that the major contributors of an article should be told on their talk page how an article could be improved if the article is going to become a redirect. --Pixelface (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The disputes of said guidelines are a direct result of questions about consensus brought up by issues with TTN and others, (and as already suggested, guidelines and policy should result from consensus-building), and there are attempts to rectify the disputes on these consensus. It would be unexpected for this idea to apply to under-dispute guidelines, but once no longer disputed, the suggested approach should still apply. WP:N and WP:SPINOUT do not contradict each other: the former is on a topic, the latter is on an article, and in general, notability has always allowed for summary-style subarticles covered under the same topic for size purposes. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 21:28, 27 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? --M<font size="-3">ASEM 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)
 * Support per Jack Merridew. I'd also recommend some sort of limit on the frequency with which individual editors can tag articles in this manner, to prevent the seemingly blind mass-merges TTN is notorious for. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If an editor knows (because he is a fan himself) that an article fails core policies and could never be more than a plot summary, and knows a subsection where a decent summary of the article exists in summary style, he should be allowed to skip the notification process and just be bold in redirection/merging. This is however not advisable for batches of similar articles, and notification generally never harms anyone. – sgeureka t•c 18:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that when editors "know" that what they are doing is obviously right, it still may not be. that's why the project needs some rules. DGG (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (I guess this was a reply to me.) The burden of evidence lies with the editors trying to keep unsourced material (or material that doesn't assert why it should be in an encyclopedia at all, i.e. notability), so even if an editor mistakenly believes that what he is doing is right, it's not his job do prove that he is wrong. When he is absolutely certain that he is obviously right, this is even more true. We already got rules, and the only reason that they are not applied rigorously is WP:AGF that sources exist and/or that the article will be improved to meet core policies, which of course has a cut-off point. (You can't prove a negative.) – sgeureka t•c 10:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me.  Kamek  (Koopa wizard!) 20:12, 15 February 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:


 * Sounds reasonable. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. This is the key distinction between TTN and TV articles and the parallel situations with Jack Merridew/Gavin Collins and rpg material WRT time,tags, use of AFD and acceptance of 3rd party sources. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose this wording, this basically amounts to, "When TTN places a merge tag, he can turn the article into a redirect after one month" &mdash; an action that has led to this arbitration case and the previous one. Notification on a user's talk page is always more visible than when another editor places a tag on an article. --Pixelface (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 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)
 * Support I tried to propose this in the previous case, but my phrasing was (apparently) not as good and drew ire from certain parties. Anomie⚔ 06:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per proposal. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - as pointed out. --User: (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Lacking thus far. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support an arbitrary amount of time should be given to improve articles. This should not be a spesific time period. Editors who find a problem in the article should make an effort to improve quality. For example if an article lacks sources, the person complaining should try to improve it. Sometimes the original author of the article may be busy or long-gone. No one WP:OWNs articles so anybody and everybody can improve them. -- Cat chi? 17:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I have been editing like this for many months, performed many (trim&)mergers of abandoned fiction after waiting periods of 1 week to 1 month (it depends), and have encountered only little resistance/wikilayering. The issue is however more difficult for cult fiction and currently popular fiction, which e.g. TTN largely deals with. – sgeureka t•c 18:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No trouble with this idea, provided that any "other side" engage in good faith discussion, and concede the point if it turns out there really isn't enough source material out there to justify an article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, particulalrly with the inclusion of a rough timescale -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support It is my personal belief that redirects can be abused if notification isn't given before hand. Abusers can redirect an article with no prior notification and when users object to the redirect they are forced to justify why the article meets notability before they are allowed to undo the redirect and redevelop the article. The article should remain and time should be given so editors can collaboratively work on the article or stubs be placed. Also sudden redirects/merges means that some editors may not know that the article needs work the relevant project portals should be notified before the article is redirected/merged so they know that the article needs urgent work done on it.--Sin Harvest (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Modify the people currently working on the article should be notified, and major recent contributors via their talk pages, and a work group if there is one. DGG (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is essential, in my opinion. Being bold is good, but at least give the article contributors some time to improve the article. It will help defuse a potentially inflammable situation.  Kamek  (Koopa wizard!) 20:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - nonsensical as written; are we saying that if an article clearly libels a living person or is an obvious copyright violation (both issues relating to "core policies") the author or other editors should be given a month to clean it up before any other action is taken? Guest9999 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See the previous proposal: in the case of obviously serious violations, editors should be bold and make the change immediately. But when it is content that may or may not be encyclopedic but otherwise not a problem, give it time to work itself out. --M<font size="-3">ASEM  23:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the ArbCom will mandate a month's worth of inaction, and don't think that they should. Aside from the month clause, I support this. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:14, 17 February 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:


 * Again, not really the core of the issue, but related, and would be a very good thing to say for many of the editors watching this case. -- Ned Scott 04:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye, though it shouldn't really need to be re-stated, it's one of the five pillars.  BLACK KITE  13:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose this wording, particularly this statement: "Agreements and decisions reached by consensus must still fall within Wikipedia's mission and its core policies and established guidelines." WP:CONSENSUS says "When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'." WP:EPISODE, WP:FICT and WP:N are guidance, and guidelines often lag behind the practices they describe. Decisions reached by consensus do not have to fall within guidelines. Guidelines document consensus, they do not create it. And consensus can change. --Pixelface (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.) --M<font size="-3">ASEM 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)
 * Weak support -- This may need to also examine the issue of "local consensus" versus "larger consensus," as I have seen that used to try and trump "Keep" or "No Consensus" closures on merge debates before, with people arguing that WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE represent a "larger consensus" than that reached at the merge discussion. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Of course this does not mean we ignore any view we disagree with. -- Cat chi? 06:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support but I'll point out that the hardest part is to get "uninvolved, third-party editors" look into matter, sometimes because they couldn't care less, sometimes because they know their input will be drowned in how-dare-you wikilayering. I agree with Rdfox 76 that there is a serious disconnect between global consensus (WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:OR etc.) and local consensus (WP:ILIKETIT, WP:PAPER, "it's just a guideline"), for which I have no solution other than what would be regarded as tag teams on both sides. The rewrite of WP:FICT and potentially WP:EPISODE, and maybe the proposed FICT noticeboard can help better to pinpoint consensus. – sgeureka t•c 18:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment *applauds* Best summing-up on this entire page so far.  BLACK KITE  18:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Consensus is based on a system of good reasons. Assuming that one has good reasons but refuses to discuss, how can consensus be achieved? - PeaceNT (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * comment consensus can also be used to change guidelines, reject or adopt them, and also to change, add or remove the statement of policies, though not the basic existence of the core policies. WP:V is a basic policy-=-the wording and details and ways of applying it are as subject to consensus as everything else, and so is whether we combine it with other policies and guidelines--as is in fact a recent proposal. if we were to say that we accept fan fiction as verification, we could do so--not that I am proposing it or that I think it would have consensus. DGG (talk) 19:57, 3 February 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)


 * Agree but with comment: I think one of the reasons TTN is so aggressive with reverting is because he's mindful of filibustering, as well as less thought out knee-jerk reactions that some editors have when they see such articles redirected. To stop for every revert, even if you just count all episodes in a given group as one, could potentially make the process very time consuming. (which is a partly of why past cleanup wasn't all that successful). This is easy for us to identify on a small scale, but it gets harder when people see it happening to a large group of articles. "Edit warring" is a bad thing, yes, is it edit warring to revert once or twice over a given period of time, when those reverting on the other side have provided no reasonable argument to the original redirection/merge argument? By some definitions, yes, but regardless, the solution is not to say "edit war bad" but to give an alternative. We need guidance on how to assess these situations, on when to stop for discussion, and when to undo those knee-jerk reactions. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose This statement is unhelpful and possibly exacerbating the situation. According to this, we can have editors warring and each citing the other is violating policy. eg. Editor A places unreferenced tag on article with a source which they claim is dubious and editor B removing tag which they say doesn't apply as source is good. We've already seen this type of warring frequently in the past few months.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose too broad. In many of these cases there is one party following policy and another reverting from it (though I agree that some are genuinely contentious).  BLACK KITE  13:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed - Obvious statement, but a core issue to this. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 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)
 * Support and would recommend that WP:BRD be brought up for consideration as policy, with emphasis on the importance of the good-faith discussion portion of the cycle, in hopes of preventing future flare-ups. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Great in general. However, this is incomplete without a principle requiring those who are asked to defend their revert to make a good-faith effort to communicate and demonstrate why they are in the right. In the case of a challenge for lack of sources (which editors are permitted to challenge for, see verifiability), a good-faith explanation for a revert is to actually present one's sources. (Not just to assert they're out there.) If one cannot, one is obliged to find them before reinserting the material lacking sources. Without that, a challenge for a lack of sources is meaningless&mdash;I challenge material and remove it, you revert it without any meaningful attempt at discussion (perhaps "It's notable, what do you know?"), and am then prohibited from any further reverts for fear of "edit warring". I've made a proposal as a necessary complement to this, below. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree Ursasapien (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly support, certainly better than my wording of BRD, which needs to be brought up in the final decision. Wizardman  19:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support --User: (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as fan of the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle. If however the redirect-reverters ignore the redirection edit summary without improving the article or leaving a comment somewhere (even another edit summary like "episode won an Emmy, see http://..." would be fine), then they are just as "guilty". – sgeureka t•c 18:19, 27 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!" AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Vandalism, the creation of hoax articles, and the creation of personal articles is common practice. But it is also common practice that such edits are considered unacceptable. --Pixelface (talk) 20:34, 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 &mdash; 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. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 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)
 * Phirazo, it's ridiculous to say an article created January 2003 violates some guideline created September 23, 2006. Nobody has challenged the article in over five years and now it "fails" some page that was made a guideline in 16 days? You don't think those articles would make it through AFD? So why not nominate them, like I suggest in this remedy?
 * In response to Jack Merridew's comment, speeding and cheating on taxes might be common practice, but it's also common practice to fine those people. If speeding and cheating on taxes is common practice on Wikipedia, go ahead and write it up in a guideline. And editors are not creating episode articles for every episode ever shown. That's absurd. --Pixelface (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is absurd, and there are editors who want that. --Jack Merridew 07:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Another point not core to the issue of behavior, but would be very beneficial to say in the case. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support strongly - again a crucial point.  BLACK KITE  13:51, 26 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. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 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)
 * By bad, I mean "fails policy and guidelines". I doubt many of those articles Pixelface gave in evidence would make it through AfD. --Phirazo 04:18, 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)
 * Oppose, a loophole through which fiction deletionists can slip their favourite fiction, and a restatement of the deeply flawed essay WP:OTHERSTUFF.-- Nydas (Talk) 22:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While I note that things like your Pokemon examples were flawed because of the improvement made to them, that doesn't mean that I believe that road of improvement has ended, and agree that there are still issues. I was thinking about this the other day, and I'm not sure if that point was made very clear when we responded to your concerns. -- Ned Scott 05:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support only as a corollary or extension of ; emphasizing this too much will only result in further teeth-gnashing as people change from fighting over WP:EPISODE to fighting over how to define consensus. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose in it's current form. It should say "Consensus is not built by simply demonstrating that one or more articles exist to support that consensus without any further discussion. However, consensus is not built by simply demonstrating that one or more disputed guidelines exist to support that consensus without any further discussion." or perhaps just consensus can change. Ursasapien (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support - as per Rdfox 76. --User: (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, consensus is not demonstrated by the (unexplained) redirection of other articles, either. - PeaceNT (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Per PeaceNT. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Modify considerably the longterm existence of many articles of a type and on a subject indicates a general consensus that they are suitable. consensus can change, but this should be done by adequate discussion and consensus of the new practice, not by attacking articles. We have, for example, considerably changed the prior consensus about what we will accept with shopping malls, or elementary schools, in each case to make the requirements stricter. This was in each case preceeded by extensive discussion and thus most people substantially accept it. If i were to propose that every non-self published work of fiction is notable--an absolutely horrible idea--I should not do it by introducing a few hundred such articles and seeing if some might chance to survive. If i were to propose only Academy Award winning movies were notable--another horrible idea--I should not start by nominating all the others for deletion or merging.  DGG (talk) 20:03, 3 February 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:
 * I agree with this wording, but it certainly doesn't apply to TTN. "As long as one's actions are not disruptive" immediately disqualifies him. --Pixelface (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support and I believe it does apply to TTN. The areas he probably should have slowed down on are only part of his edits, but even then are not clear violations of policy or guidance. They might be areas where we need to make things clearer, but it's not fair to fault TTN for that. -- Ned Scott 05:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment What about admins? This is leaning towards the idea that I should ignore a policy-violating article because it's controversial. Something of a slippery slope.  BLACK KITE  13:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to, you don't have to. However, that's more of a technicality, since it's more likely that someone becomes an admin because people trust that such a user would respond appropriately, regardless of what is "required" or not. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't have to any more than I have to speedy delete a biographical article that says "Dave is awesome". But I should do.  BLACK KITE  13:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 12:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support: On its own, this finding is entirely correct, yet may be used dangerously (such as the redirection and wikilink removal of hundreds of articles, leading to a situation that is hard to fix). Full support is dependant upon an appropriate civility finding to go hand in hand with this to address the potential misuse. LinaMishima (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * At least myself, I'd qualify that under "disruptive", since changing a hundred articles affects several editors' time. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Obvious Support — unless we're going to have a work-assignments committee. --Jack Merridew 14:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Somewhat on the fence here as we probably should not tell people that you need to do "x" to participate on Wikipedia, but it would be much easier to view editors as serious contributors if their contributions were not overwhelmingly just to destroy other editors' work. Every editor really should also make some effort to reference and build articles as well. Doing so would show the community at large that editors who nominate the occasional article for deletion or do a redirect, but also spend time helping improve articles, are indeed here trying to build an encyclopedia and not just here to tear it down to the point of its uniqueness and usefulness being woefully compromised. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 00:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose as I think this is, in general, not a significant issue, and is adequately covered by WP:SPA anyway. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support --User: (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support although what constitutes disruption, inappropriateness and common sense is sometimes not clear even though policies and guidelines say nothing is wrong. Still doesn't mean that wikipedia can demand how editors participate. – sgeureka t•c 18:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirection is not the same as deletion
7) Redirection of an article is not the same as outright deletion of the article. While an editor must be aware of how to access the redirected page and its history, all versions of the redirected article remain on WP regardless of the redirection, and requires no other editor or administrator involvement to review and recover. This is unlike article deletion, that while the content of a deleted article remains on the server, it can only be reviewed by the actions of an administrator, and may otherwise be fully deleted at any time without notice. Furthermore, the article title of a redirection still remains as a searchable and wikilinkable term within Wikipedia, thus maintaining the web of links both internally and externally to Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Support, though it's not really the point, which is whether the redirected articles are encyclopedic or not.  BLACK KITE  14:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose this wording, blanking an article and turning it into a redirect is not the same as deleting the article, but the effect is the same for readers and editors who don't know how to bypass the redirect. --Pixelface (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed - I think this point needs to be stated. Several editors are saying that TTN's actions are "deleting" things off WP, which is exaggerating what is actually happening (though by no means should this validate his approach to doing what he does). --M<font size="-3">ASEM 23:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support in principal but neutral in practice. Despite the technicalities of what redirection is, it is being used as deletion by TTN. Nothing short of massive opposition keeps him from enforcing it, and rarely does any amount of argument/attempted compromise from smaller opposition make him back down. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose what is the difference to the reader? Sure history is there and it can be reverted (though it would be instantly rereverted) but deletion is by dictionary definition the removal of info. -- Cat chi? 17:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a clarification that I'm seeing in these comments. When TTN "merges" something, he usually just redirects the article and makes no attempt to move the contents to the redirected location.  The question to ask now is "Is any coverage of that topic lost - has all mentioned of that topic been deleted from Wikipedia?"  The answer here is (from the cases I've spot checked) no - as the list article that the topic has been redirected to contains information about that topic - maybe not at the level of detail of the original article, but enough that should still provide the encyclopedic coverage of the topic.  The topic is still searchable in the left navbar, wikilinks to the topic still work, and with correct redirection using anchors, the redirection will jump to the right place.  The original article remains available so that information can be added back, trimmed within an appropriate length (note that I fully support more than having a few lines in an episode line to describe an episode in detail if the episode itself is not notable).  From the standpoint of the lay-reader, there is still coverage of the topic - just not as deep as before the merge.  The only people that would be affected by the merge are greenhorn editors that don't understand what the redirection mechanism is, but this is a one-time learning step to learn where to find it, and should not be considered a barrier to finding the old information.
 * If TTN was redirecting episodes to a page that presently lacked an episode list and said, "Ok, my work is done", leaving it up to the editors to deal with the mess, then I would say that is a problem, because now coverage of that redirected topic, even for the short time for editors to create an episode list, has essentially been deleted. Merging with redirection should only take place after the list article has been generated to avoid this situation.  I am unaware of any case where TTN has done this, so he may have done this, and if so, there's a cause for concern (above and beyond the consensus issue).
 * If "deleting" material by removing it from the reader's view is considered to be bad, then any WP edit that resulted in a negative character count, among other cases, should then be considered just as bad. "Deletion" when pulling the trigger at a closed "delete" AfD is the only point where there is the potential to truly lose  information. --M<font size="-3">ASEM  00:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you brought it up, I'll point out a situation where he does in fact do that. The episodes in List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy episodes were redirected by TTN. No effort was made to merge the material, and no summary of the material is given. I had to practically twist his arm just to get him to do a summary of one of the movies. This is a situation where TTN's one-sided execution of merging does cause harm. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This talk thread seems to indicate little resistance to the merge, but I suspect there's another convo thread that I'm missing on this. I'd argue that the fact that the episode list is there (w/o plot descriptions) means that we're still not losing coverage of the topic, but that's pushing the issue; the result of such a merge should be exactly that - a merging of information, and there probably should have been some work to better develop an episode list-style approach to the List page before the merge was completed, so that after the redirection, the topic is still covered.
 * I'd rather see a merged page that needed to be tagged for having too much plot (simply because all of it was imported in without question) than a bare merge page that incorporates none of the redirected article. Even if its just copying the plot section, that still leaves topic coverage there, just in need of cleanup. --M<font size="-3">ASEM  00:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As you point out, there is rough support for the merge. This I do not dispute. However. there was no actual "merge", just a mass redirection. In this situation, I would arge that the redirection =/= deletion argument loses merit, as this is common for him. He does perform merges some of the time, but only in cases where not doing so would surely bite him. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For a more recent example: List of welcome to paradox episodes. Again, nothing but redirects and no effort to merge. Furthermore, not even discussion or notification of the redirect. This is how redirection becomes deletion. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I personally know the difference between second-guessing a made redirect and retrieving "lost" information, and going to deletion review to get information back for a merge. Redirection (when having consensus) is not deletion (AfD is not always perfect). – sgeureka t•c 18:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose current wording. Blanking an article and replacing it with a redirect is still a "soft-delete." Besides, I do not think this is a germane principle to this case. Ursasapien (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as simply true. Folks, this is a wiki, there is no delete, the database only grows. Deletion is merely setting the hidden-bit on. --Jack Merridew 10:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But how does this apply to anything in this case? Redirection, as TTN and others have used it, is simply a way to impose their interpretation of encyclopedic information without having to gain consensus (like they would at AfD). Ursasapien (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * TTN is not an admin. He has never deleted anything from Wikipedia. A redirect is an addition to the database. This applies to this case because the cry of He deleted whatever has been used to poison the atmosphere and vilify him by overstating his actions. A redirect is not a delete, it is a setting aside of an article that is inappropriate for the site in its state to date. Editors can bring it back later provided they have found sources, are determined to rewrite it etc. Editors who do not understand the distinction between redirection and deletion do not understand what a wiki is. In one case, an editor basically said that people were murdering her children. --Jack Merridew 11:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think there is a semantic issue going on here. Deletion doesn't mean only "Removal of the information from the database" or even "Removal of the information from access to anyone besides admins". If I were to edit this page to remove this whole section, I wouldn't be criticized for "adding a revision that causes this content to be removed from normal view"; I would be criticized for deleting this section. Thus, while the proposal is technically true it does not accurately or helpfully address the concerns it claims to address. Anomie⚔ 18:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there is no semantics going on here. The point is simple.  Deletion means that at any point in time the information can quite simply be lost if the developers so decide to purge the databases.  Redirection means the information is retained.  Restoring deleted content is not an automatic given.  Restoring edits which have been overwritten by a redirect is.  This is a fact.  The people making a semantic issue of this do not understand that fundamental fact, which is why it needs to be asserted as a fact. Hiding T 23:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for illustrating exactly what I was referring to: insisting on a literal interpretation of the term "delete" rather than addressing the underlying issue, namely the removal of content whether it is easily undone or not. Anomie⚔ 02:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I do try to stay away from "delete" to mean anything but real deletion. Removals and additions using the "edit this page" button are edits. Any good editor trims and cuts. Granted, editing someone else's comments in a discussion (whether making changes or outright removing them) is generally frowned upon, but so is editing an article to insert "JON IS COOL!!!!!!!" The fact still remains that both of those are edits&mdash;simply improper edits. In many cases, however, removal of content is an entirely valid and justifiable edit. The use of "deletion" to refer to normal editing when those edits happen to be cuts is confusing and often pejorative. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that sometimes removing content is the best way to improve an article; I'm reminded of a few articles I've worked on where deleting the overgrown trivia section was one of the major improvements. I just feel it is missing the point to insist that those who call replacing an article with a redirect "soft deletion" are wrong simply because of a chosen definition of "deletion" instead of addressing the issue of whether the article was worthy of remaining and whether it was really the case that not one bit of the article was worth merging into the target. Anomie⚔ 02:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought the point of this finding of fact was to concentrate people's minds on the fact that this was a useless argument to have and that they should be focussing on the content, not the actions. Note that our deletion policy makes the point that I myself made.  I apologise if you feel that is a literal meaning, but the issue here is that text has not been deleted, it has been removed and it has been restored.  This is a content dispute, it is not a wheel war or a policy violation.  Deleting previously deleted content is a speedy deletion criteria.  Reverting the reinstation of removed material is an edit war. And people who call replacing an article with a redirect "soft deletion" are wrong because they are breaching our civility guidance.  Hiding T 11:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Support However I have a concern that people may just redirect so they can later escalate to deletion when someone objects to their redirect/merge for example (Though I concede looking back at it now that I went a bit extreme that time and should have used a milder warning). --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Redirection is in fact exactly equivalent to direction except it provides a link for searching within wikipedia and it makes it possible to get at earlier versions of the article if one is sophisticated enough to know how to do it--most ordinary readers are probably totally unaware of the way to see the material that was redirected. Further, it prevents the title from showing up in a high position in Google, which is--de facto--an extremely common method of accessing wikipedia. The use of redirection in practice is almost always done as a gentle way of deletion, and it is time the community recognized this. they both remove the content. A true merge is another matter. Most merges in the articles of this sort & often elsewhere have resulted in drastic loss of content, and often this is  deliberate-- and in fact can even be appropriate. the term "smerge" has been sometimes used in afd discussions when this is the intended result. Such merges are an intermediate form of deletion. True merges, where all of the non-duplicative content is retained can be a true editing matter, determined in part by factors other than notability, including the length of the articles involved. But when they arein effect a decision that the article does not deserve separate treatment by our rules, then it is again, a gentle form of partial deletion, that also removes the material from prominence in google. DGG (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not worried about where it falls on any given external search engine; it is not like the site is obscure enough to not be found.  The fact that WP  uses nofollow for external links to separate itself from helping with Pagerank (thus discouraging people from including links to build up there own) suggests this is an intent, but I can't find any policy/guideline/statement easily that explicitly states that "WP is not trying to be the top Google site for any search", so I will admit I may be wrong about this.--M<font size="-3">ASEM  18:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Plot and characters summaries are derivative works
8) Summarizing plot, character, and other details from copyrighted works of fiction are considered derivative works of non-free copyrighted works, and thus considered non-free themselves. As such, their use within Wikipedia should be carefully considered with respect to Wikipedia's mission to be a free content encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries provides guidance to mitigate non-free issues of such summaries.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * We don't offer legal advice. Kirill 04:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Oppose unless Mike Godwin says otherwise. --Pixelface (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed - I think this needs to be stated, even if TTN's edits are not done directly towards this point. I am not trying to invoke copyright/lawsuit fears or the like, but that simply WP's mission is to be free content, and certain approaches to the coverage of fiction can be harmful to that. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 17:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - I know you don't want to instill copyright paranoia, but if there was a huge Hamlet fan (public domain) getting into in-universe detail about the characters, etc. I'd still be opposed to keep the plot summary/original research in wikipedia. I regard WP:NOT#PLOT as a stylistic-purpose NOT, not a prevent-harm NOT, admittedly with some kind of continuum, which is good. – sgeureka t•c 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, I'm not trying to say that PLOT is meant to support non-free fair use specifically, but as a consequence of how it is written, it does have a continuity to cover both non-copyrighted and copyrighted works equally fairly. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Pixelface. This question is still to be seen and outside of ArbCom's scope. Ursasapien (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Have you been drinking the entertainment industry's kool-aid or something? While certain studios would love for this to be the case, copyright protections simply do not work that way. NBA v. Motorola set the ground rules fairly well. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not about copyright violations (I specifically stated this is not the intent of this statement, and as Pixelface states, until we're told that legally there's a problem from Mike G or the Foundation, that shouldn't be considered), this is about Wikipedia's free (as in speech) content mission, and to minimize or justify the amount of non-free content available in order to meet that mission. And yes, this aims more on the content side of the issue, and ArbCom normally does not involve itself in content, but the preliminary decisions by some of the ArbCom suggested that some of the non-behavioral issues may be addressed through this, and this would be a consideration for that. (Side note: that case doesn't apply here, because that's about sports scores that the courts decided are not creative works, unlike tv shows and characters that are part of this case). --M<font size="-3">ASEM 04:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the case in detail. While the situation itself does not directly apply, the court's decision does.  In gist of it is that at no time is stating factual information (e.g. this is what happened in this sports game, or this is what happened in this episode) even remotely covered by copyright. As far as I know that still stands, though again, Mike Godwin would know better. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble  <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 09:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all sure this is a settled legal issue in the U.S. (Certainly, Cliff's Notes has been around for long enough.) If Mike Godwin states we're in potential legal trouble for this and must stop, then the issue is settled, but to my knowledge no such thing has happened. Regardless, I cannot imagine ArbCom becoming involved in either legal or content decisions, and this is both. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The burden of evidence for notability is on the editor(s) that have included the topic
9) Notability is the use of reliable, verifiable sources that demonstrate why a topic should be covered in depth (that is, having it's own article) on Wikipedia. As such, the demonstration of notability for a topic is burdened on the editors that have included, or maintain the inclusion, of that topic.  However, any editor is free to help support the demonstration of notability for a topic.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed - This follow from the "burden of evidence" phrase in WP:V (see WP:PROVEIT) - however, I am not saying that notability and verifiability are the same: I can write a article from reliable, verifiable primary sources (eg, using the TV show itself, alone), but fails notability (in the present definition). Since notability is presumed with the demonstration of coverage in secondary sources, it is, like verification, up to those editors that are including the topic to provide those sources.  --M<font size="-3">ASEM  15:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur -- He who asserts must prove: otherwise you end up being required to prove a vacuum, and any argument will do to support the opposive view. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability, in itself, is actually verifiable. In this case, it's verified by showing that the topic has, to a significant degree, actually been noted by those who are reliable and do not have a vested interest in doing so. If someone challenges that, just like anything, it's on you to prove them wrong. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Tentative Support, if only due to the fallacy of negative proof. It's almost impossible to prove a negative, including "this topic isn't notable."  However, I would like to stress the fact that the level of proof required is not determined by the person challenging the article's notability; rather, it is decided by community consensus. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble  <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I implore the arbcom not to enshrine notability as a principle. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support But this does not address the claim that demonstrated notability of the series establishes notability of the episode, and of the characters, settings, gizmos, etc. leading to reductionistic stub articles. Notability should in fact be established and affirmed as a principle for what gets kept and what gets deleted in AFDs. Edison (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A merge/redirection should not eliminate the coverage of a topic
10) When a merge of a topic with appropriate redirection is performed, the page that is the target of the merge should contain information on that topic prior or very shortly after the merge, such that, from a reader's viewpoint, that topic is still covered, just not in the same location or with the same depth of coverage or level of detail. A merge/redirection where no information from the merged page (whether copied, trimmed, paraphrased, or summarized to a briefer version, or already in existance on the target page) is present on the target page after the merge is not satisfactory because it leaves this topic without coverage, from the viewpoint of the reader.  A "sloppy merge", where the merged page or large portions of it are copied in whole to the target page without attempt to improve on the overall article style, is preferrable over leaving a merged topic uncovered in the target article. Discussion and consensus should be used to determine what depth of coverage and level of detail is appropriate for the merged topic on the target page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Strongly agree. This is a good way to put it. It suggests that it's ok to just redirect if one thinks a topic is sufficiently covered, but for times when it's not, then a merge really does need to happen. There are often many details, including ones with real-world context, that were not merged that should have been. See this vs this. -- Ned Scott 09:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed - This is to address a point made above in the "Redirecion is not deletion" proposed rationale - that normally a merge/redirect still leaves coverage of a topic, but as noted there, there are cases when the merge has been just redirection without attempt to collect the information on the target page, leaving the non-merging editors the job of trying to add it in. Even if it is a merged/redirected topic, it makes no sense to not have at least some coverage of it at any time.  Now, mind you, I'm not saying this is true all the time; if local consensus agrees that, for episode articles, that the plot isn't important and just the basics like running details, etc, are sufficient for that topic, then a bare merge is fine.  However, unless this is addressed, one should always assume a merge will retain some coverage of a topic. --M<font size="-3">ASEM  15:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support -- Covers an important and central aspect of the overall problem. (And with remarkably agreeable wording too; good jorb!) I still contend that there's more aspects of some of the "merges" in question that makes them no longer merges, but that doesn't make this principle any less true. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 06:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support This is what a merge should be and I think it would be good to make this clear after the RfA. --Sin Harvest (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support In many cases what is needed is a "Smerge" or selective merge. Those who liked the article which disappeared in the "merge" should feel free to include in the target article appropriate portions of the source article, if the merge amounted to a redirect. Edison (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree It's not a merge unless you actually merge some content.  Kamek  (Koopa wizard!) 20:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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.

Consensus building for Episode and Character articles
1) All involved parties are strongly encouraged to participate with other editors in building consensus for the handling of television episode and character articles, presently at WP:EPISODE and at WP:FICT. Such consensus building should include the determination of what notability is for these articles and how it can be demonstrated, and what process steps should be performed before such articles are merged or brought up for deletion. Involved parties are expected to be aware of the result of these consensus when they are completed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Support -- Ned Scott 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - won't work, like last time. We already have the policies, why not use them?  BLACK KITE  13:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In what way did it not work last time? This is an invitation to all parties to be involved in the guidelines for these articles. This is not an attempt to fix every problem with every user. This is like opposing a proposal to add more parking spaces because it won't fix the cracks in the sidewalk. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It didn't work last time because it was too general and an invitation for editors to wikilawyer their way round things. With certain editors, any time a guideline doesn't agree with their views, they just say "well it's only a guideline, not a policy". Let's face it, we have people attempting to end-run round policy here, so guidelines don't stand a chance in many cases.  BLACK KITE  14:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would encourage the involved parties to participate in those discussions, but I disagree with "Involved parties are expected to be aware of the result of these consensus when they are completed." I doubt any clear "result" will come any time soon. --Pixelface (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Involved parties should be aware of what results even if it does end up as no consensus. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 19:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. Most of those involved are already participating, but this just to be clear that these efforts are occurring and that they should be aware (ideally participating) in them. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It sounds nice on paper, but this is similar to what was decided on in the first case, and that did not work, and will not work this time around. Wizardman  20:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To say that it hasn't worked isn't actually true. More people have gotten involved in the guideline discussions, and those discussions are very active these days. Does this solve every problem in this situation? No, but it's not trying to solve those problems, it's just encouraging all parties to continue discussion. Rome wasn't built in a day. -- Ned Scott 00:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I oppose because this makes it seem like WP:Fict and WP:Episode have community consensus or that they are guidelines; which is not the case. --User: (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But they are guidelines, and they do have community consensus, at least the spirit and many general concepts do. However, I don't think that's the point Masem's trying to make. This sounds more like an invitation to other editors to go to those pages to help create a consensus, which I would think you would be in favor of if you don't believe they currently have consensus. -- Ned Scott 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Maniwar as those "guidelines" clearly do NOT have consensus. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 04:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I give you the same question that I gave to him, if that is the case why wouldn't you be in favor of this? If it doesn't have consensus, then shouldn't we be getting more people involved to fix that problem? -- Ned Scott 05:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should get a more accurate sense of what our many contributors feel in that area. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 05:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Consensus comes first and then policy not the other way around. -- Cat chi? 17:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Global consensus perhaps, but a "consensus" of a dozen editors that a certain article should be kept against policy is definitely to be avoided.  BLACK KITE  18:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Following consensus for Episode and Character articles
2) All involved editors are expected to follow the consensus determined in the previous remedy once it is completed, as well as other appropriate policies and guidelines, when dealing with article merges or deletions for television episode and character articles.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Oppose, this assumes any consensus will be achieved in those discussions. The fact that WP:N conflicts with WP:SPINOUT and WP:SUMMARY is also part of the problem. --Pixelface (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As Masem pointed out on another part of this page, they don't actually conflict. -- Ned Scott 03:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. We are not asking ArbCom to determine consensus here, but that once this is defined, it should be expected that they will follow it. Of course, this is expected of every editor from the start. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:



Block of involved parties that fail to follow consensus
1) Should any involved party perform a merge or a deletion, or reversion of such actions, without following the consensus for handling television episode and character articles, they are to be reported to WP:AN/I, showing appropriate diffs and links to demonstrate the failure to follow consensus. One or more uninvolved administrators will review the report, and if found to be accurate, that party is to be blocked for a period of no less than one week.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Oppose this wording. We'll have reports about people redirecting articles where discussion was started, but no one commented, thus someone will say "omg, no consensus". Reverting, or when there is reasonable objection or some kind of repeated action, should play a part in this. -- Ned Scott 08:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Messy and far too difficult for an admin without suitable background knowledge to ascertain (I speak from experience here). Also completely against policy - if I delete/redirect/etc an article that fails WP:NOTE, WP:V and WP:NOT, am I to be blocked?  BLACK KITE  13:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. My first two remedies are meant to set the groundwork for this: the involved parties are to be aware and to be expected to follow whatever we determine as consensus, and that a failure should result in a block. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 19:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:



Deletion by redirect
1) It is inappropriate to use article redirection rather than an established deletion process - also known as "soft-deletion" or the "redirect loophole" - as a means to remove an article or the entirety of its content from Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Oppose per WP:BURO and WP:BOLD. Also, very often deletion is not desired. AfD is petty clear that it should only be used when full deleted is desired. -- Ned Scott 07:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If deletion isn't desired, then why remove the content? It's very simple: if you want to remove all of the content, you want to delete the article. Any GFDL concerns are administrative and don't factor into it. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 21:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unsourced or weak material is often removed from physical view in the article namespace, but not completely removed, for the sake of retaining that information for later on. That could be to work on the article, or it could be to move the contents of that article to another wiki. For the second reason, while we are not required to do such things, there is strong consensus support for preserving things that editors have worked hard on, and giving them a proper home. This gives a reasonable outlet for that content and is far less insulting to our own editors than outright deletion. Even without that, the first point remains. Deletion does nothing more than hide the edit history and the contents of the article. It does not save hard drive space, it just makes retrieving the information later on harder. -- Ned Scott 00:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. The difference between removing all the content by redirect and moving all the content by deletion is merely what steps are required to get the info back. If that's the only distinction, then such removals should ALWAYS be done through AfD. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 02:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How is that your point? Doing this would be needlessly bureaucratic, and wouldn't allow people to work on the content in the meantime. AfD is for when we want to completely remove something. We should not treat deletion as something that can always be undone. The developers have given that warning in the past, since deleted articles could be removed from the database at any time for a number of reasons. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bureaucracy is sometimes necessary, particularly when we have such a gapingly large loophole available to people who wish to bypass consensus. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 02:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia would be even more of a repository of trivia without merge and redirect (and it's bad enough already).  BLACK KITE  14:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merging is different, in that it actually retains content from the articles in question. Once you stop retaining content from the articles being redirected, it's no longer a merge. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 18:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but in most of these cases a summary of the article content is already present in the "List of X episodes" article, so redirecting is effectively merging anyway.  BLACK KITE  14:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because you aren't retaining any content from the original article. Plenty of articles are deleted for being "redundant", ("content fork", "unexpandable stub", etc.) and what you describe is the soft version of the same thing. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 19:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What if there isn't any content worth keeping (i.e. a plot summary and some trivia)?This is the case in many of these articles.  BLACK KITE  11:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you use a deletion process: PROD, XfD, and similar. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 19:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The usual result being something like this.  BLACK KITE  22:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem being...? It's an AfD. The debate is active.  I see good points being raised on either side. Where is the problem? -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble  <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 02:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed - This proposal names no names and is not meant to single anybody out. I think we can all agree that this type of behavior is bad. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 07:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, but at the same time we need to be sure that AfD is not needlessly flooded either. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 22:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Amended - Made it clear I'm only talking about wiping an article out completely, not just trimming it down. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 23:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support there is evidence that AFD results of "keep" were ignored through redirection. Redirection and merging is to be used as an editorial decision to merge many short articles. In this case full paged articles were blanked (not trimmed or shortened) on occasions without or even despite discussion. -- Cat chi? 16:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirection is not a deletion. Nothing done with the "edit this page" button is a deletion. We're not talking about administrative tools here, or anything that a non-admin can't undo, so there's no need for discussion. AfD requires discussion because its possible outcome (the deletion of an article) cannot be undone by a non-admin. One need not ask permission to edit. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support as redirection is currently used. When the article is blanked, none of the information is merged, and the blanking is enforced by steamrolling - it is deletion by another name.  Discussion should be a part of the process regardless.  It amazes me that so many deletionists want to avoid AfD like the plague.  Ursasapien (talk) 12:03, 13 February 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'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&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 07:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose The bulk of the edits is not the issue here. It is why we've had so much focus on the issue, but the issue would be the same for one article or 100. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose If you do this for one editor, you'd have to do it for all.  BLACK KITE  14:02, 26 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&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">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. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 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&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">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. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 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&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 22:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Amended - Now takes into account possible instances of vandalism. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">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)
 * TTN certainly needs to get that consensus before redirecting, otherwise, 0 page per day is a reasonable limit. - PeaceNT (talk) 16:22, 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)
 * That's debatable, and even if it's true (which is possible) it is not true that the work he's doing needs to be done right now, especially in light of the last RFArb. Try to understand: it isn't the merit of what he's doing, it's how he's been doing it. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 21:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, I do believe I understand most of what's going on here. TTN is going too fast at the business of cleaning-up non-conformant articles from the perspective of users who desire WP:IS#PLOT . They're going to pass a temporary injunction, so for a few weeks: pause and sort issue. But 6 months is a long time and, as Pixelface has pointed out, there are many yet to deal with. --Jack Merridew 07:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem's and Jack Merridew's comments (note I do not agree with Merridew's initial oppose reason); six WEEKS would be a more reasonable length of time for the moment. Would not object to a six-month probation period following that in case he waits out the restriction, then falls straight back into the same pattern as before, however. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN's redirecting limited
1.1) TTN is limited in changing existing articles into redirects to no more than five times total per every 24 hours, for the next 6 weeks; this limit does not apply to edits reverting or otherwise eliminating blatant vandalism.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * I would support this, if TTN was also limited in listing articles for deletion. If the redirecting is limited, TTN is likely to use AFD more often, as he stated in the previous arbitration case. --Pixelface (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Totally oppose TTN should yield when challenged on these actions (within reason), but not on these actions in general. -- Ned Scott 08:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed - Per Rdfox 76's comments, I'd like to see if people support the idea of the restriction but not my suggested length of its enforcement. If it's a matter of duration I think a compromise can be easily achieved. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 20:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments above; I'd be willing to accept any duration the community and ArbCom feel is appropriate. Rdfox 76 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support to allow us a chance to work things out. Ursasapien (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support if AfD nominations are also limited. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by this. AfDs involve a consensus building discussion, and even if some missed the discussion, the issue can be re-evaluated via DRV. In other words, if TTN is pushing things that don't have support, AfD would be a good place to go to establish that, rather than him making the discussion on his own (not that I believe that, but I believe that is what is being asserted). -- Ned Scott 06:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the concern is that if TTN (or anyone for that matter) were to nominate the 100+ articles involved in a TV show episode collection at once, many of those AfDs would succeed for no reason other than because most editors would not have time to respond to every single nomination. Of course, at that point I'm fairly certain TTN (or whoever) would get blocked for a while for excessive AfD. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 07:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Making 100 different AfDs at once to get some deleted by bulk numbers? No admin would let that happen here, at least not one that wouldn't be instantly challenged on it. -- Ned Scott 08:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - per the good reasons already given. --User: (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I like the idea in principle, but 6 weeks is kinda wimpy; three months perhaps? Wizardman  03:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Agree with Wizardman. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A comment to everyone, this simply won't be accepted. If this passes, it would mean TTN wouldn't be allowed to redirect a given set of articles that had 100% consensus to be redirected if there were more than five articles to be redirected. We will not restrict an editor on edits that are not problematic. If he is challenged on a redirect, that is different, but the way this proposal is worded simply won't get support from arbcom, I guarantee it. -- Ned Scott 06:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Though you're probably right about them taking it up, I have to point out that if TTN really did have 100% consensus (not a common occurence), then the people agreeing with him would be willing to help. TTN does not have to be the one doing all the work, since it's gotten to the point that he stirs up edits wars just by trying. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support even though I dislike the arbitrary limit. Leaves possible room to game the system. If an edit needs to be done anybody even someone else can do it. This does not mean it is OK for someone else to grab the flag and continue just like TTN. This isn't a marathon. -- Cat chi? 16:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very very very weak support and I mean very weak, it seems very extreme in my eyes. --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * Technically agree, but misses the main point, I think.  BLACK KITE  14:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. Less harsh version of 1 by John254 above. Wizardman  02:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support both this and 1.. - PeaceNT (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, however, this proposal is a truism that can be applied to any cases. @pple complain 17:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose as too broad and simple. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support If only more policies and guidelines were broad and simple. Astronaut (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - the reason for this case is in and of itself proof of this. --User: (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Yep. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support On principle I agree but I can see problems say for example a person makes a number of redirects as he is working on a string of interrelated articles and is unaware people may oppose the decision. However going by that theory the redirects should be reverted and one centralised discussion with should be started with no redirect editing being done until a consensus is reached by all parties (and no getting a majority of deletionist/rediretionist/mergerers to come along and agree with you through possible external communication such as email does not count as consensus even if you have majority). --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
2) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers. It includes elements of both general and specialized encyclopedias.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Oppose While this is true, this is completely irrelevant, as there is no disagreement about this concept as worded. There may be disagreement about the details and interpretation, but such details are not defined by WP:5P. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support, it certainly is relevant. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone in this case disagrees with the 5P, but they might disagree on the interpretation. This proposal here doesn't detail any interpretation, but merely repeats what everyone already agrees with. -- Ned Scott 06:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ned Scott, it is a matter of interpretation.  BLACK KITE  14:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, and it's in the five pillars. --Pixelface (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. This pillar seems to be rather overlooked. The general and specialized encyclopedia line is especially inportant as to understanding what wikipedia is, and I think that it's been ignored in these cases. Wizardman  18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support It does seem that some editors have lost sight of this simple fact in their rush to impose half thought-out guidelines. Astronaut (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You should be able to first make a convincing argument that they have "lost sight" before asserting something like that. You also miss the point that these guidelines do not encourage mass deletion or forcing issues. If you don't believe me, read them. -- Ned Scott 00:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Wikipedia is not paper nor a replica of Britannica. Saying so isn't wrong. Elements you won't see on a traditional encyclopedia such as detailed information on a fictional character, a TV episode as well as a broad range of topics are not banned. -- Cat chi? 16:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. There is no good reason why we should limit ourselves in regards to coverage when we have the disk space to go farther than any encyclopedia in history!  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * True (and already listed in policy), but irrelevant to here. Exactly what elements of each one is a content decision, and ArbCom, still and yet, doesn't do content decisions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * Weak support -- greatly prefer Masem's wording above. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I made many attempts to discuss this. People such as TTN have made a point to avoid all discussion as much as possible. For example TTN REFUSES to even comment on this RFAR even though he is clearly involved. -- Cat chi? 16:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support The edit war would have been diffused if both sides quit reverting and had a decent discussion (like the ones going on now at WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE). Ursasapien (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per above.  Kamek  (Koopa wizard!) 20:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:TTN and consensus
2) TTN has merged and redirected articles even after discussions where there was either no consensus to merge or consensus not to merge.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed per evidence and a quick look at his contribs. Wizardman  18:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, False:TTN behaves in accordance with global consensus and policy, as represented by WP:V and WP:N. Little clusters of editors that refuse to read, understand, and follow policy are not able to override these by generating local consensus.Kww (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kww. A local-consensus is not WP:CONSENSUS. --Jack Merridew 08:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While I tend to agree with Kww and Jack Merridew, I think TTN would have made this a much smoother ride for everyone were he willing to discuss the issues. He is right, in most cases, but just being right doesn't justify any type of bad behavior one wants to engage in. Still, I don't think one can say he is acting "without consensus"&mdash;indeed, the reason he was not acted against was because it's quite hard for many to see what he's doing as "wrong". A few editors clamoring against a merge on a talk page because they like the topic or it's their article does not override core policy or longstanding guidelines. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this itme would require a link to a specific action from the evidence page.
 * However, I have had it up to here with all the talk about "local consensus" vs. "global consensus" and the nonsense of "longstanding" guidelines. Most of the guidelines that deletionist fall back on have had there present form for 6 months or less.  These restrictive guidelines are then vigorously defended by a small group of enforcers.  Even when it is demonstrable that the groups (deletionist vs. inclusionist) are roughly equal, the claims of "we are right because we have guidelines on our side" continue.  Consensus is not something that can be "enforced."  Consensus can (and does) change.  Consensus is not sheer numbers or "what the rules say," but something we arrive at through a process of discussion, compromise, and cooperation.  A 6 month old policy is not WP:CONSENSUS.  Ursasapien (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor is WP:N six months old. And yes, the notability standard is borne out in action. Our speedy deletion criteria use it. It's frequently a rationale (and a successful one) at AfD. It's something the community uses every day. The episode guidelines really, in short, say "Hey, the notability standards and source requirements actually apply to episode articles." They do, of course, because they apply to all articles. But that's what's really being fought against here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But neither does that policy justify redirection without discussion or ignoring proper merge procedures. It would be ok if TTN discussed things properly, but he does not. He sets himself on getting something merged and fights tooth and nail to accomplish that goal. Discussion with him amounts to little more than "but it can be put here" repeated ad infinitum. See the One Piece discussions for examples. One can only describe even attempting to find a compromise "frustrating".
 * There's usually no doubt that what TTN redirects fails notability most of the time. Still, this does not excuse how TTN goes about it, nor does the policy itself automatically give him consensus that overrides all opposition, which is how he and, to a lesser extent, deletion-minded editors use it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 10:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:N was majorly re-written in April-May of 2007. In April it said, ""A notable topic has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject."  The episode specific guideline is a hodge-podge of notability and manuscript style that was written by those with a bureaucentric wiki-view who wanted a club to hammer other editors with.  The fiction notability guideline just underwent a major rewrite and we are still trying to get it out of dispute and gain consensus for it.  To claim that "guidance=consensus" forever and ever, amen is simply specious.  Ursasapien (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But one must ask, would the same outcome have happened with many of these older guideline versions? I'd think so. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 2 February 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)
 * 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)
 * Oppose, not nearly enough evidence. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per wording as per TTN. Yes he was been edit-warring, but it takes two... etc.  BLACK KITE  13:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. These two seem to be among the worst offenders. Wizardman  02:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we need a precis of diffs to have this easily quantified before making comment. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. With the diffs so far, I oppose my own proposal. Wizardman  16:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose until I see more evidence. Ursasapien (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no evidence for the claim, and the proposer appears to have withdrawn his comment. - PeaceNT (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - insufficient grounds for this; Pixelface may be a visible voice (nice mixed metaphor there...) in this debate, and may have made some ill-thought-out moves in it, but I've not seen evidence of his conducting "massive" edit wars related to this issue. Adopting this would basically require the ArbCom to adopt a similar FoF regarding every single editor that TTN has edit warred with, for consistancy. Keep things simple and down to those who've been EWing on multiple fronts, as it were. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - seems to be a vendetta or retaliation post. 15:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - proofless. @pple complain 15:38, 25 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. ''

Guidelines are descriptive
1) Guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. Guidelines sometimes lag behind the practices they describe.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Proposed. It's a fact. --Pixelface (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved this to the Proposed Principles section per Masem. --Pixelface (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I see this as an attempt to get the arbcom to say something that can be used to attack valid guidelines that do have current community consensus. -- Ned Scott 08:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Though it can be true sometimes, it isn't here - but policy overrides guidelines anyway (well, at least it does until it's wikilawyered round).  BLACK KITE  14:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support Tim Q. Wells (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Weak Oppose in current form, because I think what you're trying to state is that just like content issues, WP:CCC applies to guidelines and policies too, though ideally at a much slower scale. Also, I would call this more a principle than a fact as there's no clear evidence that CCC. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 20:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Support I might reword it some. Perhaps, I should create another version/proposal. Ursasapien (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, especially because the guidelines themselves are edited constantly, which shows that even they don't necessarily have consensus. Plus, we have Ignore all rules. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree in the principle that guidelines are sometimes not up-to-date, written by a small number of guideline-writers and do not accurately reflect the consensus of the wide community, which is why they aren't prescriptive. Especially in the case of WP:EPISODE, for example, WP:EPISODE is a content guideline that gives instructions on how to write episode articles, not a notability guideline, one cannot say "because an article doesn't meet this guideline yada yada yada, then it is non-notable and must be redirected". That is a flawed argument. - PeaceNT (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support this is something arbcom has stated before one way or another. There is a reason why we call them "guidelines" rather than "official policy". Wording can be better. -- Cat chi? 16:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect warring is harmful
2) Edit warring over redirects is harmful to the project and may result in blocks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Proposed. A more specific version of 'Edit warring is harmful.' I think this is the main problem in this case. --Pixelface (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Oppose as this is common sense. Agree with the statement though. -- Cat chi? 16:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Template
3) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:



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)
 * I don't know if you noticed Ned, but citing OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an example of OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I see no reason why any editor should ever bother to read that essay. --Pixelface (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, citing OCE is not an example of OCE. When someone cites a page, be it guideline or policy or essay, that normally means they are saying "my views can be summed up here" In this case: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. (This may be an argument that this article is not bad enough to be speedily deleted; but that does not mean it should be kept.) While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."
 * No one is ignoring the vast number of articles that need to be evaluated. We know there is a great amount of clean up to be done, we admit this, and we even cite this as a reason for why editors make similar articles. All you are saying is that there is a problem that we already know about, but you are trying to make it sound like it's acceptable because these problems can be common. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Phirazo, this isn't about ArbCom making a content decision. This is a finding of fact. The ArbCom made a finding of fact and referred to List of South Park episodes in the previous case. --Pixelface (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Q: Does this article meet policy? IF (answer=yes, do nothing) ELSE merge, redirect, delete or improve.  BLACK KITE  14:07, 26 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. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 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)
 * Oppose What to do with episode and character articles is entirely an editorial decision. ArbCom does not get involved with the editorial process. See also my proposed principle down below. --Farix (Talk) 15:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We should work to improve these articles. As we do not have consensus on the episode guidelines, we might as well work to do what a paperless, sum of human knowledge encyclopedia that everyone can edit can accomplish. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 00:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- content decision; deal with this at the WP:FICT/WP:WAF/WP:EPISODE rewrites instead. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree, as Pixelface put it, "this isn't about ArbCom making a content decision. This is a finding of fact." Sad as it is, this is what is happening on Wikipedia now; new editors come along, look at existing articles and start writing new ones. They do not deliberately violate our guidelines, just are not aware of them. We should treat them with patience and extend the assumption of good faith by expecting that they will improve what they have written. No rush is needed; Wikipedia has no deadline, and we are not facing WP:BLP problems here. Haste makes waste, rushing to delete articles without properly giving them explanation or sufficient time only makes matters worse, and unfortunately leads to the vicious redirect-revert-redirect-revert cycle. - PeaceNT (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per valid points already mentioned. --User: (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Television episode articles that do not cite reliable third-party sources are common
2) Wikipedia has articles for every episode of Arrested Development, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, Blackadder, 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 Office, The Office, The Simpsons, The Sopranos, The Wire, Ugly Betty, Veronica Mars, Yes Minister, etc.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Proposed. It's a fact. --Pixelface (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, Tim Q. Wells (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rdfox 76, it's not a content decision. It's a finding of fact similar to one in the previous arbitration case. --Pixelface (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * or AfD.  BLACK KITE  14:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, it is pretty common to find these articles, which are in horrible shape and shouldn't have been created in the first place. However, Pixelface misses the point about why we ask for third party sources, and that is to find real-world context. -- Ned Scott 04:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, I guess. I am not sure what the point is, but anyone who has been to a decent-sized university library should be able to find indep sources for many if not all of them. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * sofixit — we need a So-Fix-Them. --Jack Merridew 06:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, and the solution here is editing & improving, not outright deletion. - PeaceNT (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - unnecessary; content decision as per above. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. This isn't a content dispute. The content in question is irrelevant. As arbcom stated on the previous rfar such articles pose little to no harm. -- Cat chi? 16:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that they are common, but add per my comments earlier today that such articles are no problem for an online encyclopedia. As long as we have some sources, it doesn't matter if they're primary, as even paper encyclopedias and especially the early encyclopedias did not and do not rely exclusively on primary evidence. An encyclopedia is a reference guide and catalog of knowledge, like a more in-depth dictionary, not something overly restrictive or limited. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 23:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Scholary sources exist for The Simpsons, for example, even more obsure topics like Mr. Sparkle: Dobson, Hugo. 2006. Mister Sparkle Meets the Yakuza: Depictions of Japan in The Simpsons. The Journal of Popular Culture 39(1): 44–68. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support in principle (this is, after all, a fact), but Wikipedia also has, at any given time, a lot of garbage articles. Existence doesn't indicate acceptability. So support the fact finding, but oppose its intent (ie, that such are acceptable). Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If existence doesn't indicate acceptability, I don't see how WP:N or WP:EPISODE have any weight. Do you think long-term existence indicates acceptability? WP:EPISODE became a guideline on April 16, 2007 WP:N became a guideline on September 23, 2006.. WP:PLOT became a part of WP:NOT on July 9, 2006. But the article Moaning Lisa has existed since May 13, 2003.. --Pixelface (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unreferenced vanispamcruftisements are also common, but that does in no way imply that the next vanispamcruftisement should get a pass and be immune to WP:N and WP:V while we wait forever for someone to "improve" it with references which do not exist. Edison (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that is also common, but it doesn't stay around for over 4 1/2 years. --Pixelface (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

TTN has ignored the previous decision by the arbitration committee
3) TTN has continued to repeatedly revert articles with no discussion even after the committee's prior decision.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Proposed. Per my evidence. --Pixelface (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose With all due respect for the arbcom, only general advice was given, and in such a way that it's reasonable for TTN to have continued to push the issues the way he did. Not only that, but the majority of TTN's reverts continue to be with drive-by editors who only disagree, but are unable to give an argument (or even participate in discussion at all) to debunk previous consensus. -- Ned Scott 08:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose previous finding was general, and TTN has usually operated in line with policy.  BLACK KITE  14:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support with evidence. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support promised to change behaviour at last arbcom and hasn't. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This issue has grown out of a hand full of situations, and the amount of time between cases has been less than one month. As someone who has seem TTN's behavior over a larger span of time, I can tell you that he has continued to improve his tactics, uses discussion more, and even when he thought it was pointless, accepted ideas from others when we thought they would help the situation (such as WP:TV-REVIEW). He hasn't turned on a dime, no, and the last arbcom case didn't really make it clear on how to make things better, only that we should try to do so. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:


 * Support as it seems to be part of the reason why we are back here again. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, apparently TTN feels that working with everyone here is "pointless". It's clear why he didn't pay attention the first time. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That ruling did not say that editors should work together to not edit war over articles. It urged the parties to come up with a solution to the underlying content dispute, which the ArbCom has decided is without its remit. So this proposal turn into a non sequitur, as the remedy does not mandate working together to gain consensus on specific articles. It's also grossly one sided, as both "sides" have edit warred, including this, in which admin tools were abused.  seresin || wasn't he just...?  00:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: Has TTN just even slightly altered his metods despite multiple warnings not by arbcom but his own talk page? No. Is he STILL continuing the same edit behavior that leads to edit wars? Yes. I think the decision is obvious. Not only TTN avoided participating in the RFAR just like he is avoiding this one, he completely ignored its closing. General Arbcom decisions aren't passed to be merely ignored. -- Cat chi? 06:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No evidence to support that assertion. I'll prioritize finding some that proves otherwise. -- Ned Scott 07:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - and evidence speaks for itself. --User: (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the evidence on the evidence page actually does show TTN citing a past discussion, or taking things to AfD instead of by force. I am not endorsing everything he's done, but this assertion is false. For starters, arbcom urged parties to work together, they never told TTN to stop. -- Ned Scott 00:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the last case closed, TTN hasn't commented once on WT:EPISODE (although he did comment around 7 times on the /Proposed Objective Criteria subpage on January 18, 2008 &mdash; after John254's request for arbitration). --Pixelface (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The individual discussions don't take place on WT:EPISODE. -- Ned Scott 06:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WT:EPISODE would certainly have been a good place to resolve the underlying content dispute over television episode articles. --Pixelface (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * *facepalm* Pixel, what am I going to do with you? I'm saying that TTN made more discussions to the individual article evaluations, not the general ideas behind WP:EPISODE. Generally speaking, we have those discussions on a parent article talk page, or maybe even a WikiProject talk page. -- Ned Scott 04:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can show me that TTN followed the ArbCom's previous remedy by providing /Evidence that TTN has worked "collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute." If you think TTN has done that, show us the evidence. --Pixelface (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Re to Black Kite: Since when does "usually" following policy excuse breaking policy in what (by the evidence) seems to be a large number of cases? To make an analogy, is it OK for someone to vandalize pages sometimes if they "usually" don't? Or would you give them warnings and eventually blocks despite their positive contributions because they insist on vandalizing? Anomie⚔ 17:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per evidence page and above. - PeaceNT (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support. I mean, that's why we're here yet again. Wizardman  17:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support by his actions and his inactions TTN has shown that he has no interest in discussion or conflict resolution. He is commited to his mission of "cleaning-up" Wikipedia.  Ursasapien (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN has violated WP:3RR
1) On August 15, 2006, was blocked by Kirill Lokshin for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule on the Naruto Uzumaki article.

Recent edits by TTN indicate that TTN is gaming the system and being disruptive.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Proposed. --Pixelface (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A block from 2006, and his one and only block to date. The other set is edit warring, but not what we define as 3RR (not to say that it is any "better"). I'm not sure what you are even trying to assert with this. -- Ned Scott 08:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Neutral TTN may have violated 3RR and got himself blocked at one point, and for the same stupid crap I've gotten myself blocked over several times, but he is careful not to do it any more. Instead, he violates the spirit with the two-reverts-then-wait-a-day tactic. Not that this is acceptable behavior, but it is not adequately covered in this proposal. The edit warring one somewhere in here does that for us. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:57, 4 February 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.

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 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. AnmaFinotera (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)
 * Yes Ned, I seem to fail to understand how an essay applies to any article or anyone. --Pixelface (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about that page, I'm talking about the arbcom process. You don't deal with those kinds of things in arbcom. If you want to nominate all those articles for deletion, then go ahead, but using AfD alone, and when it appears the nominator is making an excessive nomination to prove a point, will not likely generate useful feedback for consensus. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * People saying this is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, what exactly is that point? This is not a content decision. ArbCom would be letting the community decide on the content. This is to (hopefully) prevent further arbitration cases from being opened and prevent edit wars (which ArbCom deals with) from happening. I assume TTN will get to those articles anyway and there will be edit wars over those articles. The "problem" of episode articles will continue to grow as long as the root exists. We can deal with the articles now or later. --Pixelface (talk) 19:41, 23 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. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 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)
 * Oppose As others have already stated, this is a very WP:PIONTy remedy. That doesn't mean that those articles don't need to be reviewed and cleaned up, but there is no need to request ArbCom to scorch the earth. --Farix (Talk) 16:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose The answer to this problem is not flooding AfD with mass nominations. That would create more drama, not less. --Phirazo 17:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose It's seems like it would just be a lot of work and trouble to prove a point. You have to remember that some of these episode articles have already passed individual afds. And doing such a thing puts a lot of pressure on editors who trying their best to get as many episodes as possible to meet standards. It takes time and research, and forcing editors into such a situation would not help at all. -- Scorpion0422 05:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- WP:POINTy, unnecessary, and (yet again) content decision. Does Pixelface understand that ArbCom does not make any rulings regarding content? Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the ArbCom is going to support a mass-nomination of articles to make a point, complete with sanctioning massive canvassing. We have RfC for a reason, and the RfC on the episode guidelines is actually coming along quite well, with several proposals gaining a good deal of support. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN restricted
2) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit or fails to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Per John254's evidence. --Pixelface (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unnecessary for most situations TTN is in. -- Ned Scott 07:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Opposed, limits are unnecessarily restrictive and attempts to control how someone chooses to contribute. A strong encouragement to discuss, either on the article's talk page or bringing it to the relevant project's attention is one thing, but trying to say "you can only do X this many times" is not helpful, nor warranted.AnmaFinotera (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This remedy uses language from past ArbCom decisions, seen at Editing restrictions (such as Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia). --Pixelface (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose; editor that mainly edits in line with policy. This might as well be a block; because any redirect he makes, it only needs to be reverted once by any random editor and regardless of how against policy that editor is, TTN could do nothing.  BLACK KITE  14:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This remedy concerns the excessive reverting and edit warring by TTN. Edit warring is against policy. --Pixelface (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In the same way that 3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism, I would argue that policy enforcement does too (as long as it's made clear in the edit summary or on a talk page).  BLACK KITE  11:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which policy. Hiding T 12:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd give redirects enforcing If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it a free pass, myself. (emphasis added). It's directly out of WP:V.Kww (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The person who suggested that addition to WP:V is the biggest twat on Wikipedia. ;) Hiding T 13:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * However, would you care to show me a couple of such redirects of articles for which not even one reliable third party source is unambiguously proven not to exist. Hiding T 14:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Proving a negative isn't usually possible. Most individual Pokemon, however, have shown to be impossible to find third-party sources for. Those that can find a reference at all fail the test from WP:N for being able to find sources that address the subject directly in detail. With all the controversy over Bulbasaur, not one such source has been found. BTW, I suspect that there are those that would find biggest twat on Wikipedia to be a violation of WP:CIVIL.Kww (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Referring to yourself as the "biggest twat on Wikipedia" is actually self deprecating humour where I live. That's why I put the smiley in, to show I was joking. And I'm not asking for a negative, I'm asking for examples where there are no third party sources. Not contentious ones, where it is disputed whether a given source is a third party source or not, because then you have a content dispute, but one where there is no source. Hiding T 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's almost impossible to prove that there can never be 3rd party sources for anything, but I think you'd struggle to find any for most examples. Try these for size; (and most episodes from this series), (and most episodes from this series),  (and all episodes from this one),  (and all of this series too) .... shall I stop there?  No?  (and nearly all those - a particularly bad one that),  (and all of those too) .... etc.  BLACK KITE  18:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Aren't most television episodes previewed in the newspapers in the US? Hiding T 22:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By a reviewer? No. There's a blurb in the channel guide, but that is written by the production company.Kww (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair play. I don't know enough about US telly and newspapers to be able to argue the point and will gladly concede I'm put of my depth, since I don't think the shows in question have aired here. Hiding T 23:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support with evidence. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a proposed principle or finding of fact, and no evidence has been presented that would indicate the need for a one year restriction. -- Ned Scott 07:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we disagree. Sorry. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote, and arbcom isn't going to consider your support for this without some explanation as to what you mean. At least say which parts of the evidence presented makes you believe that this assertion is true. -- Ned Scott 04:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why, of all vote-like comments to choose (like Jack Merridew's comment below), did you decide to give a lecture about how this is not a vote? If you have to start somewhere, stop making comments like this . Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. Argue with it all you want, but you're only screwing yourself over. I'm not giving a lecture about how this isn't a vote, I'm telling you that your comments will mean nothing without context. If that's fine with you, okay. -- Ned Scott 03:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * His comment was terse, but not without context. Ursasapien (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Oppose as harmful to the project, and unwarranted. --Jack Merridew 08:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support to protect the project. Although one revert a week sounds a little harsh, TTN is continuing with his grand project to redirect as many episodes as possible as quickly as possible, despite this RfA, despite continuing reverts from other editors, despite a flood of complaints on his talk page. The message is still not sinking in, and he doesn't even have the courtesey to contribute to this RfA. Astronaut (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support to slow down the conflict and allow the centralized discussion to come to consensus. TTN has brought this restriction on himself. Ursasapien (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support -- See and . Better would be to simply put TTN on 1RR probation, but even that may be excessive at this point. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, sorta -- I'm not entirely sure about the extremity of the limit, but I agree with the theory behind it. The outcry over this whole thing is as much about the way TTN (and others to a lesser extent) enforce the changes they make as it is about the changes themselves. 1RR probation might work, but I'd actually go so far as 1 revert per article per 2 days, given TTN's past (and current) behavior. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 20:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Absurd - Just because a mountain of inclusionists don't like what he does, does not mean he is doing something against wikipedia policy. And I am still angry that all the solutions given deal with restricting TTN's activities instead of doing something substantive that deals with both parties. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on TTN's behavior since the previous RFArb I think it's clear that what he is doing is directly impeding the rest of the community in efforts to do "something substantive that deals with both parties." -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 23:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when is edit warring not doing something against Wikipedia policy? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I really want User:Geni added as well for restriction, as he's almost as bad Secret account 02:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then propose it; you're welcome to do so if you really think it's warranted. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 08:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as this solution could result in more article improvement instead. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Revert waring is disruptive no mater how good the intention behind it. There is absolutely no acceptable reason to revert war unless reverting clear-cut vandalism such as replacing George W. Bush with an image of a male genitalia. -- Cat chi? 06:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a good idea, though this particular wording isn't a perfect fit for this case. A major part of the problem is TTN edit warring to enforce his redirections. He shouldn't do that, period. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - I support this mainly for TTN's attitude towards discussing with others and refusal to participate in any of the many discussions he has spurred, be it here or the other ongoing discussions. If he showed a more willing to work with others attitude I would have said this is too strong, but his attitude is what drives me to support this. --User: (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * These ridiculous "proposed remedies" are an utter waste of time. Apparently the backers of this rubbish believe that Arbcom is comprised of such utter morons they can't discern the pointless partisan hackery behind such fatuous nonsense. Eusebeus (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and if anybody was wondering why the below restriction was proposed, here is your answer. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 03:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - in the right direction. the pile on-edit warring is getting tiresome. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is endorsing the edit warring. -- Ned Scott 03:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Because it will take more than a suggestion for TTN to change his behavior. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support of course. Wizardman  03:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Sensible proposal. In light of the user's persistence on editwarring and their disregard for other editors' viewpoints, restriction is evidently warranted. - PeaceNT (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Eusebeus restricted
3) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Proposed. Per my evidence and Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's evidence. This remedy uses language from this previous case. --Pixelface (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This comment above also applies. --Pixelface (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, this is not harsh at all either. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose No evidence to support a continued problem specific to Eusebeus and civility, and certainly no steps have been taken in the DR process to address that issue. Incivility is always discouraged, but the evidence presented does not establish something anywhere near what would warrant a one year restriction for civility. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Eusebeus demonstrates the problem himself so eloquently: "These ridiculous "proposed remedies" are an utter waste of time. Apparently the backers of this rubbish believe that Arbcom is comprised of such utter morons they can't discern the pointless partisan hackery behind such fatuous nonsense." (diff here) Alansohn (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not very nice, no, but in no way do mild comments like that warrant a one year restriction, especially considering no other attempts to resolve the matter have taken place. Allow me to make another one of my amazing predictions, arbcom won't include this, and I doubt it will even make it to the proposed decisions page. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are plenty more where that came form. How many more would you need? This one was a classic, a perfect example of incivility right in the middle of an arbitration case. I must admit that it takes guts to call Arbcom "utter morons" smack in the middle of a case where you're the subject of arbitration. Alansohn (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * *facepalm* He didn't call the arbcom morons... -- Ned Scott 05:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per TTN remedy above *sigh*.  BLACK KITE  14:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Support, but it should be a given that no editor, i.e. not just Eusebeus, should make personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 04:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ned. Unsupported mudslinging by an editor who wishes to hobble editors enforcing policies he does not like. --Jack Merridew 11:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - perhaps it could be shortened to six months since he is not as disruptive as TTN and he will engage in conversations. --User: (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - pushes limits with colourful phrasing of replies which aren't exactly inducive to collaborative editing.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Theoretical support if the time were shortened. I was going to oppose this until in the above proposed remedy Eusebeus helpfully reminded me why this might be warranted. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 18:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I have no problem if you disapprove of my comment, but the fact remains that this stuff is sententious rubbish. Editors such as TTN - and to a sadly much more limited extent myself - are not the problem here. The proliferation of non-encyclopaedic content is far more disruptive than the actions to enforce our standards, standards which have been consistently reaffirmed at our policy pages and at AfD. If you handful of committed TV fans here feel better by bandying around proposed remedies to ban me or others, I suppose it is mean-spirited of me to not let you go ahead, but the basic fact remains you are patently not focusing on the real problem. You claim edit-warring, but friends, edit-warring when one side CLEARLY has policy and praxis on their saie is not the same as edit-warring on the GWB page. I suppose that the soteriological impulses of a neophyte like Pixieface can be excused on the grounds of sheer ignorance, but I see no such mitigation for more seasoned users and therefore I feel rather justified in referring to these efforts as fatuities. Perhaps arbcom will surprise me and place me under an editing restriction, but frankly I doubt it. You people need to work much, much, much, much harder to prevent unnotable TV dross from clogging up our encyclopedia; this petulant finger pointing about edit-warring, despite the clear presence and mandates of our policies, is absurd. Eusebeus (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * C'mon Eusebeus, please tell us all how pages which are to all intents and purposes invisible unless one is actively looking for them 'clog' the encyclopedia. I am all ears....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I second that, how does any particular article (or even any group of articles) "clog" the encyclopedia? And how is its very existence more disruptive than widespread edit warring, biting of newbies, and other general bad faith? Also, BTW, using big words to insult your opponents doesn't help you make your point any better than using small words to do so (i.e. it doesn't); do you need a uw-npa2 warning? Anomie⚔ 01:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think that servers, disk-space and bandwidth come for free? It's paid for by donor dollars. It would be very interesting to see how a vote on this issue would turn out if it was taken to the donors on a "one dollar, one vote" basis.Kww (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Casliber and Anomie hit the nail on the head in this discussion. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Until the system administrators say otherwise, we shouldn't worry about servers, disk space, or bandwidth. As for your hypothetical vote, there's absolutely no way to know so speculation is useless. Anomie⚔ 19:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for answering your question, Anomie. I'll try not to make that mistake again.Kww (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You realize this remedy concerns civility right? --Pixelface (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Though he helps, he's not as bad and willing to talk. Time should be much smaller. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone should be rquired to be civil, not just editors with a more strict view of the need to follow policies or guidelines related to notability and verifiability. Bandwidth and server space are not free. Otherwise Wikipedia would not so frequently be asking for donations, and the system would not be so frequently slowing down, freezing, or eating edits. It is a very real problem to have excessive numbers of articles, because each article is a place for a vandal to ply his trade, and I can only keep so many reasonably in a watch list or can only check so many on recent changes patrol. Reductionistic fanspew articles about every character, event, place or thing in every episode are both a server burden and an administrative burden. Edison (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Bandwidth and server space are not free. Otherwise Wikipedia would not so frequently be asking for donations, and the system would not be so frequently slowing down, freezing, or eating edits. It is a very real problem to have excessive numbers of articles, because each article is a place for a vandal to ply his trade, and I can only keep so many reasonably in a watch list or can only check so many on recent changes patrol."


 * So although Wikipedia is not paper it is instead "server sized"? PAPER is there to remind us we don't limit articles just because "there are too many of those types of articles" or "we have too many articles", it is true however that there are articles that shouldn't be included such as Articles for deletion/List of Central Florida Local Bands. Lastly you make it sound like your only person who watches for vandals through watchlist or recent changes patrol, of course you can't cover every single article that could be vandalised, that is a task that must be done collaboratively like most of Wikipedia's task. --Sin Harvest (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support in general. I truly believe remedies should be handed out to all parties that have been chronically uncivil and/or edit warred (in the name of policy or not).  Until ArbCom slaps some folks down, this behavior will continue and accelerate.  We have already seen an increase in demeaning terms with editors all but daring ArbCom to do something about it.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

TTN blocked for one month
4) is subject to a one month block for extensive edit-warring. If TTN continues to edit war after the block is over, TTN may be blocked for increasingly longer periods of time.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Proposed. The edit warring needs to stop. --Pixelface (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unnecessary and complete overkill. You do not threaten someone who has not actually done anything vastly wrong (nothing that has been established that the community can agree on) for a whole month. TTN was doing something that had a great deal of support, and that played a big part in why he continued. If it is established in a situation that he should back off, I believe he will. He has done so in the past, and no evidence presented supports the assertion that TTN would not respond to a shorter, and far more reasonable, block. Per our blocking policy, blocks are not a form of punishment. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So edit warring is no longer prohibited? You're right, blocks are not a form of punishment. They are to prevent harm to the project. --Pixelface (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you know what a strawman argument is? If anyone wanted to block any of the related parties for edit warring, they could have done so without this arbcom case, and they would be justified. But suggesting a one month block is just retarded. TTN isn't stupid, and even if he doesn't like it, he'll play by the rules. -- Ned Scott 07:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You said he has not done anything vastly wrong and I seriously disagree. You're right, any admin could have blocked TTN for edit warring before this case was opened, but that does not mean blocks cannot be issued in this case. Blocks are issued all the time in ArbCom cases. --Pixelface (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unless you block about a dozen other editors for the same time.  BLACK KITE  14:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So make a proposal. --Pixelface (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Pointless. Why block a large group of editors who in general are making good contributions to the encylopedia in other areas?  That's self-defeating.  BLACK KITE  22:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Support: Someone needs a clue stick or else he won't change his behavior. -- Cat chi? 06:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A clue stick? The community can't even agree if he's done anything wrong. -- Ned Scott 07:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ned. Silly Rabbit. --Jack Merridew 11:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per evidence page. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 19:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No evidence has been provided to suggest that a TTN would not respond to a normal, shorter block, should one be needed. Not even by a stretch has any evidence been presented that would suggest that. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So, how much shorter do you think would do? Should we also expand the discussion to include others who have behaved similarly? Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 03:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends on the situation. For a lot of situations we can simply ask that blocking admins use good judgement as they would any other block. did try to touch on the idea of applying this to not just parties of this case, but any editor. To which I responded, Support the basic idea. Arbcom is ruling using concepts the community agrees with. With that in mind, the same logic used to block an editor that is a party can be used to block other users, should a block be necessary. -- Ned Scott 03:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. I suppose the more I think about this whole case, the more I am just concerned about the current state of Wikipedia. It seems that a small segment of editors are attempting to make Wikipedia something like another online encyclopedia a la Britannica, which we already have, rather than the original idea of providing the sum of human knowledge in a manner that no paper encyclopedia ever has or could realistically do. The truth is there is all kinds of content on Wikipedia that mean nothing to me, but if it means something to others, I see no problem with them. Many fictional characters or episodes that may not be notable to me are notable to some people and these efforts to stifle a project that has (had?) the potential to provide a comprehensive reference the likes of which we humans have never before achieved is distressing, if not downright depressing. There are times when I look at some of the items listed at AfD that I know sources exist for and that I know are notable that I actually feel somewhat sick inside, and I am not exageratting. What makes Wikipedia unique and not just another online encylopedia is its ability to be comprehensive and the more restrictive we get the more we'll just keep turning editors off from our project and become less of a useful reference. In any event, it is not just a matter of TTN (notice the half dozen or so editors whose recent contributions consist mostly of misuing Twinkle to nominate episode and character articles for deletion) and I think the whole debate gets at the core of what Wikipedia is more so than just editor behavior. Anyway, time to watch Real Time on HBO with my dad. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 03:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. TTN does need to be dealt with, but blocks are, by definition, not punitive. Let's try something else, one of the other things we've thought of. Wizardman  03:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose. I spent part of today trying to deal the Bulbasaur article, and it convinced me that TTN is nearly a hero. A block of any length is completely unjustified.Kww (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blanking featured articles and former featured articles and then revert war over it makes one a hero? -- Cat chi? 16:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, generally, putting garbage in the garbage can at least makes one a good citizen, if not a hero. Even if it's pretty, or people are fans or like it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose because after one month we will be back where we started. We need a remedy in the form of restriction, or enforcement (like the user has to use means of productive communication (like talk page, AfD, RfC, etc) A one-month-block wouldn't be preventative, thus not helpful. - PeaceNT (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Though I think a short block might get the point through, this is unlikely to do it without a tacked-on restriction. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support if TTN does not alter his methods at all. People have been blocked indefinately for much much less. -- Cat chi? 16:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely overkill and unwarranted. If there were community agreement that TTN even were wrong in what he's doing, he would've been blocked already. There is clearly no such thing, and I know I'm not the only admin to stand back and say "Well...technically he's not supposed to be doing that, but at the same time, this seems like a good place to bend the rules to improve the project." Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN's reverting restricted
5) Due to extensive edit-warring, is allowed to perform only three reverts in total every 24 hours for a period of three months.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Proposed. The edit warring needs to stop. --Pixelface (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the same reason I've given before. Restricting redirecting in order to restrict edit warring is completely unnecessary, and in this case is being proposed to stop TTN from redirecting even when he has support. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This remedy concerns reverts. TTN would still be free to redirect articles. --Pixelface (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Same logic applies. Very often TTN does have support, but people revert him to because they assume TTN is the big bad wolf, and he's just gonna eat their articles. -- Ned Scott 07:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, most redirecting is in line with policy. Those that revert such redirects need to be the ones facing sanctions. BLACK KITE  14:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This remedy concerns TTN's excessive reverts. Again, if you feel others need to be restricted, feel free to propose your own remedy. --Pixelface (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * This is a good idea and probably better wording than the boilerplate above. If a particular redirection has support someone other than TTN can revert to it. If he has to set himself up as an enforcer than, ipso facto, there is no consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ned. Silly Rabbit. --Jack Merridew 11:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as I agree that the edit-warring does indeed need to stop. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 19:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose: I would be more inclined to make reverting one of his redirects a blockable offense ... gets rid of the edit warring, and improves the encyclopedia at the same time.Kww (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So instead of restricting one disruptive editor, you would rather see hundreds of newbies blocked? What happened to don't bite the newbies and assume good faith? Astronaut (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of us ask what about verifiability, sourcing, and other critical parts of an encyclopedia, not a directory or episode guide? Realistically, I wouldn't have any problem giving verifiability some teeth, and starting to consider it disruptive and blockable to reinsert sourceless information without actually providing a source. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but not sure about the numbers. Astronaut (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but not sure about the numbers. Astronaut (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:



Enforcement by block
1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Proposed. --Pixelface (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This proposal uses language directly from this previous case. --Pixelface (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Ursasapien (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, though has been contentious in the past, and the editing restrictions need to be very tightly defined.  BLACK KITE  14:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Support, because the last RfA's solution didn't work. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense to the arbcom, but there really wasn't a solution presented. There was encouragement to find a solution, which I was hoping would be enough, but it wasn't. However we simply need more clarity in this situation, not blood. Don't let your emotions get the better of you. -- Ned Scott 06:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose too ambiguous. "Editing restriction" can mean anything. If anyone is placed under an "editing restriction" of any kind the length of the block (if applicable) shold be presented there. -- Cat chi? 06:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignored. --Jack Merridew 11:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Somewhat Support this. --User: (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This seems like it would be implicit in the restriction anyway. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:



Editorial process
1) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Basically agree, but prefer wording closer to . -- Ned Scott 07:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Support Simply a restatement of what has been stated before. --Farix (Talk) 15:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No objections. --Jack Merridew
 * Agree but like Ned said the wording of - especially "It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli" Astronaut (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose simply because I think says it better. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, because I strongly feel polite discussion is important. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support --User: (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per common sense. People who avoid discussion and make edits despite opposition are violating this editorial process. -- Cat chi? 16:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Mergers and article cleanup
2) Merger is an accepted method of article cleanup. Particularly when there are two or more articles on exactly the same subject and having the same scope, two or more articles on related subjects that have a large overlap, an article is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, and when a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Agree. -- Ned Scott 07:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Although turning an article into a redirect and not merging any information is not a merge. --Pixelface (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, and relevant here - most of the redirects in this case have ended up with articles pointing towards a "List of X episodes/characters" article which contains a summary of the article content. Thus most of the redirects here are actually technical merges.  BLACK KITE  14:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed Several editors have stated that merging episode articles is not an appropriate way of cleaning them up. However, WP:MERGE clearly states otherwise. --Farix (Talk) 15:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merging can create a viable article from disparate parts that can not stand on their own. --Jack Merridew
 * Agree but try to improve the article first. If, after a reasonable time to improve has passed (a week, a month?) and nothing has improved, then do the merge but do it BEFORE any redirecting. Please try to create a good article, before deleting a bad one. Astronaut (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support if language reminding editors that bulk redirection != merging is adopted; a major part of this issue has been TTN's use of bulk redirects as "merges" with no actual merging of data into the target article. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose because a merger is only an accepted form of clean up when there is consensus for the merge. Hiding T 16:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. There's no real way to judge scope and relation on characters properly, going by what the above says. The ones that want a mass merge tend to clump every article together instead of actually looking at them. Wizardman  02:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that whether to merge or redirect depends a lot on the source article and the target list. However, A small group of editors insist that episode articles are immune to such common editorial practices, going as far to call both of them a form of "deletion" and are asking for ArbCom to acknowledge such editorial practice as such.
 * This proposed principle, on the other hand, simply acknowledges that merging and redirecting articles are common and legitimate editorial practices and says nothing about whether episode articles can be immune or whether the practices are a form of deletion. It also only acknowledges the conditions already outlined in the lined page. --Farix (Talk) 12:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose this proposed principle uses the word "merge" in a different sense. TTN and others have allegedly "merged" articles by merely converting them to redirects, this is not how "merge" is conducted. -- Cat chi? 16:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think I've already mentioned this before but yes I agree with the White Cat and Rdfox 76 on the fact that for some editors a merge doesn't actually mean a merge instead it means "redirect and let someone else deal with it it isn't my problem anymore" --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, most of the time the feeling is probably more The target article already has all the information on this thing that Wikipedia should have.Kww (talk)
 * I've seen TTN do both, and would like him to not redirect when it's the "let someone else deal with it" situation, if it means legitimate content gets swept up in the redirection that hasn't been covered in the target or other parent articles. -- Ned Scott 08:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring considered harmful
3) Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Straight forward version of some of the other proposals. Arbcom might want to add this for emphases and clarity. Support -- Ned Scott 07:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Pixelface (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed A general principal for which we can all agree with. In fact, I pulled this text from a previous ArbCom case somewhere. --Farix (Talk) 15:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No objections. --Jack Merridew
 * Support Like saying the sky is blue.  Kamek  (Koopa wizard!) 20:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not consistent
1) Because of the openness of Wikipedia it is nearly impossible to manage the flow of articles. Often times, there are articles that do not conform to Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. The presence of such articles does not necessarily validate the existence of similar articles nor are they an indicator of a consensus that such articles are exempt from Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Sounds alright, I would be ok with this as well. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, a less biting version of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  BLACK KITE  14:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's true that Wikipedia is not consistent. However, this also applies to guidelines themselves (WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:EPISODE, WP:SPINOUT, WP:SUMMARY). --Pixelface (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed A less biting version then what Masem proposes above. --Farix (Talk) 15:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This should help dispel some of the strawmen. Consistency is a goal to set direction, but it is not realistic to achieve it at scale. --Jack Merridew
 * Oppose. Policy and guidance is descriptive, not prescriptive. This finding would fundamentally alter that and would require community consensus. This is beyond arb-com's scope. Hiding T 16:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very rarely are policies descriptive, most, especially the three core policies, are actually proscriptive. And not all guidelines, such as WP:WAF, are descriptive either. But with that said, ArbCom should acknowledge the fact that there are many articles that doesn't comply with Wikipedia's policies or guidelines but that such inconsistency does not demonstration a consensus for such inconsistency. Consensus is mainly achieved through community discussion. --Farix (Talk) 12:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which three core policies are you picking? All the ones I can think of are descriptive. WP:WAF is descriptive as well, it describes the style which we want fiction articles to be edited to. As to consensus, I tend to fall back on our policy to decide what constitutes consensus, and our policy states that Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process. So I do not think this proposal has any legs at all, and is way beyond arb-com's scope. Hiding T 13:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The core content policies are Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. The principles upon which these are based are non-negotiable. --Phirazo 18:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They are based upon one principle, that of a "Neutral point of view as the guiding editorial principle". The wording of those policies and the interpretation of the foundation principle upon which they are all based are in fact very much negotiable, given the fact that consensus can change and that the pages are edited frequently and not written in stone. Point of fact, the foundation principle is negotiable. The community has the right to fork if it disagrees with the foundation, as has been seen before. Also, WP:NOT is a core content policy and predates WP:V and WP:NOR. WP:BLP has since become a core content policy too, and the naming conventions have long dealt with content as well. Hiding T 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support An open wiki will have all sorts of contributors, and some of them will create content that isn't in line with policy. This isn't new, but probably needs to be said here. --Phirazo 18:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose firstly guidelines are non-binding, secondly presence of "other articles" are not a license for mass deletion either. This proposal is invalid per logic. It does not help resolve anything. -- Cat chi? 07:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, restatement of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Articles which have been scrutinised by the community (AfD/good/featured/etc) should be taken into account, rather than brushed aside.-- Nydas (Talk) 22:13, 29 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.

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:



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:



The ends do not justify the means
1) That something "needs to be done" is not justification for edit warring, biting newbies, assuming bad faith, steamrolling, incivility, or breaking of any other Wikipedia policy or guideline.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Basically agree, but I don't think that's what is actually happening here, at least not for the majority of it. I do not believe the intent is to steamroll others, assume bad faith, etc. However, that has happened on some level, whether intentionally or not, and we all want to improve those situations. If Anomie's comment below is directed at any of my comments, I'd like to clarify that much of what I said is to give perspective, and does not necessarily mean I think things should continue the way they have. I also believe that much of what is asserted is exaggerated, and such exaggeration is easily believed simply do to the large amount of articles being effected. -- Ned Scott 07:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Although.. wording to this effect might not be bad even if such situations are unintentional or not, or in the minority or majority. -- Ned Scott 07:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed IMO this should be obvious, but I see some comments above that seem counter to this principle. I also note that whether the thing actually "needs to be done" or not is irrelevant to this principle. Anomie⚔ 05:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Re to Ned Scott: No, my comment wasn't aimed at your edits. There are a few above (and several in the previous case, and several in other discussions I've come across in the past) where someone defends TTN's or their own incivility or edit warring by stating that it "needs to be done" and/or "we have to deal with such a huge crapflood of horrible articles that we don't have time for civility". Some of the assertions of "It's policy, go read it and shut up" I've seen in actual content discussions IMO fall under steamrolling; "It's policy, here's why this fails" would be better. Anomie⚔ 14:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * General comment: The more I watch the discussion on this page devolve, the more I see the need for this principle. Anomie⚔
 * Support and recommend reiteration of WP:DEADLINE, WP:CHILL, and WP:INSPECTOR in final version; many seem to feel that not only does something "need to be done," but that it "needs to be done RIGHT NOW!". Rdfox 76 (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, well put. A volunteer, community effort to catalog human knowledge should be enjoyable and rewarding. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support --User: (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support -- Obvious, and yet I fear not understood by many users involved in this. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 18:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, seems to be a problem on both sides. Wizardman  16:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not so sure about this. Generally, we've regarded policy as a means to an end&mdash;something that documents generally good and generally accepted practices, but which may be broken when they stand in the way of making improvements. (That is not to say that TTN can't make these improvements and still improve his own behavior, but at the same time there is a lot of stonewalling to cleanup.) Also, wouldn't this apply both ways? (That one believes something "should be done" is not a justification for writing articles which fail to comply with verifiability, notability, or cite reliable sources?) Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do people insist on reading a neutral proposal one-sidedly? Nothing here specifies that the thing that "needs to be done" is removal of content and redirection; the thing that doesn't excuse edit warring and such could just as easily be someone feeling Wikipedia "needs" an article on every episode of a television show or that TTN "needs" to discuss things before mass-redirecting. As for WP:IAR, that policy says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I see no way in which the prohibition on edit warring, incivility, and the like prevents anyone from improving Wikipedia. Anomie⚔ 02:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support exactly. User:Krator (t c) 09:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Retaliation is not acceptable
2) That the "other side" in a dispute is edit warring, biting newbies, assuming bad faith, steamrolling, incivility, or breaking other Wikipedia policies or guidelines does not justify the further breaking of these or any other Wikipedia policies or guidelines.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Again, I basically agree with the idea, but I do not believe that to be the case here (at least not as worded in this proposal). -- Ned Scott 07:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed This goes hand in hand with the previous principle. We have plenty of ways to deal with problem editors without stooping to their level. Anomie⚔ 05:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Re to Ned Scott: I haven't seen it yet on this page, but in the previous RFAr and some of the discussions on this issue that have popped up elsewhere I've seen people on both sides justify edit warring and incivility by claiming that the "other side" does it so they have as well in order to keep up. I've also seen editors definitely who should know better (i.e. over 15000 edits) run right to the edge of WP:3RR instead of discussing an edit, and in my sporadic work with WP:3O I've seen a number of cases where the edit war continues in parallel with the discussion because neither side can let it be. Anomie⚔ 14:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * General comment: As the discussion here devolves, I see more and more need for this. Too many seem to be opposing a finding that one editor has edit warred only because there isn't a matching finding for the "other side". If there is an "other side", go ahead and propose your own finding, but the presence or absence of any "other side" doesn't excuse any editor's negative actions. Anomie⚔ 17:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support simply because it often seems like WP:CIVIL has gone out the window entirely--and not just in this debate. Rdfox 76 (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:BOLD allows any editor to revert any bold edit. Once you make a bold edit and it gets reverted thats the end of story till discussion. If you know your bold edit is almost most certainly reverted, you may be violating WP:POINT. You do NOT boldly revert a bold edit someone else reverted. -- Cat chi? 07:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm just missing something, but how does reverting an initial bold edit relate to people using "But they're doing it too!!" as an excuse for edit warring, incivility, and such? Anomie⚔ 13:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't but it is perfectly acceptable to revert any bold edit over a mere disagreement. If someone will not listen to objections and continue to mass blank similar articles they may be bulk reverted. You do not rerevert in a bold manner. If someone is mass removing content in a controversial manner while avoiding discussion of any kind over it, reverting them seems sane. Of course revert waring isn't something preferable. All I am saying is that the first revert of the blanking isn't really problematic. -- Cat chi? 16:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that. Reverting without making any attempt to address the problem that led to the initial edit seems in itself to me to be disruptive and pointy. The burden is on those who reinsert, not those who cut. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement of policy does not justify incivility
3) That something is "clearly" against policy is not justification for edit warring, biting newbies, incivility, or breaking other Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Consensus can change, both on a policy as a whole and on the application of a policy to a particular situation, but the existing policy should be honored while the possible change in consensus is discussed. Do note that activities that would normally be considered "edit warring" are specifically authorized in the enforcement of certain policies, such as Vandalism or WP:BLP.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * This is just kind of repeating the above proposals. However, with this focus on incivility, I can't support this proposal. TTN might not be warm and fuzzy, and some of his comments where not his best, but given the crap he deals with, the great amounts of personal attacks made on him, he has done a far better job than most in keeping his cool. Perfect, no, but I do not believe incivility to be an actual problem in this situation. (that's not to say there is never any room for improvement, but again, keeping perspective in mind). -- Ned Scott 07:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support in general, but enforcing policy can always be unpopular; see User:Betacommand for a good example.  BLACK KITE  14:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a disparity that exists between WP:COPYRIGHT, which is a policy, and WP:FICT/WP:EPISODE, which are long-term disputed guidelines. - PeaceNT (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Every guideline and policy is disputed by at least one editor, but that doesn't debunk the consensus that founded and maintained those pages. -- Ned Scott 04:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed This is not trying to say the policies should not be enforced, just that certain behavior is not acceptable even in the context of enforcing policy. Anomie⚔ 05:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Re to Ned Scott: All three are closely related, I just felt it was more clear to make three simple statements than one complex one. In particular, this addresses one specific case of a thing that needs to be done where some have tried to claim a blanket exception to all behavioral guidelines; some exceptions do apply for some policies, but allowing incivility is not one of them. Dealing with crap and personal attacks is no excuse for incivility, biting, or unsanctioned edit warring. If someone cannot remain civil, they should take a break until they regain their balance. No one is perfect, but IMO the evidence presented here shows some going well beyond normal human imperfection. Anomie⚔ 14:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support if it's made clear that this is not directed at any one editor; there's been plenty of incivility all around in this one. Rdfox 76 (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose policy enforcement is not an issue here. Guidelines are not policy. -- Cat chi? 16:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that this proposal does not say that any policy or guideline applies or does not apply to any situation, or that people who claim to be enforcing policy are or are not correct in their interpretation. It just states that those who do claim to be enforcing policy still may not edit war and such. Anomie⚔ 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Good" edits do not justify incivility
4) That an editor has made a large number of "good" (or at least unchallenged) edits does not excuse edit warring, biting newbies, assuming bad faith, steamrolling, incivility, or breaking other Wikipedia policies or guidelines.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Oppose, Tim Q. Wells (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, should be obvious.  BLACK KITE  18:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed This is in response to the various comments elsewhere on this page where an editor's troublesome edits are excused simply because the editor also makes many edits that are "good". While most of that deals with TTN specifically, this principle does not single out TTN and does not single out either side in the debate. This principle also does not assert that this situation actually is the case for any specific editor (that would be a finding of fact) and does not attempt to define what is a "good" edit. Anomie⚔ 15:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, about time someone proposed this. Wizardman  03:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Second. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Re to Tim Q. Wells: Would you care to give a reason for opposing? Since only the Arbitrators do any voting, an oppose without a reason doesn't really contribute anything. Anomie⚔ 01:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It does not necessarily take two to edit war
1) While edit wars often involve at least two editors, this is not axiomatic. For example: Alice makes a change, Bob reverts, Alice restores, Charlotte reverts, Alice restores, David reverts, Alice restores, Emily reverts, Alice restores, and so on through the rest of the alphabet; Alice is clearly edit warring, but there is not a "someone else" she is warring with.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Oppose - in many cases this can be the sign of one tendentious editor reverting against consensus, but this wording could also possibly give a green light to "tag-team" reverting which has been the cause of many bitter edit wars, see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles for a good example.  BLACK KITE  14:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Oops - misread the proposal - struck. BLACK KITE  15:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

At any rate, this proposal is not to say any particular situation is or isn't edit warring, it's just to point out that "it takes two to edit war" is not automatically true. Anomie⚔ 02:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposed People keep asserting "it takes two to edit war" as a fact, usually in opposition to a finding of fact stating that one editor is involved in edit wars without mentioning any other party. See also my proposed principle, which points out that whether there are any others involved in the edit war or not is irrelevant to the fact of any particular editor's edit warring. Anomie⚔ 17:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, though it should be noted that several editors are actively edit warring against TTN, though not all of redirects he performed are included in that. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Re to Black Kite: How does the fact that it does not necessarily take two editors to edit war give any sort of a green light to tag-team reverting? Anomie⚔ 15:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My bad - not sure how I read that to mean the opposite from what you meant :)  BLACK KITE  15:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really sure about this. In our hypothetical example above, Bob, Charlotte, David, Emily, Frank, and all the way on through Zeke if we need are edit warring. Granted, Alice is too, but unless Alice's additions are blatant, simple vandalism or BLP violations, the others are tag-team reverting. Edit wars don't necessarily involve only two editors, but they always involve at least two editors. Tag-teaming doesn't make multiple reverts not be an edit war. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (To give a clearer example) Let us say that, instead, we have a different scenario. Alice edits. Bob reverts Alice. Charlotte reverts Bob. David reverts Charlotte, Emily reverts David, and so on and so forth right through the alphabet. Well, let's take our premise from the previous scenario (those who make only one revert aren't edit warring). Well, here, someone goes and looks at the page histories, seeing twenty-five reverts. Do we really say "Well each person made only one revert, so no one edit warred at all here", or do we say "Holy hell, a whole lot of people are edit warring here."? Tag-teaming is still edit warring. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Or it could be that Bob through Zeke are supporting the existing consensus. In the second situation you propose, I would say that there is definitely an issue going on and protection of the page should be seriously considered to attempt to force the various parties to discuss the issue, but I would not single out anyone specifically and I wouldn't go recommending handing out 26 blocks to prove some sort of point there.

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.

Policy-enforcing editors encouraged
1) Policy-enforcing editors are encouraged to clearly and helpfully answer any questions other editors (particularly new editors) have regarding the policies and guidelines that are being enforced. Editors should not enforce policies or guidelines at such a rate that they cannot effectively discuss any issues that arise.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Agree We should always be willing and able to give a reasonable explanation about why we are doing something, and to help other editors. It's not only a nicer way of doing things, but helping people to understand the why will be more efficient in the long run. -- Ned Scott 07:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree as per above cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if someone can "enforce" a guideline, but they certainly shouldn't be enforcing a disputed guideline. I think editors should not edit at such a rate that they cannot effectively discuss any issues that arise. --Pixelface (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed Note "encouraged", not "required". There seems to be a tendency for some editors to respond only with links to various policies when their actions are questioned. This is generally unhelpful in building consensus. Any who might reply "But I don't have time for all that!" should consider which is more important: helping others learn how to improve the encyclopedia, or just using policy to bully others. Anomie⚔ 05:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * With the proviso that single-purpose accounts focused on policy enforcement should really broaden their interests to be role models on how to improve things constructively. Carcharoth (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets make something clear, TTN isn't an SPA. Even if he was, such a requirement isn't supported by policy. -- Ned Scott 07:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How about: Policy-enforcing editors encouraged <strong style="font-variant: small-caps;">Period ? Non-compliance with policies (and guidelines) is too common and that's a problem. --Jack Merridew 07:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A much better way of putting it. -- Ned Scott 07:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A much worse way of putting it. The problem isn't that no one enforces the policies, the problem is that some are doing it in a manner that discourages rather than encourages consensus. Anomie⚔ 13:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Terrible way of putting it; people encouraging TTN's curt, uninformative "discussion" tactics are part of the reason this has ended up going so far. Rdfox 76 (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To both Anomie and Rdfox, I don't think either of you understand what was just said. The point was that it doesn't matter if someone is an SPA or not, the suggestion that Carcharoth gave should apply to all users. That is what Jack and myself were talking about. -- Ned Scott 08:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It sure doesn't look that way to me. It looks like Jack stated support for a proposal along the lines of "Policy editors are encouraged to do anything, including breaking Wikipedia's behavioral policies and guidelines, when enforcing policy." I don't see where Carcharoth's unrelated comment enters into it. Anomie⚔ 13:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Edit: I misunderstood Jack Merridew's statement.
 * My intent was to suggest that the AC offer moral support to policy-enforcing editors. Policies are there for a reason and it is a good thing to enforce them. Policy-flaunting editors should be reprimanded. --Jack Merridew 14:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (To Anomie) Ooooh, haha, ok. I see where I went wrong here. Not to say I disagree with Jack (I'll have to think about it, now that I understand what's being said :D), but I did believe his comment was a response to Carcharoth. Whoops. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * further comment — Again, my intent was to suggest that enforcing policy is a good thing. Nowhere did I say (or do I believe) that editors doing so are justified in breaking other rules in the process. I have seen other cases where the AC offered encouragement; I liked the section heading here more that the lead paragraph that went with it. Note also that I am Not Opposed to this as written. --Jack Merridew 07:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for misunderstanding your intent, and have struck the statement. Anomie⚔ 14:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wish Ned would unstrike his initial comment; nb: the semantically correct markup is to use <tt> xyz  </tt>. --Jack Merridew 15:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Keeping quiet and "hiding" behind policy is no good for anybody - it gives people the impression you have something to hide. And if you're too busy enforcing policy, how can you get people to see your side of the issue when you don't take the time out to discuss what you are doing? Astronaut (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant What policy is this referring to? Or does it mean "guideline-enforcing"? (FICT & EPISODES were still guidelines last time I checked ;)) At any rate, this proposal needs more clarification, since it doesn't apply well to a case where the guideline-enforcing editor(s) has what is widely perceived as a flawed interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. - PeaceNT (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In the case of tv episodes the root policy-issue is usually WP:NOT. --Jack Merridew 13:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * PeaceNT: WP:FICT clarifies WP:N and WP:NOT, which are policy. The parts of WP:EPISODE that cause such trouble also depend on WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOT. As for a "flawed" interpretation, hopefully that will come out in the discussion that should be happening; feel free to propose your own principle, finding of fact, and/or remedy directly addressing that if you want. Anomie⚔ 13:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC) When did WP:N get demoted?
 * WP:N has never been a policy. And no, WP:NOT#PLOT & WP:FICT/EPISODE are certainly not the same, that's why we have separate pages. NOT#PLOT does not endorse FICT, or the deletion of episode articles. It is FICT (or EPISODE) that is often cited as grounds for deletion. Also, if you'd like to enforce something, please use policies, or change the policies, for that matter. As of now, the deleting editors have only FICT & EPISODE, and the proposal lays them down as "policy", which is inaccurate. I'm not sure why you mentioned WP:V, no episode articles fail this policy at all. For the record, I haven't put forward any proposals related to the matter of content dispute (i.e guidelines interpretation), since they would not be relevant to an Arbcom case (which basically address users' conduct.) - PeaceNT (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well excuse me for being mistaken about a guideline that is constantly referred to as policy. I've amended the proposal to explicitly include guidelines as well as policy; I continue to make no statement in the proposal as to whether any policy or guideline actually applies to any situation, only that those trying to apply it should be ready to explain their interpretation and discuss the matter in a positive manner. <font color="#cccccc">[Strike the rest of my reply; the details of how the rest of the above statements are baseless are not important and I was getting too <font color="#cccccc">heated .] Anomie⚔ 15:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support because I suspect that a LOT of the fighting here could have been prevented by reasoned explanation of policy and guidelines, and where disagreement with them should be discussed. Instead, we get "Merge per (insert policy or guideline here)" as an edit summary, and no response to questions on user talkpages, just fanning the flames. Rdfox 76 (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Wikilawyering of policies are frowned upon. We most certainly do not want people enforcing guidelines such as WP:EPISODE that do not even have any real sense of consensus behind them. -- Cat chi? 07:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Might want to check that one again. -- Ned Scott 07:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bizarre. I seldom see a guideline with such an amount of controversy and criticism. What is your point? - PeaceNT (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The RfC isn't over yet, probably far from it, but it's been well established that, so far, the spirit of WP:EPISODE still has community consensus, as it did before when it started out as a centralized discussion. Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability sums it up pretty well. -- Ned Scott 07:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You see consensus? I see megabytes of discussion that clearly does not demonstrate consensus. Astronaut (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This remedy addresses the complete lack of discussion in many cases, either through silence or by "discussion" consisting solely of "Go read this policy" without any explanation as to why the policy applies or what specifically is the issue. Wikilawyering is a separate issue in that the situation is being discussed but some are insisting on an overly strict interpretation. Feel free to propose your own principle or remedy addressing wikilawyering. This remedy also specifically does not address the issue of whether any policy or guideline should be enforced (I don't think that's even within ArbCom's purview in this case), it just recommends that those who are doing so be prepared to discuss their actions. Anomie⚔ 15:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I Partially Support this with the exception of WP:Episode and WP:Fic because they are not accepted guidelines and are heavily disputed and disruptive. --User: (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A disputed tag on a guideline does not mean it has lost guideline status. As of my message right now, WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE are still guidelines. -- Ned Scott 00:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - :Wikipedia is not a police state and no editor is the appointed "policy enforcing editor." We are here to write an encyclopedia, not jam rules down people's throats. As we all know, policy is open to interpretation and no one person is the absolute authority, nor do they have the authority to force their interpretation. Horrible wording. pschemp | talk 02:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, how would you describe an editor who is trying to enforce policy? Anomie⚔ 03:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Though the spirit of this proposal is good, it may be too easily misread as portraying warm and fuzzy wikilawyers as the ideal Wikipedia editor. The last sentence is spot-on though, and something about editing at a large scale and its consequences should be in here. User:Krator (t c) 09:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Existing behavioral guidelines and policies are to be enforced fairly
2) Admins are instructed to enforce the existing behavioral policies and guidelines impartially and in accordance with the currently accepted practice for enforcing these policies and guidelines, regardless of whether the editor breaking these behavioral policies and guidelines is doing so in support of something the admin agrees or disagrees with and regardless of whether the editor "usually" follows the behavioral policies and guidelines. If it happens that the misbehaving editor is another admin, they should be treated more rather than less harshly as admins should set a good example for the community.

If the admin cannot be sure that they are doing this, they should take no action and instead bring the situation to the attention of the community for discussion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Not sure on the wording, but I pretty much agree with the gist of it. -- Ned Scott 07:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ideally there should also be an enforcement in place for dealing with admins who take sides in using their admin powers, but I have no idea what exactly to propose. Anomie⚔ 18:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposed It seems that admins may be turning a blind eye to the negative actions of some editors; whether this is because they agree with what those editors are trying to accomplish, because they do not want to start a wheel war with those admins who agree, because they just don't want to touch this mess with a 10-foot pole, or for reasons unspecified I do not know. I do know of one edit war between TTN and a few other editors where an admin blocked the main editor on the non-TTN side but not TTN as well, and at the same time seemed to be on TTN's "side". I can't assert that the latter caused the former, but it is suspicious.
 * One admin has helpfully admitted to ignoring TTN's negative actions because they agreed with what TTN was trying to accomplish, and has asserted knowledge that other admins have also done so. Anomie⚔ 02:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are aware that one cannot be forced to act against a user (or for that matter, to use any administrative action at all), any more than one could be forced to edit a given page? Also, I believe you've mischaracterized my comment. While I've been aware of the situation (and certainly, so have many others, admins and otherwise), it's simply not seemed to be conduct meriting a block. (You will note I've not blocked anyone on the other side either.) Further, my comment indicates exactly why TTN wasn't blocked&mdash;no individual admin could be sure of acting properly in blocking TTN, and any discussion has failed to resolve the matter. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and any blocks placed here would be likely to inflame rather than calm the situation. When one is in doubt, one does not block. This being said, admins shouldn't take an enforcement role against someone with whom they agree or disagree, either one. Plenty of uninvolved admins are available to take any necessary action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So those trusted with extra powers in order to improve the encyclopedia can't be instructed to use those powers fairly? How disturbing. As for "mischaracterizing" your comment, I note you even wikilinked to WP:IAR, which almost by definition means you ignored the behavioral rules because you agreed with what TTN is trying to accomplish. I do support your decision not to block where you are not uninvolved. Anomie⚔ 13:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If identified as contentious, editors must have 25% of edits to addition, improvement or sourcing of mainspace material
1) Let's examine the process towards attribution: Editor A adds material that is unsourced. Later, editor B places tags on it citing lack of sourcing/unencyclopedic nature/questioning notablity or something similar. Now Editor A (or for discussion's sake Editor C who feels the information is worthwhile and deserves to remain included), is obliged to find some sourcing. Now we have a situation where A or C are being scrutinized or assessed and B is doing the scrutinizing or assessing, much like a police officer, prefect or authority figure. This in of itself is ok, and indeed is a necessary part of article improvement. It also takes place at Good Article Nomination and Featured Article Candidacy, and often works with a collaborative spirit, i.e. 'assessors' get in and help fix or improve articles in a collaborative way. The power differential is increased when an article is put up at AfD, as there is now a 7-day time limit to consider in many cases. Now if we have an editor who is solely scrutinizing without adding any mainspace edits whatsoever, we have a person who is sitting on one side of the power differential calling the shots. This person is not engaging in collaborative behaviour in terms of improving the 'pedia but demanding others do so (a 'Do as I say' not 'Do as I do' approach). If someone persists unsing only this model and not placing themselves under any scrutiny, it questions the editor's ability to engage in any collaborative behaviour or place themsselves under any scrutiny whatsoever. This I thought would be a key underpinning of a volunteer project based on collaboration and negotiation.

My proposal would be that if an editor is identified as fitting to this pattern of contentious editing (i.e. few/no/very low proportion of mainspace edits apart from deleting or merging material), then a prerequisite of a proportion of edits to contributing to or referencing of existing material to avoid further measures such as blocking or banning to take place. If someone is that unwilling or unable to improve text then I can't see how they make this a better place. Note that I haven't come to a conclusion about an acceptable proportion - 25% would be a ballpark figure off the top of my head as a balance between ideal (i.e. more) and pragmatic (less)

I keep reading how all the fancruft 'clutters' the 'pedia, but the truth is, one doesn't find it unless one goes looking for it. Isn't it better to focus some attention on more central material as well? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Strongly Oppose since when are Wikipedians required to do certain kinds of editing? If some people are better talented at dealing with one kind of editing versus another, what good would it do anyone to try to force them to do something they aren't good at. The language also makes it sound like merging/redirecting etc isn't a mainspace improvement, which is obviously not agreed on by everyone or we wouldn't be here. Its a mainspace improvement most editors won't bother with, so if someone wants to make it their goal, I'm all for it. Or will it be made a Wikipedia wide ban? Will other editors who do nothing but argue against policies and guidelines be told not to do that anymore unless they are doing other kinds of editing? Hmm, some people find applying MOS standards and requirements for citing contentious, so if that's what editor Y likes to concentrate on, will they be forced to go do "real" editing? Who is anyone to judge how someone chooses to spend their time on Wikipedia so long as they are not breaking the rules? And who are you to decree that only certain kinds of editing are not improvements just because you don't like it? AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, isn't chasing tags being required to do certain kinds of editing (by others)? People may not be so good at writing but finding references is a valuable pastime. In other words, it is ok for editors o send others out hunting refs but never find any for themselves, even for subjects they are interested in?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really...people are free to leave their unsourced contributions in, just as others are free to then remove them. It is up to the person putting stuff into an article to properly source it, not someone else coming along weeks, months, or even years later. How is someone supposed to know where someone else supposedly got some info, especially if it came from an off-line source? Hmm? I can put its lots of stuff in articles related to my area, because we have several historical libraries here, but if I don't source that stuff, who but me would know exactly which old book I yanked it from when it isn't online? So you want to allow others to be lazy and require the people you don't like to do their work for them? How is that any better? AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Two things, one this simply won't happen, and two, even if it did, in theory, arbcom isn't going to apply something like this outside of the listed parties, and would only do so if it aided resolving the dispute. -- Ned Scott 07:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Support. Deletions only wind up turning good contributors and readers off of our project. We're here to do something unprecedented with a webpedia. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Those of us who edit instead of write serve a useful purpose.Kww (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I recognise it is useful and indeed necessary for article improvement, but it is playing the role of police officer all the time that I have concerns with.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify - it can be editing any other material, not just the stuff one is merging or nominating for deletion or whatever.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care for the title in and of itself, but i definitely support what is written. People that do nothing but police are more a drain on the project than they themselves realize. Doing it occasionally is fine, making that a full-time job is a burden on all fronts. Wizardman  03:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry 'bout that, couldn't think of a better way to phrase it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a better language is something saying that single-purpose accounts focusing on areas like deletion (whether this is images or articles), or any contentious area, can be unhelpful. Sometimes these accounts are alternate accounts of experienced users who know that their actions will draw a lot of ire, and don't want the work of their main account to be affected. This is reasonable, but I think some encouragement for such SPAs to work on creation in the areas they are working in would be helpful. eg. Those working on image deletion tagging could also aim to add rationales and sources, as well as just tagging images for not having them. Those working on redirecting episode articles could work to improve episode articles as well as redirecting them. Those nominating articles at AfD (depending on the reasons for nominating) could work on adding sources and improving articles, as well as nominating. And so on. It really does help foster a collaborative editing environment if people voluntarily (peer pressure will probably work best here) make sure their contributions are balanced. I speak here as someone who is painfully aware that my contributions have been unbalanced for a few months - far too few productive mainspace edits. :-( But in any case, arbitrary numbers like 25% are unhelpful, as is any attempt to define what is "contentious". Any reform in this area needs to be voluntary and community-driven (ie. peer pressure - congratulate those you see making their contributions more balanced, and politely point this idea out to those who are rather more focused on one area). Carcharoth (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree on 25% being arbitary. It helped to make it more concrete as a proposal. Agree on community-driven which is why I posted a note on admin noticebard to get some broader input.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose — I'm sorry, but this really is bizarre. You conflate addition with improvement but editors commonly run a blue pencil across a bit of, ah, prose and improve the piece by deleting things. Deletion can be improvement; redirection can be improvement; addition may not be improvement. This applies to "sources", too — removing a bogus source is an improvement to an article (even one that should end up kept around). Your proposal if fundamentally biased towards endlessly inflating this site with thinner and thinner content. --Jack Merridew 06:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That actually fits nicely with my point. Of course everything you say is true. But an editor who never comes across a situation where improvement constitutes addition, is almost guaranteed to incompetently apply the blue pen in all the other cases. If they can't recognize situations where addition is needed they're not a good enough editor to know when pruning is needed either. Good editing absolutely always involves both. --JayHenry (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do believe that good editing involves both, however you can not require users to make certain types of edits. The two types of editing will occur, but not always from a particular user. --Jack Merridew 07:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It would also help if we, as a community, just stopped paying attention to these Eyrian-type editors. Editors who don't do any work in a particular topic area except nominate for deletion are rarely competent enough to assess what needs to go and what can be improved and fixed -- if they were, they'd spend more of their time improving and fixing. Anybody can call themselves a gardener and go nuts with a pitchfork; you gotta do a little planting to know which ones are the weeds. --JayHenry (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're referring to Requests for arbitration/Eyrian (which I've only skimmed)? I believe that amounts to an allegation of sockpuppetry and you should watch that. --Jack Merridew 07:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No I wasn't referring to sockpuppetry. How could my previous comment be construed as an allegation of sockpuppetry? Whom exactly was I accusing? Eyrian would frequently nominate anything and everything for deletion, including topics in which he clearly had no knowledge. I'm not suggesting anyone at this RFARB is guilty of this (I'm not familiar with the contours of this particular arb case), I'm speaking of the general principles. To use myself as an example -- it would not be appropriate for me to nominate an enzyme for deletion, such as Glycolipid 3-alpha-mannosyltransferase. I lack the editing ability to assess whether or not this is a valid article. I'm not sure a 25 percent threshold will fix the problem (or that it would even be enforceable), but I think the spirit of Casliber's point is important. In every walk of life, you must be able to create to destroy -- it takes a civil engineer to properly demolish a building -- there's no such thing as "someone who's only good at pruning." It's a fantasy that we should work to discourage. --JayHenry (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose WP is completely voluntary, and this sets a bad precedence against that, plus the fact that you've introduced a number that can be gamed (maybe not be TTN, but if we allow similar work requirement for similar infractions, someone is bound to figure out how to game the system). People are trying to find some method to enforce that "TTN cannot merge or AfD articles without seeking consensus"; if you want something to stick from the ArbCom, all you need to say is something like "Per ArbCom, if TTN performs mergers or sends articles to AfD without reasonably seeking, waiting for, and participating to reach consensus, such actions should be reverted, and TTN will be blocked for X days"; this then can be enforced through AN/I referring to the ArbCom. Yes, this does balance those that may have a grudge against TTN or just don't like their work being lost, but again, taking to AN/I will help to reveal if there were any oddities in the person that submitted the complaint on TTN. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 07:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I can see what Casliber is getting at with this proposal, and it would be great if everyone tagging/merging articles actually spent some time trying to improve the articles first; but I believe it would be difficult to monitor and better methods exist or have been proposed here to control this activity. Astronaut (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose You can't dictate how people edit Wikipedia. Wikipedians are not given pre-designated jobs to make sure every part of the encyclopedia is improved. Of course, it would be good if everyone who tagged an article also improved the problem is was tagged with, but this isn't an ideal encyclopedia. Those of us who tag articles serve a purpose on Wikipedia, just as much as those of us who write articles or revert vandalism. Everyone plays their part in improving Wikipedia, and dictating what part certain people play isn't going to help anyone. - <font face="Franklin Gothic Book" color="orange">• The Giant Puffin • 10:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And tagging is dictating someone else go fix it, most of us do both - I just can't see why some editors do absolutely nil reference finding for extended periods, even for articles they presumably value.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose -- I doubt that 25% of my edits are adding material to Wikipedia; most of them are cleanup, vandalism reverts, and copyediting of existing material. If this principle (which, I presume, is what you meant this to be) is adopted, all it would take is for me to make one ill-advised edit that sees someone tag me as "contentious" for me to be facing sanctions. I understand what you're trying to say here, but this is not the right way to do it. Rdfox 76 (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Edits that add material, by their very nature, probably won't add up to 25% of a user's total edits, because each such edit takes a large amount of thought and planning. In addition, as mentioned above, everyone has their role to play on Wikipedia, and a rule like this would be too restrictive in that sense.--Danaman5 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - If Arbcom is not expected to resolve the notability dispute regarding episodes and fiction, how could it allow or enforce such a massive overreach in Arbcoms powers? Arbcom has no jurisdiction to start mandating how all Wikipedians edit, regardless of the situation. It is also completely inappropriate for Arbcom to be expected to tie the hands of those challenging articles with serious notability and referencing concerns. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Since when is a user not allowed a say just because he edits on project, template or portal pages? A user editing extensively there would still know what he was doing if he decided to switch namespaces. A minimum is quite frankly ludicrous, as it may even turn users away from the website. Sorry. <font face="Trebuchet MS"> WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN play it cool.  22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I don't think this would be the appropriate way to deal with it. Editors should be allowed to edit or improve Wikipedia in whichever way they wish as long as they abide by Wikipedia's policies and consensus-approved guidelines. This seems like a bit too much, and way too difficult to enforce. I agree that there is a problem, but this just doesn't sound like the right solution. Kamek (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do What Now? I've read this proposal three times and I still have no idea what it's saying :P Kaldari (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK - that 1 in 4 edits are doing something in mainspace rather than continually directing others to do so by tagging. This needn't be adding material, but can include referencing or spelling or whatever. If someone is so dead keen on attribution and tagging away, why are they then incapable of looking up sources? One rationale is it takes alot longer to go and get references than to put up a tag. All mass tagging does is overload those who are prepared to go and find the references.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia doesn't give out work assignments. This is a strictly volunteer project, people can do whatever they want within policy. --Phirazo 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely disagree with this. Cutting and challenging is, indeed, the main part of a professional editor's work, and is how they improve the work they edit. If amateur editors want to do that here, we should encourage them to do so. We certainly would never accept the reverse proposal&mdash;"Those creating articles which many disagree should be articles must have at least 25% of their edits cutting or proposing for deletion." This is equally ludicrous. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:



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:



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:



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:



Redirection has been used in place of merging
1) Many recent merges in this case have been conducted as simple bulk redirects of articles to a parent list article, with little or no effort made to transfer information from the redirected articles, a practice that has been called "soft deletion" by its critics.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * I basically agree, but I don't believe this was done to mislead anyone. We often say "merge" for an AfD, then redirect an article, then evaluate it's contents. Sometimes we don't see anything worth keeping, sometimes we thought someone else was going to do the merging, sometimes the content is already in the other article. With that in mind, I can see how it got used for these redirects that TTN and others (including myself) made. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree. True in some cases, but most redirecting involves changing the target to a merged list of episodes/characters where there is a summary of the article content in the merged list. This is effectively merging, and the most logical method of dealing with non-encyclopedic articles where they are mentioned elsewhere.  BLACK KITE  14:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed, regards the tendency to mass-redirect an entire category of articles without any data transfer while calling it a "merge." Rdfox 76 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. You hit the nail on the head as it were. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is clearly true, but I'm not sure that it's entirely relevant. The amount of usable material in an article varies all the way from 0-100% and so the proper merge does too. Copying and pasting whole articles is rarely the best way to merge them, especially into an already existing article. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In many cases of redirection, no claim of merge was made. In the case of non-notable material, a merge is unwarranted. I believe that the onus is on interested editors to find what they want to merge in a redirect's history and to incorporate it into the merge target (or somewhere else) while addressing issues such as notability-establishment in the process (i.e. after they find good sources). --Jack Merridew 09:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, TTN is acting far too hastily for interested editors to have a chance to merge the article. Most "interested editors" are much less experienced than us, they can easily miss the "Redirected from" message and assume the article has been deleted. Astronaut (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See templates such as ER to list entry; mechanisms to keep track of content behind a redirect are available. It will take time for sources to be found and there is no deadline — as long as people don't force things to take the AfD route, a merge can anytime in the future. --Jack Merridew 14:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I believe the onus is on the merging editor to make a good-faith effort to actually merge the articles. If the merging editor doesn't feel up to it, the relevant WikiProjects could be asked for assistance and the redirect done after there has been response. If they truly find nothing worth merging, a statement to that effect on the appropriate talk pages requesting a second look would not be out of place. Anomie⚔ 14:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support --User: (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, clearly demonstrated by pschemp's evidence. - PeaceNT (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This is where many the problems are stemming from. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Other homes for the disputed material exist
2) Articles regarding fictional topics that are not appropriate for Wikipedia may nonetheless be acceptable on other GFDL-compatible Wikis, including the Wikipedia Annex.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * I certainly want to encourage the advice here and in, but I'm not sure it's arbcom's place to say it, nor is it really central to the issue of force being used. -- Ned Scott 08:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose sort of irrelevant to the discussion at hand really. There is the whole internet which can accommodate all sorts of information too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed, pursuant to my remedy proposal below. If Wikia isn't actually on WMF servers, feel free to change that. Rdfox 76 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not, so I changed it. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose — per COI noted below in remedies. --Jack Merridew 08:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, clearly true, but not clearly useful to the case at hand. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:43, 25 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.

Transwiki prior to redirect/merge
1) Editors are strongly encouraged to transwiki articles to either the Wikipedia Annex or an appropriate fandom-based Wiki (e.g., Wookiepedia for Star Wars-related articles) prior to conducting a merge that results in a significant amount of article content not being transferred to the merged page, and to include an InterWiki link to the transwikied article in the merged result.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * See my comment in the above section. . -- Ned Scott 08:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, if it hasn't been done already (many of the articles being discussed here have already been dealt with, i.e. Scrubs Wikia).  BLACK KITE  14:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed; very often, I've seen people suggest that articles would be better suited to the Annex or a fan-wiki, but refuse to do anything to assist in transwiki-ing them over to it prior to a bulk-redirect/merge. Rdfox 76 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * weak oppose simply for the current wording. A small number of editors take issue with the automatic emphasis on the Annex or other wikia based wikis. This also has the effect of de-emphasising other, more appropriate wikis. There is also an implied greater quality to wikipedia content than existing coverage on the most appropriate external wiki. With an alternative wording taking these factors into account, such a proposal would have my full and strong support. LinaMishima (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Would simply swapping the order of the Annex and the fanWikis help, putting more emphasis on the fandom wikis? I also could see adding a note that the Annex should only be used if there's not an appropriate fanwiki available. (I used Wookiepedia as my example simply because it's arguably the best-known fanwiki, not because it's hosted by Wikia.) This is my first time making a proposal in an ArbCom case, so I'd welcome any advice on how to make it a better one. Rdfox 76 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it has been agreed elsewhere that we need a proper, by-subject, index of external wikis, and that index should be what is referenced. The closest we currently have is the Interwiki map. This suggested approach to the problem has the general support of those who are less keen on Annex, and generally seems to be the emerging consensus on WP:EPISODE on how to handle talk of external wikis. Sadly, the current lack of an appropriate page makes suggesting a good rewording hard. I would suggest "to an appropriate external interwiki or, if such a destination cannot be identified, the wikipedia Annex". LinaMishima (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * oppose wikipedia is not in the business of activly supporting outside comercial projects.Geni 00:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a number of external wikis that are considered non-commercial and/or non-profit. -- Ned Scott 08:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * wikia isn't one of them.Geni 21:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ................. Yeah, I know, that's why I made my reply to you. It was to note that there are other wiki farms and sites in addition to Wikia. -- Ned Scott 06:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Our goal is to support free content. If the content in question isn't suitable for Wikipedia, then it should be moved to another wiki where it is appropriate. <font color="#11A"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 07:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose — This non-profit site can not make a ruling mandating (or "strongly encouraging") support for commercial entities such as Wikia. Major COI, for the tin-god-king. --Jack Merridew 08:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether the sites are run by Wikia or some other entity is irrelevant. What matters is whether they support free content, which is the primary goal of the Foundation. <font color="#11A"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 09:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mebbe. I still believe building-in support for Jimmy's other pocket is a problem. I have a follow-up, below. --Jack Merridew 09:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just where is that statement of WMF's primary goal? To support any wiki that supports free content of any nature?. A free content child-porn wiki? A free content wiki on how to write a computer virus or develop weapons of mass destruction? The licensing allows many to have the content from here, but all that means is that they can come and get it. Even if the goal were truly that broad, editors here should not be compelled to support other sites. --Jack Merridew 11:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the WMF. The reason we mention 3rd party sites is because editors here wish to support them as a solution that helps both sites. -- Ned Scott 01:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My concern is that an AC statement to this effect amounts to the WMF telling editors to support whatever other sites. I would be interested in a proposal from you on this issue, but I see this as something for a page outside this case. --Jack Merridew 10:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, which is also why I don't directly support these proposals as written. I'll try to get a proposal put together, something that doesn't mention anyone specifically, and is just a "general, non mandatory advice" kind of thing. -- Ned Scott 00:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * additional comment: The burden of transwiki-ing needs to fall on those editors who wish to preserve whatever content has been found wanting. I will not work to recycle unencyclopaedic content. nb: transfer can occur after a redirect; content is in history. --Jack Merridew 09:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "...content is in history." is true, unless TTN has moved on to plan-B - which appears to be AfD the articles instead (as in this example) Astronaut (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It would appear that in your example a reasonable redirect was made and reverted so it was taken to AfD — so if the content is lost due to AfD isn't it really the fault of those who would not let the redirect stick? --Jack Merridew 09:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The redirect may have been reasonable, but when his redirect was reverted, TTN repeatedly imposed his redirect and then finally took it to AfD, instead of discussing and seeking consensus. It is the methods used by TTN that are at fault and that is what we are discussing here. Astronaut (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And the content may be inappropriate for inclusion and thus should be removed; if the redirect is not allowed, then AfD is a reasonable next step to seek in an attempt to remove unencyclopaedic content. --Jack Merridew 11:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Whilst in this case, the content may be inappropriate and a redirect may be a reasonable action to have taken, we are not discussing article content here. I gave an example of TTN using AfD as an alternative to redirecting simply to illustrate that content could be lost, preventing an effective transwiki-ing. Astronaut (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Content is lost (deleted) everyday; a fair amount of it. I guess the thrust of what I am say is that it is more important to remove unencyclopaedic content than it is to move it off-site. We are talking about article content here; i.e. what to do with content to be redirected and/or merged. Editors interested in this site may have no concern about the loss of unencyclopaedic content — I don't.
 * This whole proposal is flawed for another reason: it says to give a link to the merged off-site article, not just to the Wikia Annex; this assumes you've gone over to Wikia and gotten the content further along than the annex and into an article (and the link, which will not have a <tt>rel="nofollow"</tt> gives a nice PageRank boost to whomever). Transwiki-ing is entirly optional and editors are free to ignore it. --Jack Merridew 12:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why is more important to remove unencyclopedic content now, right now, immediately, and without discussion or consensus. What is the big rush? Surely a better way of going about this is to propose a merge, discuss the merge, come to consensus, then (and only then) either improve the article, merge the article, transwiki the article, or delete the article. Astronaut (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We do not have a date to figure out how to deal with such content, however, now that the issue has been brought to the forefront from TTN's actions from mid-last year, the fact that this stuff exists (whether it should or shouldn't be included) has been brought to the surface and it is not going away until we make decisions and take the steps to handle it. Otherwise, we'll simply pass some restriction on TTN, and when the next so-mind editor comes along, we'll have to restart the entire process. We need to make the decisions on what are notable episodes and characters, how to appropriately handle those not notable, and actually going through to deal with such articles so that we cannot be claimed to have a systematic bias against such articles. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 21:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Masem seems to have addressed Astronaut's comment well enough, so I'll just add that much of the issue is one of scale: there are many tens of thousand of unencyclopaedic articles on this site; I'd be surprised if they number less than several hundred thousand. You do not clean the Augean stables with a teaspoon. --Jack Merridew 10:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  /* re non-commercial fan-wikis */  — Why should an editor interested in encyclopaedic material bother with unencyclopaedic material in any way other than to seek its removal from this site? --Jack Merridew 09:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't. There is no requirement here, and I completely agree with you that those who wish to save such content need to do so themselves. I don't think the idea here is to require anyone here to do something they don't wish to do in order to remove content that shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Maybe I'll propose my own wording on this and see if I can address some of your concerns. -- Ned Scott 01:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mostly replied elsewhere, but please do propose something. --Jack Merridew 10:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A general comment, I don't know how much Jimbo makes off of Wikia, but here's some food for thought. Jimbo made some websites long long ago before anyone outside of Hawaii knew what wiki meant. He used the money he made there to funded Wikipedia and our predecessor, Nupedia. If he didn't make profit making websites, we wouldn't be here. If Jimbo is making money off of all this, it's because he's good at his job and he set up a good site with Wikia. I really don't think his relationship with Wikipedia increases or deceases that significantly. -- Ned Scott 06:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Official oppose. Do NOT advertise 3rd party sites even if it is wikia per Spam. -- Cat chi? 07:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Empty threat based on a twisted interpretation of WP:SPAM? I think so. -- Ned Scott 07:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you see a threat here your fundamental approach is unworkable. Advertising of third party sites are strictly prohibited. WP:AGF. -- Cat chi? 19:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No they're not. Stop pulling non-existent rules out of your rear. There is no policy that prohibits cross-wiki collaboration. In fact, I'm working on starting a WikiProject that does just that. -- Ned Scott 01:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Official? --Jack Merridew 09:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki prior to redirect/merge (Mark Two)
1.1) Editors are encouraged to transwiki articles to an appropriate GFDL-compatible, fandom-based Wiki (for example, Wookiepedia for Star Wars-related material), or, if an appropriate fanWiki cannot be found, the Wikipedia Annex, prior to any merger or redirection, and to include a link to the transwikied article on the discussion page of the merged article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed, alternate wording of 1, above, intended to address concerns mentioned regarding it. Personally, I don't see any CoI in using Wookiepedia as an example, or in linking to the Annex in such a decision; presumably, none of us are Jimbo and thus none of us are getting any money from the ads on Wikia, and if we're gonna tell people to use alternative Wikis for expanded material not accepted on Wikipedia, it's a good idea to let them know where the hell they are so that they CAN use them. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki is available to interested editors. The AC has no business telling editors here to go support other sites.
 * Why should an editor interested in encyclopaedic material bother with unencyclopaedic material in any way other than to seek its removal from this site?
 * --Jack Merridew 14:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't believe that is the intent here. -- Ned Scott 01:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that, but is an implied side-effect. Transwiki-ing is entirely optional and something interested editors are welcome to exert effort at. --Jack Merridew 09:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should an editor interested...? - because simply removing it without any discussion what so ever creates an undesirable level of conflict, edit wars, AfD discussion, accusations of bad faith, wikilawyering and endless discussion here. Astronaut (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about removing anything wo/discussion. Are you saying that because editors are adding <u style="font-variant: small-caps;">unencyclopaedic content to this site (that is inappropriate for this site) that editors such as myself who have no interest in such content should go figure out what a Wookiepedia is and become enough of a Wookiepedian to be able to move a bit of shite such as Grooming a Wookie to that fan site before redirecting it to Wookie here? Thanks, no. --Jack Merridew 09:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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:



Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for an encyclopedia
1) Encyclopedias use a combination of both primary and secondary sources.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Support, and WP:PSTS echoes this. --Pixelface (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. A misguided handful seem to have this notion that topics must have secondary coverage to be considered notable; however, even paper encyclopedias use primary evidence on occasion. Denis Diderot wrote, "the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe." He did not write, "but only knowledge covered in a number of secondary sources." Instead, the fact of that matter is that something can be notable and therefore encyclopedic even by paper encyclopedias' standards without having easily found secondary sources. If someone does a Google search and something gets thousands of hits, then it is indeed notable and if we only have primary evidence to go by, then that is what an encyclopediast by even the original definition will use to create his/her article. Moreover, the assumption that secondary sources are somehow more reliable than primary sources is also problematic. Many would consider say The New York Times as a reliable source, and yet we have such instances as this incident to consider. When I prepared for my doctoral comprehensive exams, I came across numerous published books by professional and reputable scholars with all sorts of errors, some astonishing publishing errors such as the occasional upside down page, but even contradictory evidence (for example, one book had two separate dates given for the death of Empress Josephine of the French at two different places in the books). In any event, the oft-repeated lines by the same handful of editors (typically those using Twinkle to mass nominate articles ofr deletions with few other contributions to the project) seen in AfDs denouncing articles that rely on primary evidence when the original Britannica article on California say used primary evidence until secondary sources became available. The authors of those paper encyclopedias in Britain and France recognized that topics oculd have importance and encyclopedic value even without volumes and volumes of scholarship on them. Similarly, television episodes, most of which will at least have published TV guide or Entertainment Weekly references, have enough reliable sources to and a large enough viewership to justify their inclusion. Video game characters known to millions of game players around the world that may not be the subject of a dissertation today, but are also at least covered in published strategy guides or are referenced in video game magazines or parodied on X-Play are obviously notable enough to mention. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Opposed - First, there is nothing wrong with using primary sources in conjunction with secondary sources to provide appropriate references and sourcing for an article, and in fact is necessary at times to use primary sources to fully cover a topic in addition to secondary sources. However, a topic cannot be only supported by primary information; this leads to breaking Verifiability, which requires reliable third-party sources to validate information in a topic. (Notability, in turn, uses this concept to determine which topics are appropriate for inclusion in WP). --M<font size="-3">ASEM 00:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unclear. This argument seems to me to be diffuse. Is it about errors, notability via secondary sources, or an argument of implied notability from a "preponderance of evidence". I might be inclined to support a "preponderance of evidence" argument. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would say that preponderance of evidence is part of my argument in that sometimes one primary source is more accurate than multiple secondary sources. The main point is that a handful of editors claim that articles composed of primary evidence are somehow unencyclopedic when historically many a good encyclopedia had articles written entirely based on primary evidence. To restrict articles by requiring third-party sources in all cases is not consistent with the tradition established by encyclopediasts throughout history. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 00:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant. Let me give an example; not too long ago, Gavin.collins asked me for a sanity check on Amarillo Design Bureau, a weakly-sourced article, with a mix of primary and secondary sources. Gavin was arguing that it failed WP:CORP, but I felt that it was asymptotically notable because it approached but did not meet the various guidelines for notability, and so it should be retained. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose as intended, even though I support the letter of it. Articles certainly can and frequently should use primary sources, however, no article should be derived primarily from primary sources. Violates WP:V and WP:SELFPUB.Kww (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that WP:V itself is revised fairly constantly, even by some of the editors participating in this discussion, so the main thing we want to avoid is needlessly deleting material when consensus changes constantly on certain policies. The safest bet would therefore be to keep the articles and tag them in a manner that lets readers know that the articles is currently based upon primary evidence until secondary sources can be added. Again, if you check what the Encyclopediasts did during the Enlightenment versus the later editions of the encylopedias, you'll find articles based entirely based on primary evidence available of the time that evolved to include secondary evidence as it becomes available. In our non-paper format, we can afford to have articles on episodes and characters that are clearly notable to millions of viewers/readers and thousands of editors willing to work on articles about them. Then, over time as secondary evidence becomes available, we can have the articles evolve accordingly. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 00:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I support this as worded, but not as intended. We can and do use primary sources for some things (such as a direct quote from a person in his or her biography), this is of course fine so long as done cautiously. On the other hand, we should not have articles based solely on primary sources. To do so even contradicts a core policy, verifiability. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that so many of these polices are themselves constantly edited and therefore various aspects of them do not have consensus among the larger community. Plus, it is historically fine for encyclopedias to base articles on primary evidence until secondary sources are available.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem who nailed it. Kww and Seraphimblade are spot-on, too. --Jack Merridew 10:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem. His oppose is actually an argument for support the proposal as written, andthen adding somethign additional. As usual, i think his actual intentions are quite reasonable. DGG (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Support in the sense that I recently edited an article about a TV show which had a misstatement of fact about what the program's intro showed every week. I had the DVD of the series, and I consider the DVD to be a document which anyone can consult, with respect to the plain fact of the text to be corrected. I absolutely do not think that I have to go out and find a book, newspaper, or magazine to tell me what I or anyone else can see. But the use of primary sources in addition to secondary sources does not mean that primary sources establish notability. There are primary sources proving that my Great Uncle fought in World War 1, but that does not mean he is entitled to an encyclopedia article. The mere existence of a TV show, movie, or video game does not prove that it should have an encyclopedia article, but it can be used a a source for plain facts of what goes on in it once notability is established by secondary sources. Edison (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support in the sense that I am unsure how on earth anyone can oppose the text and maintain that primary sources are acceptable since the two positions seem to contradict. What I would question is the relevancy. This case isn't about sourcing, merging or anything else.  It's about the behaviour of editors who refuse to engage and work together in a collaborative attempt to build an encyclopedia.  Hiding T 16:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability is inherited
2) Notability can be inherited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Oppose Wikipedia doesn't use the normal definition of "notability". What is notable in Wikipedia is what as sources. For fiction we have an additional criteria, that the topics and subtopics should contain real world context, and not solely be a recap of the plot. Articles on fiction cannot have "inherited notability", assuming "notability" is being defined the factors we use to create individual articles for subtopics of fiction. -- Ned Scott 04:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we do not have a consensus by any means of what is and is not notable. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 04:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, ignoring that we do have consensus for some of our inclusion criteria, such as what I just pointed out, if what you just said is true, then wouldn't you be opposing your own proposal? You have proposed that "Notability is inherited" but you've just said "The problem is that we do not have a consensus by any means of what is and is not notable". -- Ned Scott 05:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We do not have consensus that notability is not inherited. A fraction of editors who wrote a page claiming that may think so, but as far as I can tell the larger community does not agree. By the way, I may be logging off for a few hours as my back is starting to hurt pretty bad again. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 05:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this supposed to be.. ironic.. or something? -- Ned Scott 00:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it just demonstrates that others agree that in some instances notability is inherited. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh. I thought you were citing the over-all AfD. -- Ned Scott 00:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. Even if Napoleon II died young, as he did, and never conquered anywhere, as he did not, there is still an encyclopedic interest in him, because he is the son of Napoleon I. Thus, even if people who are not fans of Star Wars could care less about some of the expanded universe figures, the son or daughter or Leia and Han, two of the most widely known figures in modern popular culture, are indeed notable if for nothing else than their close relationship to their fictional parents. The same can be applied to episodes. Consider how many conversations you have with individuals who cite an anecdote from an episode (or an article in a magazine). Yes, by citing that anecdote, they are actively demonstrating the notability of the show, but they are also demonstrating the notability of the episode in its own right. Episodes seen by millions of viewers that are part of a notable series do inherit some of that notability or at least enough of it where readers will come to a site like Wikipedia looking for information and where thousands of editors will devote their volunteer time to providing such readers with useful (by the way, the essay that says "It's useful" is a week guidance misses the point of an encyclopedia, i.e. what is a reference guide? Well, it's useful is one of its reasons for existing...) reference. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is about as content decision as it gets. The ArbCom has deemed content decisions as without their remit. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Repeat after me, ArbCom doesn't do content decisions. The decision on this belongs to the community. (Besides, this could be taken to any arbitrary level of silliness. Humanity is clearly notable, so is every human by inheritance?) Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not exactly a good analogy (humanity to human), in that a fictional character with appearances in games, movies, comics, etc. can be recognizable to thousands or millions of humans as can an episode of a show, whereas one human may not have such widespread recognition. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not by tv episode and character articles and not by others. An old canard. --Jack Merridew 10:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * support at least in some circumstances. This is one of the general rules that can indeed be used to apply to anything regardless of appropriateness. It is fortunately being dealt with in this instance by MASEM' proposals about treating character and plot articles as subarticles under summary style. What we really are dealing with is the encyclopedic suitability of a subject. How we hadle aspects of it is not a matter of the independent notability. There is such a thing as dependent notability. DGG (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose The immediate ancestors of a notable person might have had some influence on his upbringing, but his distant ancestors and his descendants belong in a genealogical site such as Ancestry.com and not in an encyclopedia, unless they themselves are independently notable. As for the topic of this arbcom, if the character in a game or fictional work oer an episode of the show is familiar to millions, then chances are some reliable source has noted that fact, so find the ref and WP:N is satisfied. Edison (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose as content decision.  Kamek  (Koopa wizard!) 20:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. While there is no guideline saying notability is not inherited (a pity), there is a strong history that the larger community feels notability is not automatically inherited. Try writing an article on an actor whose only role was in a crowd scene in a famous movie and see how fast that gets shot down. (Yes, I realize the wording here is "can be", but the problem becomes when is it inherited and when isn't it? The easier solution is that articles must stand on their own.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is that we definitely do not have consensus that notability is not inherited. While some think that to be the case, a good deal of us believe the opposite, especially in the sense of when we approach certain articles as sub-articles of a larger article. While a background extra who appears in one movie may not inherit notability, which is why I do write "can be", a major or memorable character or episode that is part of a larger work or works of fiction can and in a manner that makes individual articles work better than one giant article. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 21:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem then, like anything else, is that once that boundary is overstepped, anything goes. I think anyone would agree that splitting out parts of what would be over-ambitious articles is fine, but do we need 100 articles on Naruto?  Or 1,000 articles on Star Wars and its offshoots?  Because that's what we've got...  Black Kite  19:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If some element of our readership believes such articles notable and Wikipedia a useful reference for them and we have contributors willing to work on these articles, I see no reason why a paperless encyclopedia that contains elements of specialized encylopedias should not contain such articles. The Star Wars articles are consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Star Wars.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Some element of our readership believing such articles are notable" is not any sort of reason for having such articles, per our policies. In fact, it is a recipe for utter and complete anarchy, because it could then be argued that any article, on any subject, could be notable. Incidentally, a specialised wiki for Star Trek already exists.  It is not the place of Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, to replicate that.  Black Kite  21:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But only some element of our editors find these articles problematic, which is why we shouldn't favor a minority to exclude good faith contributors or alienate our readership and diminish our value as a comprehensive reference tool. If the Five pillars asserts that Wikipedia is also a specialized encyclopedia and their are PUBLISHED encyclopedias dedicated solely to Star Wars, then articles on Star Wars are consistent with one our most important policies and is this very much makes Wikipedia the place to replicate such specialized encyclopedic content.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you wish to rewrite our policies on notability so that anything that anyone finds notable is acceptable, I don't think this is the venue.  Black Kite  00:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no need to do so, because articles on episodes and characters already pass our policies as to subarticles on aspects of Star Wars that are consistent with specialized encyclopedias per our Five pillars policies. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop misrepresenting WP:5P, which states that Wikipedia may contain elements of a specialised encyclopedia, not that it should replicate the function of one.  Black Kite  00:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "may contain elements of a specizlied encyclopedia" is consistent with containing actual articles that do appear in published specialized encyclopedias on such things as Star Wars. There is no reasonable reason to alienate segments of our readership, diminish our overall value as reference guide, or force contributors to only work on a minimal amount of articles that a different segment of the community believes to be "encyclopedic".  If we actually had overwhelming consensus that such articles are not Wikipedic, we would not have an arbitration case of this manner in which admins and established editors alike have argued that such articles violate no policies or guidelines.  I do not agree with any elitist approach to an online encyclopedia.  Moreover, we should not by contrast just replicate Britannica.  What makes Wikipedia unique and worthwhile is exactly because we can afford go further than any other encyclopedia ever has.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Can you explain what you mean by "elitist"?  Black Kite  01:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The implication by a few that articles on popular culture, which the masses find important and relevant, are somehow not worthy in an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit and that contains elements of specialized encyclopedias and almanacs, when both specialized encyclopedias and almanacs cover such topics. Almanacs list for example notable episodes of shows and specialized encylopedias are devoted to such topics as Star Wars.  Telling hundreds if not thousands of editors that what they in good faith believe to be Wikipedic is not and taking a much more limited approach to our project is consistent with an elitist mentality, i.e. that are purpose is not to benefit the "masses."  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "The masses"??! So you are basically saying that most Wikipedia editors are interested in nothing but popular culture? Don't you think that's incredibly patronising?  Black Kite  01:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think telling a large number of our editors and readers that what they find interesting and useful here is incredibly belittling. We have masses of editors who are interested in various topics.  Those interested in popular culture, whatever percentage they may be, should not be discriminated against or looked down upon.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's "looking down" on anyone here. The fact that popular culture articles constantly fall foul of our inclusion policies is hardly the fault of anyone except those that write the articles.  It's not an inherent bias against them - have a look at a typical day's AfD list to see that articles are nominated from every category, not just that one.  Black Kite  01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This case is not about those who nominate non-popular culture articles for deletion, but a handful of editors who overwhelmingly nominate popular culture articles for deletion and then say they'll "educate people, persuade them if possible and force them if necessary" to see their side of things, express a desire to avoid appeasing "the many," or insult editors who helped improve an article that other editors suggested could be a Good Article and that is currently rated A-class. If anyone is concerned that these articles do not quite meet some editors' interpretations of our inclusion policies, then I strongly urge them to help improve and reference these articles.  I have helped editors references many an article that I have no personal interest in, just because I believe in their right to work on such material and because I like helping people.  I do not like excluding people.  Myself and many others actually come to non-popular culture articles frequently through the internal links of popular culture articles.  How many times have I looked up an article on say God of War only to then go to the articles on Greek history or mythology to learn something new or notice something on those articles that I can help improve?  Many of my students have come up to me before or after class saying "Hey, while looking up X popular culture item, I saw an internal link about some topic we covered in class," which is more often the case than one may suspect as so much from popular culture alludes to the past.  Thus, popular culture articles serve as an outstanding portal through which readers can disover other non-popular culture topics and provide a possibility for editors to find other articles that you may find more "encyclopedic" to then improve.  If we just delete these non-hoax, non-personal attack articles, we don't magically improve other articles and if anything may wind up turning off readers or annoying editors.  I see no benefit from not having such articles, but I do so plenty of missed opportunities or negative consequences.  By the way, I am feeling pretty intense back pain at the moment, so may not be able to keep up the discussion much longer.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's 2am here too. I understand your point, and obviously a lot of popular culture is notable (even very important), but there do need to be limits to the extent in which subjects are covered, which is why I think NOTINHERITED is important. An example - seriously, do we need 100 articles about a single manga series - couldn't it be covered just as well in 20 better-written articles? Not to mention that it'd be easier for the casual reader to navigate?  Black Kite  02:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I apologize if my typing is off at all tonight, but my back is really hurting and I don't like not responding to people as I believe it important to extend the respect and courtesy of a reply whenever possible. Anyway, I suppose it depends on the length of the articles.  Some short articles for minor or one time characters or "special powers" probably could be merged into longer or better written main articles, but unless we have server space issues, I don't think it's that big of a deal if we have a bunch of stubs.  I like Wikipedia, because it has a real potential to catalog an extraordinary and unprecedented amount of human knowledge, which as a teacher and researcher I honestly believes serves a realy beneficial purpose for humanity in general.  I don't know how important any particular manga might be now, but who knows, maybe somewhere along the way it will serve a real valuable purpose and information on it is worthwhile to have.  One thing I am wondering and am not sure where to ask (I for one would certainly not claim to have all the answers) is if Wikipedia has any target audience?  I always thought of Compton's Encyclopedia as being a high school encyclopedia and Britannica as the college encyclopedia.  I know Wikipedia is not censored, but do we have any policy on our target audience (age or academic level)?  If we do, then that could have some influence on what I would agree is or is not appropriate.  Thanks if you know!  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not something I've thought about particularly, but I'd guess that Wikipedia's ideal target group is universal - everyone. I'd just like to clarify something about the example I gave, too - I'd also hazard that 20 articles are better than 100 because they're more likely to be maintained in good condition - there are hundreds, if not thousands, of permastubs out there that have been created and never worked on, and they deteriorate into poor articles (look at Category:Universal Century mobile suits for an example - by the way, I thought Naruto was bad - there are over 500 Gundam articles!)  By the way, I'm going to bed now, so give your back a rest and don't feel you have to reply tonight!  Black Kite  02:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many editors we gain each day, but I welcome new users here and there seems to be an endless flow of new users, which means that if we're around for a while, there is a real potetial for new editors to come along to improve articles eventually. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I usually argue that notability is not inherited (there is even a link for that, WP:NOTINHERITED). Besides, this is seems like an attempt to get the ArbCom to create policy, which is something ArbCom doesn't do.  As an aside, the the article that is asserted as inherting notability,(Al Gore III), has been deleted.  --Phirazo 18:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in that link, which is only an essay and NOT a policy nor even a guideline, that is convincing or persuasive that notability is not inherited. I see much more reasoned argument for it being inherited in the manner of sub articles and as for the Al Gore III article, I think the decision was wrong and that it should have been closed as a no consensus, because there was determined rationales for it to be kept.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions has a fairly strong consensus on AfD. I also think the subject of this arbitration (i.e. episode articles) pushes the sub-article concept too far, and I think asking for individual episode articles to be notable is not unreasonable.  At the end of the day, "notability is inherited" is an excuse for sub-par articles with no secondary sources, and Wikipedia articles shouldn't need excuses. --Phirazo 19:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What they need are more editors who actually help find sources for the articles than just nominate them for deletion and/or vote in AfDs. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that editors should try to find sources whenever possible. What I am saying is that episode articles without sources (as is usually the case) should not be kept only on an argument of "inherited notability", but the basis of reliable, secondary sources.  "Episode X inherits notability from series Y" is all too often used to escape the requirements of notability, especially in cases where the primary source is the only one. --Phirazo 23:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Episodes articles without secondary should be kept so that other editors have an opportunity to find and add sources rather than just starting the article all over. Original analysis can be removed without deleting the whole article.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Another factor in this is if the summary of a given article is worth saving. Many of these articles contain near-identical summaries that are also shown in the LOEs, or that require rewrites even if they were to be kept, etc. I also think we're really going to explore this "season article" concept more, in that it would allow a bit more summary than if the episode entry was on a single LOE, so there will be less trimming. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't support defanging Verifiability and Notability in this way. Verifiability and notability mean nothing if articles that don't meet those standards are allowed to be kept.  If a TV episode becomes notable, then an admin can restore the article if deleted, and a TTN-style redirect can be restored by anyone.  --Phirazo 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can support doing that as we should allow editors a reasonable ability to add the sources once they are found. If an article is deleted, then any editor attempting to add sources will have to contend with a deletion review and pile on votes by "deletionists".  I have managed to get many articles kept in AfDs by finding sources, but a handful of editors who never want to keep anything still vote to delete even in complete dismissal of published sources.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * but a handful of editors who never want to keep anything still vote to delete even in complete dismissal of published sources. - I could state the same in a different light: but a handful of editors who never want to delete anything still vote to keep even in complete dismissal of the non-existance of published sources. WP:BURDEN (policy) is quite clear what to do in such a case, but for reasons I can only guess, some fiction editors believe this policy does not apply to their articles. Having said that, I've had one of my fiction articles AfDed while I was busy with the FAC of the main article, and I also had the pleasure of bureaucratic deletion review twice. But that doesn't mean that my AfDed article and the other two weren't really bad when they were brought up at AfD, and they should have been deleted / stayed deleted if I hadn't volunteered to bring them up to speed. – sgeureka t•c 19:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It goes to show that the article should not have been brought of for deletion and instead you should have been given more time to finish working on the article. We don't have some timeline and articles will be improved if allowed to exist as editors come along and provide references and expand them over time.  Making editors have to start all over does not help.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Give how much time? Infinitely? I tried Newpages patrol once, and you'd be surprised on what notability claims fiction-related articles pass the patrol as compared to non-fiction articles. I'd say part of the current mess (or whatever we want to call it) is that people defend fiction-related articles because of the potential (which is silly since even Spoo had potential) when the harsh wiki-reality is that an article needs to have its notability established at the point of article creation or shortly afterwards, not after months or years when an "unexpected" AfD threatens it. In the meantime, WP:SS assures that less-notable elements can be spun-out into their own articles if the interest in encyclopedic editing is there. But this has nothing to do with inherited notability but summary style. – sgeureka t•c 21:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If we expect Wikipedia to be around for a long time and the article is clearly not a hoax, personal attack, or copy vio, then we should give it unlimited amount of time to be improved. If we keep tags on it until it is improved, then readers will know what to take and what not to from the article.  What concerns me most is when interest in encyclopedic editing is indeed there and editors who know nothing about or outright do not like the topic attempt to get it deleted especially in the naive hope that doing so will force the editors to instead focus on articles the AfD nominator likes.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: your first sentence - let's agree to disagree, as I see trimming/removing the policy violations, merging the rest if it isn't already in the main article, and redirecting the article as it is duplicate to the main article, as improvement, which you (this is not intended as a sarcastic attack) probably don't see this way. – sgeureka t•c 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles composed entirely of primary sources are not necessarily "original" research
1) In over two hundred years of academic and encyclopedic tradition, primary sources are sometimes the only sources available to cover a topic and present information. So long as these sources are used to state facts and not to make an argument or present a thesis, their used does not represent "original" research.  All articles on an encyclopedia are written from research, but what makes "original" research is the existence of an authorial point or argument, not the nature of the or type of sources used.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Oppose This is not the venue to rewrite policy (WP:V) or guidelines that have community support (WP:RS).  Black Kite  00:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not proposed as a rewrite of policy, but a statement of fact regarding academic and encyclopedic traditions. Also, a number of guidelines and polcies do not have full community support.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles sourced only by primary sources fail WP:V. Again, if you wish to change Wikipedia policy, this is not the venue to do it.  Also, the quote you linked doesn't mention policy, only guidelines, and if you read that editor's userpage you will see that he doesn't believe that policy should be overridden.  Black Kite  00:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As Wikipedia does not have a dealine, we can have stubs based on primary sources temporarily while we allow editors time to add secondary sources. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, so in other words, this is another attempt to end-run round policy by saying "we must keep this article despite the fact it fails WP:V, as secondary sources might possibly exist"?  Black Kite  01:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Alternating or misrepresenting my words does not parallel my meaning. What I am saying is that we should allow editors a realistic opportunity to search for such sources before prematurely deleting an article.  And this is case is not so much about policy as it is about behavior and in that regards the complaint so many have is that the handful or hardcore redirectionists and deletionists rather than aid in the effort to find sources needlessly nominate articles for deletion when lo and behold sources end up being found during the discussion or that such editors hover around AfDs piling on delete votes while others work on writing and referencing articles.  Some may in good faith believe in Wikipedia as a Britannica mirror, but others adopt a holier than thou, paternalistic tone and undertake unilateral actions that offend many editors and that is why we are having this case, over the behavior, not the content.  I have disgareed with plenty of editors about the value of articles (including ones that I actually argued to delete; for examples, I got emails from editors who wanted me to vote to keep the adult child sex article that I argued to delete), but have remained civil and respectful with them.  By contrast some of the involved parties in this case have extended no such courtesy or open-mindedness to myself and others.  Instead they talk down to us without acknowledging that if so many feel a certain way, then maybe we really don't have a consensus on certain things.  I do see no reason why we all should not be able to cooperatively either help each other improve articles or at least allow editors that chance to improve articles with frustrating their good faith efforts.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I think you're missing the point here. The problem is that when you argue for the shoehorning into Wikipedia of many reasons not to delete articles on a good-faith basis, you also open the door for the retention of such articles on a bad-faith basis. Like it or not, there is a significant measure of opinion that Wikipedia is slowly drowning under the weight of trivia and pop culture articles (not to mention unfree images and media), and that we should be tightening our notability and inclusion guidelines rather than inventing loopholes whereby borderline articles can gain a reprieve until they pass policy. This isn't a deletionist viewpoint - in most cases it is obvious whether an article is capable of being sourced properly, or if it is never going to be anything more than self-referential. It needs to be clear-cut (a) this article meets our policies - Keep, or (b) this article doesn't meet our policies - Delete. Much of this RfAR has been caused by the fact that multiple editors are attempting to wikilawyer their way round what should be a fairly simple process.  Black Kite  01:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also a significant opinion that we should not limit our inclusion policy. I whole heartedly believe that articles should be sourced properly, and I would prefer secondary sources, but sometimes they are not always possible, but we have enough primary evidence to suggest notability that we should allow a reasonable amount of time for editors to find such sources.  I have come across and added sources to history articles over a year old that cover battles or events of series historic consequence and it would have been a shame had they been deleted before I happened upon them and was able to add the source.  Articles that obviously do not meet our policies are not controversial.  I argued to delete in Articles for deletion/Treaty of Hiroshima as my sole AfD participation for the 25th, but even then, I took time to search for sources rather that just seeing the snowballing and adding a "per nom" vote.  By contrast, I see a good deal of "per nom" votes in discussions for articles that wind up survinging or editors who assert "no sources to be found", because they did not find any on Google, but I or others who can check Academic Search Primer, J-Stor, or published books are able to find sources and again the article winds up being kept.  I do not expect everyone to go out and spend time at the library who contributes here, but editors who no nothing about a topic or who outright do not like should not assume that sources must not exist or do a token search and then declare that none are to be found.  This RfAR is caused by a minority of editors who focus overwhelmingly on attempting to remove information that they apparently either do not like or do not care about or do not have expertise on and do limited in the way of helping to add or improve articles.  And then when anyone attempts to challenge them, the challengers are greeted with insults or no response at all.  This RfAR therefore is about unilateralism; not content.  What we are opposed to are those unwilling to discuss with an open-mind or unwilling to ever argue to keep anything.  Even I argue to delete articles on occasion and even those I argue to keep are usually ones for which I cam able to add at least one additional source to.  Some of those under scrutiny here almost never argue to keep anything and almost never add any sources to anything.  It would be much easier to buy that they understand our inclusion policies if we saw evidence of articles that they do find worthwhile to improve rather than only seeing article after article that they dismiss.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, and again I agree to an extent (I've also scoured for sources for articles that were about to die a messy death at AfD - some of them pop culture too!), BUT the argument is more that that.  What is the point of creating 30 articles, each of which is merely a rewrite of the plot, for each episode of that series, when the reader is far better served by initially being given a single article with a brief plot summary for each episode.  If and when those episode articles can be expanded beyond plots, then fine, let them exist and be linked, but why inconvenience the casual reader by making them click 30 times to read what happened in this series?  Black Kite  02:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that having a list of the episodes with a brief summary and an internal link to an article would be a good approach and I agree that episode articles should not just be plot summary, but with TV Guide, E Online, and Entertainment Weekly, we should have a good deal of reliable secondary sources out there to write reception sections or interviews with director's and actors for other out of universe information. I have done that with a number of video game articles as I have subscriptions to game magazines, but I wouldn't be able to do that if the stub with the plot summary was deleted before I came across the article.  Almost without doubt episodes of major shows (Lost, even American Idol) will likely have secondary source reviews or interviews that can be used to write out of universe sections on reception and so on.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I think this argument misses the mark. Episode and character episodes can only retell the plot without engaging in original research.  So while an article with only primary sources may not fail WP:OR, it does fail WP:NOT and WP:V.  Besides, editors often add their own analysis of plot, which is original research.  --Phirazo 00:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It hits the mark of scholarly, encyclopedic, and academic traditions. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How can episode articles based solely on primary sources can be more than a plot summary? --Phirazo 02:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They can provide a cast and crew list, air date, etc. Few recent episodes will not have at least some coverage in TV Guide, Entertainment Weekly, or on E Online.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why I couldn't see any use in preparing an episode article before it comes out. You wouldn't have much to work with when it comes to reliable sources UNTIL the episode had already aired unless it was something like the finale for M.A.S.H. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A cast and crew list and air date is easily coverable in "List of..." articles. Episode articles need secondary sources that can provide "real-world context and sourced analysis"(WP:NOT).  If these sources do not exist, the episode articles should be merged or deleted.  --Phirazo 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merged and redirected, maybe, but deletion, no. Deletion should be reserved for copy vios, personal attacks, and hoaxes.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Requests for arbitration is not the place to make such sweeping changes. --Phirazo 03:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a diverse community of editors
1) Wikipedia is a community-driven project in which thousands of contributors are willing to write and millions of readers worldwide are interested in varied and diverse topics. In order to retain these contributors and maintain our readership and value as a unique reference tool that "includes elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs," Wikipedia cannot have an elitist, limited, or narrow-minded scope of coverage.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles concerning episodes and characters are encyclopedic
1) 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Oppose per my statement at Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. I agree with the statement, but I disagree that it is a reason for this dispute. I believe that such articles can be (and many times are) encyclopedic. TTN seems to feel this way as well, with the evidence being in how he's handled situations relating to the Simpsons and other series that have been able to prove "reasonable potential" for most or some of their articles. -- Ned Scott 03:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem, though, is that many on TTN's side of the dispute vote (yes, the usual "per nom, nnotable, unencyclopedic cruft" pile ons I see again and again) "unencyclopedic" as their principal "reasoning" in many AfDs concerning episodes and fictional characters. Few seem to argue lack of potential at least in the AfDs I've examined or participated in.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - biggest problem is small-minded folk writing off material as not notable who have no idea of depth of scholarly material out there. I wonder if many have been to a good sized university library or conducted tertiary education-type research. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again with the content rulings. ArbCom doesn't do content rulings. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not about the content, it's about the misunderstanding of a key phrase concerning the content. --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Content issue. Besides, the word "encyclopedia" in the title of a trivia book doesn't make it one. --Phirazo 19:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If the books say it's encyclopedic, then so should we. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Fancruft puts it well: "It is of course possible to write in great detail on fiction in a way that is factually accurate, espouses the neutral point of view and is not original research, but historically, encyclopedias do this only in the context of representing critical points of view (e.g. when engaged in literary criticism)." The books listed are simply trivia books in alphabetical order.  Besides, since when has Wikipedia been defined by what other encyclopedias do?  --Phirazo 02:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cruftcruft does a much better job. The books listed are specialized encyclopedias.  Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, we are not just an encyclopedia, but also specialized encyclopedias.  Any time anyone argues that something is or is not encyclopedic is defining encyclopedic by the historic precedent of what that term entails.  Thus, as books with encyclopedia in their name have articles on certain topics, those topics are by all facts and evidence encyclopedic.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't defined by what the Encyclopædia Britannica does, so why should it be defined by the "Doctor Who Encylopedia"? --Phirazo 13:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then by that reasoning every time someone uses "unencyclopedic" as an argument, their argument is baseless. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:What Wikipedia is not is a pretty stable policy of what the wikipedia community considers "unencyclopedic", and that's also how I use the word. Plot can be encyclopedic if accompanied by non-originally-researched analysis and real-world context (WP:NOT), and part of this arbcom case is about editors' behavior when plot is not accompanied by such analysis. I love Lostpedia (a fan encyclopedia), but I would never want wikipedia to contain all the in-universe facts. For a start, just imagine the strain on dabbers trying to fit LP's John (disambiguation) into John, and readers finding what they want. Wikipedia being WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING seems like a good thought at first but is completely unmanageable. Oppose. – sgeureka t•c 19:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The solution then is to add more out of universe information and not to just toss out the whole article altogether or to assume that such information cannot be found. We have thousands of editors with more joining every day.  We may not be able to be about "everything", but we certainly can be about popular culture content that interests are readership and that clearly contributors are willing to work on.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We're going in circles. WP:BURDEN states whose responsibility it is to add more out of universe information. With proper tagging and waiting, I don't see how it's wrong to AfD articles if nothing improves. Merging or redirecting non-notability-establishing subarticles as the alternate solution seemingly creates even more controversy although nothing encyclopedic (as in, non-unencyclopedic) is lost, and the whole content is still accessible for interested editors who want to establish notability in the long run. I have yet to see TTN or others remove anything non-unencyclopedic. – sgeureka t•c 21:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a community of editors; editors should help each other out in finding sources and give editors time to find sources. I have seen plenty of editors remove items that are encyclopedic as indicated by the above selection of encyclopedias.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:BURDEN. I consider it a nice gesture if someone helps me with finding obscure sources, but if I or others can't come up with them on my/our own, there is no good reason to claim and defend an article's potential into eternity other than to keep policy- and guideline violations around forever. If this achieves anything, it just gives even more editors the idea that such violations are alright and that policies and guidelines can be ignored "just because". Your second part again refers to "encyclopedic" as defined by you, not as defined by wikipedia's restrictions. And in the end, not even sourced encyclopedic real-world information is save from being removed in GAN/FACs for various reasons. (But I am really drifting off-topic, so I'll stop here.) – sgeureka t•c 23:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * According to our main policy (Five pillars) we are a combination of specialized encyclopedia; all of those encyclopedias listed above our specialized encyclopedias. It is not just my definition.  It is encyclopedic as defined by professional writers and publishers.  We also have an ignore all rules policy as well.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose This sounds like far too broad of a license. Some characters and eoisodes are demonstrably notable: I can find multiple articles in the mainstream press which talk about them. Others are of no interest except to the most devoted trivia buff. We do not need an article about Victor (horse) who was the Lone Ranger's nephew's horse, just because he was mentioned in a notable fiction franchise.Edison (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a specialized encyclopedia. If specialized encyclopedias contain articles on these topics, then it is acceptable for Wikipedia to do so as well.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Some "Triviapedia" or Wikia may have grossly different guidelines for what is included than we do. Edison (talk) 01:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a also specialized encyclopedias and technically trivia is encyclopedic: 15,003 Answers: The Ultimate Trivia Encyclopedia, 2nd Edition, The Trivia Encyclopedia, etc. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Totally Irrelevant Pumpkin: you should remove this. It is simply not in the purview of Arbcom to offer rulings on consensus issues of content much as I would LOVE to see the day when an arbcom could bring the smackdown on all the useless detritus that proliferates here thanks to determined cruftmongers and their inclusionist freedom-fighting brethren who keep defying the Cabal's efforts to ruin Wikipedia for everybody. Eusebeus (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It hits to the core problem. If editors cannot even acknowledge that specialized encyclopedias (per the five pillars) actually do include television episodes and fictional characters (as seen in the above listed encyclopedias), then it is apparent that they do not know what they are talking about and are editing against reason.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What if arbcom decided that episode articles, video game sub-articles, and other such fancruft were generally unencyclopedic? Eusebeus (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How on earth does this "ruin Wikipedia for everybody"? (Unless you're hitting random buttom a helluva lot....). OTOH, What if arbcom decided that episode articles, video game sub-articles, and other such fancruft were generally encyclopedic? ...what if...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I give the arbitrators more credit than that as such a decision would fly in the face of reason, because the links above demonstrate that many (not just a couple) professional writers and publishers believe such topics worthy of inclusion in specialized encyclopedia. And according to our own policies we are a combination of both general encyclopedias and specialized encyclopedias. In fact we are the ultimate amalgamation of specialized encyclopedia and can do even more than what these published examples have done due to the number of editors that we have and the fact that we do not have any kind of deadline on our articles. The purpose of the above is determine if editors are making reasonable redirects and AfD nominations, not about the content itself. If editors when actually faced with a list of published (not just speculative fan sites) specialized encyclopedias and selectively dismiss one of the first lines in a core policy (the Five pillars bit about containing elements of specialized encyclopedias), then we can get at the real bases for their redirecting and AfDing: selective respect for policies, unreasonableness, and/or just outright disdain ("I don't like it") for certain topics. If it was really about verifiability and no original research, then I wouldn't be able to rescue article after article that I and others find references for during AfDs in which many editors either argue to keep or change to keep (or at least merge) after the references are found, while the same handful of editors continue to vote delete anyway. If nothing else, I can never take a made up non-word like "cruft" as a serious argument for anything.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get all that. But would you accept if arbcom ruled that such material was unencyclopedic, thereby circumscribing as a matter of course your ability to make the above argument to rouse consensus to your way of thinking (currently NOT the case I would add)? Casliber: read my comment again. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Eusebeus (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Eusebeus I was impressed at your multilingual save at Jagdschloss Glienicke and thought you may have started to reconsider that notability may be a wee bit trickier to prove than sitting on one's proverbial in front of a computer for all of 30 seconds. This holds true of alot of pop culture material, the tragedy being much if not most is not readily accessible on the newest lowest-common-denominator of information aka the internet. PS: That was a disambig link, which of hte 3 did you have in mind? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * NSgeureka did that, not me. As a brief perusal of my contribution record will reveal, I only have time here to vote to delete stuff. And who needs 30 seconds to determine trivial TV cruft is not-notable and unencyclopedic? (I have corrected my link but enjoy it fast because after this inane injunction is lifted, I'll be merging that article per WP:FICT.) Eusebeus (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I could not imagine the arbitrators making such a nonsensical ruling, considering that the facts are that such material is encyclopedic and that the majority (the half dozen whose focus is in discussions such as these are overwhelmed by the majority who spend their time writing articles) of editors agree with my way of thinking. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL! well, you are obdurate if nothing else. I see by WP:NOT and WP:FICT that you are certainly right about a majority of editors agreeing with you, so as you say, how could arbcom conclude otherwise? Anyway, sadly for you arbcom doesn't make content rulings, so remove this. Eusebeus (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because it is merely a principle and not a "ruling" and it hits to behavior, i.e. ignoring reality to accomplish an agenda supported by a minority of editors. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Great Eusebeus. An attitude fantastic to 'pedia building. Can't be bothered checking so vote delete anyway. Nice to know for future debates. I'll preemptively thank you not to tell the rest of us what to do as well. Manners suggest asking is a much nicer way than directing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, now that's an impressive degree of literal-mindedness. Eusebeus (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (lightbulb over head goes on) ahaaaa...it was one too many subordinate clauses for 6 am when I read it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Harassment of inclusionists
1) Inclusion-minded/Article expansion-focused editors suffer harassment on a grand scale.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed in part as the other side of the coin mentioned by sgeureka, but also because of my own unfortunate experiences with Blueanode, Dannycali, Eyrian, and their various alternates and proxies, as well as the religious fanaticism expressed in such edits as this one. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence seems to support it.  Kamek  (Koopa wizard!) 20:49, 15 February 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.

Twinkle not to be used to flood, overwhelm Articles for Deletion
1) Editors cannot use Twinkle to mass nominate articles for deletion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Support - mass deletions are impossible to reference at speed.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I support this, per the evidence provided by Serpent's Choice (and all three of those AFDs   resulted in keep), but it may be helpful to clarify what constitutes a "flood." Three AFDs in five seconds seems like it fits. AFD is not for cleanup. --Pixelface (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose The method used for formatting an AfD isn't an issue. I might support a proposal that discourages flooding AfD in general, and might better define "mass". -- Ned Scott 07:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Mass meaning multiple AfDs in under a minute, i.e. in which the nominator could not possibly have read through the articles and searched for sources in a good faithe effort to improve the article first, or mass nomination of episode and character articles just because they are episode or character articles without considering that some episodes and characters are more notable and verifiable than others. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed per this discussion. A handful of editors' major contributions lately are to mass nominate articles for deletion using Twinkle. Myself and many others who contribute to Wikipedia in a variety of fashion, whether it be welcoming new users or correcting grammar or uploading images and so on, can only devote so much extra time to participating in deletion discussions. A number of articles that I have seen nominated are alleged to "not have sources" and yet a quick search seems to turn up sources rather quickly. Editors should therefore instead be encouraged to at least attempt to improve and source the articles first. Moreover, such deletions are starting to turn contributors off from Wikipedia. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 01:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? Surely nominating for AfD and gaining community consensus is better than revert warring? I always find it odd when editors scream at TTN et al. to use AfD, but then try to restrict what he can nominate. And the fact that editors are using twinkle is irrelevant. Restricting the use of twinkle to nominate AfDs isn't going to prevent nominations, just make it more of a pain and more error-prone than if someone doesn't use twinkle. Editors should be encouraged to use AfD instead of edit warring. This proposal baffles me. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By mass nominating, I mean in particular the following:, , , , etc. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am aware to what you are referring to, you bring those sprees up quite often. Why is using AfD a problem? seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that mass nominations (sometimes multiple prods and/or noms in under a minute) do not demonstrate that the article's merits and demirts was adequately considered by the prodder/nominator, rather that they are of a certain type of article or about a certain topic that the nominator does not like. For example, notice the bottom on here, where you'll see a "To do" list in which anything on those templates or categories are nominated for deletion, usually with Twinkle, by someone who claims it is his "mission" to delete (those kinds of) articles, regardless of the individual notability or verfiability of those articles.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Another problem is that this is asymmetrical. It is much easier to nominate and article than to defend it. One can nominate an article saying merely "not-notable"--but a proper defense can not be done in a minute--if the challenge is lack of sources, in he fields being discussed here in can take days to do a proper job for a single article. So one person nominated 10 articles a day can overwhelm the opposition. This is not accidental--there is hardly any urgency with these articles, and so it represents a desire to remove content rather than source it, which is against the basic concept of our encyclopedia. Had people dealt with a few articles at a time, at a reasonable pace and allowing time for improvement, they would have accomplished much of their goal--or at least the part of it supported by actual consensus. By doing it this way, they have discredited rational attempts to remove unsuitable articles. I actually came here with a deletionist tendency towards articles of this sort, until i saw how indiscriminately the deletion was being done. DGG (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be accurate to say I cannot use Twinkle for that purpose, because I've never learned how, but apparently others can. Perhaps the proposal out to say "Editors must not" or "Editors should not..." I support the use of administrative remedies if a user mass nominates things using a cookie-cutter text as when he states that 'there are no refs' without searching Google News, Google Scholar, or other free databases. That said, it is possible to select several articles for possible nomination, research each one for some indefinite period of time, then make a series of nominations in a short time, because the nominating process can be tricky. Edison (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently Twinkle has a bug in it that creates problems when used to renominate articles for deletion as mentioned in this discussion. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is the editor, not the tool. Dealing with the tool won't solve the problem.--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors will avoid insulting each other.
2) Editors will refrain from calling good faith editors' contributions "crap" or "cruft" and will instead use less hostile, more mature language.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Oppose based on wording. I support what is likely being implied. Someone can make a crap contribution, but we assume they did so in good faith. Calling something "crap" is crude, but it's not a matter of AGF. It also depends on the context and the situation. Generally speaking, avoid using the word crap, but that doesn't mean editors won't evaluate a contribution as poor and say so. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * One can evaluate a contribution as poor without using an imature word like "crap" or "cruft". Moreover, there is a certain elitist arrogance involved with denouncing popular culture items as "cruft." Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 16:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe we both agree on that (though, for my own self, I've often used "cruft" in a less derogatory manner, and often to things that I like and believe are important, but I do understand what you mean in this situation). -- Ned Scott 04:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is always encouraging when editors can agree on something. Regards, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment the existence of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS probably doesn't help here.  BLACK KITE  14:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should probably get rid of that page, too. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 16:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed per the second item I posted here. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 01:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - perhaps this could be reported to Twinkle for some sort of violation to their tool. --User: (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think that's a good idea, I am not opposed to doing so. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 19:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, legitimate articles are called "crap" by some editors in many places, and even on this very page, which is unhelpful, and shows a lack of civility and good-faith assumption. - PeaceNT (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith doesn't apply to articles, only to editors and their actions. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Comment on content, not on contributors." "That article is crap" or "Why do we keep all this cruft?" is a comment on content, not on a contributor. An honest evaluation of content is different than a personal attack against an editor. Comments so prohibited are in the vein of "You're a moron" or "You know nothing." Honest, even if blunt, evaluations of content are a critical part of a collaborative work. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Words like "crap" and "cruft" are not on the level of serious scholarly discourse. There are more tactful ways to say "I don't like it."  Moreover, calling someone's good faith effort "crap" is essentially the same as saying "what you volunteered to work on is crap" or "you're not crap, just what you produce is."  There is not much difference as the mental insult is generally perceived in the same fashion by the editor.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose that goes without saying. If someone tells me what I wrote is crap, it tells me I really need to take a closer look at it, and a good hard look at that. It doesn't make me feel attacked&mdash;if I'm going to write something, and publish it, I'll receive feedback on the material. Stating that something is of poor quality is an honest opinion, and may sometimes be hard to hear, but it's not a personal attack. Now, on the subject of genuine mischaracterization, we should address "delete". That word is often used to create hostility or misunderstanding. "Deletion" is when an admin hits the delete button, not something else. Redirection, merging, removal, trimming, all that&mdash;that is editing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A much more mature and respectful way of constructively criticising someone's good faith volunteer contributions would be to say that "it can be improved" or "good effort, but it would be better if we dealt with the material in this manner," or something that does not have needless harshness. We have all sorts of contribitors to our project and so we cannot assume that everyone here is firm enough to not take words like "crap" to heart.  There is usually a polite round about way of making the same point.  Even saying, "not quite at the level we want yet" rather than "poor quality" could be a more effective euphemism.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What are some civil synonyms or circumlocutions for "cruft?" Edison (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my replies to Seraphiblade above and Jack Merridew below for some possibilities. I hope these help, as I whole-heatredly believe that if we watch our word choice more we can better avoid some of the tension and drama.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. How about instead of "cruft" we just call it for what it is: "unencyclopedic"?  Kamek  (Koopa wizard!) 20:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. There is too much brutish language between editors.  Ursasapien (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Seraphimblade's comments are spot-on. WP:CRUFT is a wiki-coined term for a class of "articles" that exist; it is appropriate to use the understood terms — thus crap can be acceptable, too. If such terms are applied to an article or a part of one, and not an editor, their use is fine and amount to merely calling a spade a spade. nb: my preferred term is shite. --Jack Merridew 10:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Using made-up non-encyclopedic words like "cruft" adds nothing to serious conversation. Calling something "shite" absolutely does not help to keep discussions cool.  Why not say, "I don't find the material appropriate enough for a paperless online encyclopedia, specialized encyclopedia, almanac, etc. that everyone can edit," rather than "shite" or "cruft"?  Besides, even those who are not strong inclusionists think that "cruft" is not a good word.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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:



Editors expected to justify content reverts
1) An editor who reverts a good-faith change to an article, whether that change added, removed, or otherwise changed material, is expected to be prepared to justify why he or she believed such an action was necessary, and to engage in reasonable, considered discussion if another party still disagrees. Editors are expected not to filibuster or to continue to simply make assertions which are in dispute without justification, and to instead make good-faith attempts to answer and address the other party's concerns, and to graciously concede a point which proves indefensible.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. If one wants to revert, one should be prepared to justify why. This includes material challenged for lack of sources&mdash;one should be prepared to find sources before reinserting the material. Also, some of the tactics used (by both sides) are unacceptable, such as continuing to make disputed assertions as though they were fact, without being prepared to defend or justify them or address concerns raised by the other side. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose this wording There is nothing special about making a controversial change versus reverting a controversial change. The original editor should also be prepared to discuss their original good-faith edit. Also, while it is only an essay, WP:BRD recommends that a "bold" original edit should remain reverted during the discussion. Anomie⚔ 05:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose this wording All editors should be prepared to discuss their  good-faith edits, and the failure to do so is a indication that good faith may not be involved.  DGG (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors to engage in good-faith discussion
1.1) When editors disagree over an edit made to an article, the matter should be discussed openly and in good faith. Both the editor who made the original edit and any party who may have reverted that edit is expected to be willing to, upon request, be open to discussion regarding the matter. During discussion, editors should refrain from engaging in filibuster or in simply asserting a disputed point repeatedly as fact. Instead, each side should make good-faith efforts to address concern brought by the other. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Support A good way to put it. -- Ned Scott 08:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support yep. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed to address the concerns raised by Anomie, above. Everyone involved in a dispute should be prepared to discuss the matter in good faith, including real discussion rather than repeated assertion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Much better! Anomie⚔ 05:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Editors have always been enouraged to assume good faith, discuss to avoid conflict, and so on, as is already outlined in Wikipedia's policies. Trouble is, some choose to ignore these policies, so perhaps they need reminding again. Astronaut (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Ursasapien (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support The lack of good-faith discussion is at the core of the problem here. - PeaceNT (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per Peace. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing is required
2) Any editor may challenge unsourced material, and material added to articles should always be from reliable sources, not an editor's own interpretation. Should such material be challenged and removed, the burden lies upon the editor who wishes to reinsert the material to first provide a reliable source citation. See Verifiability.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * This is true, but not really the issue here. -- Ned Scott 08:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * This has been the case forever anyway, and seems to be at the core of the problem&mdash;sourceless material being repeatedly re-added without any attempts to source it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO, the core of the problem has little to do directly with sourcing and everything to do with a fundamental disagreement over what sort of material should be included in Wikipedia. Sourcing only enters because Notability uses sources as an indicator of "notability" and "notability" as the criterion for inclusion. Anomie⚔ 05:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only notability. Though, yes, that is a significant concern, and notability is an important consideration&mdash;it is what keeps us from simply being an an indiscriminate collection of information. Notability is a longstanding guideline, so it should not simply be dismissed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support That has always been policy anyway. Astronaut (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ehhh... - It's almost right, but it fails to take into account information which comes from the primary source. For works of fiction it is generally acceptable to include information which comes directly from the work without an explicit citation, unless one is needed for further clarification. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 18:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While sourcing is important, we should also keep in mind that there is no deadline and so primary sources or tags saying unsourced rather than outright deletion can suffice until sources are found. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What we want to source, the real world context, isn't there in the first place, so there wouldn't be anything to say "cite needed" to, unless it's original research, which is obviously something we avoid. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 7 February 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.

Undiscussed reverts may themselves be reverted
1) If after a reasonable period of time has elapsed, an editor who made a content revert has refused to explain why he or she did so despite a request for explanation, the editor who made the edit which was reverted or any other editor may make the edit again. If the editor who first reverted reverts again and still refuses to discuss, he or she may be considered to be engaged in edit warring and cautioned or sanctioned as noted below. While the use of edit summaries is encouraged, an edit summary alone is not sufficient discussion if one is questioned. It is the burden of the editor who disputes a revert to let the reverting editor know that (s)he still disagrees and wishes to engage in discussion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Support the spirit, but could use some tweaking for the wording. -- Ned Scott 08:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support generally, but an undiscussed revert with basis in policy and a reasonable explanatory edit summary is generally fine IMHO.  BLACK KITE  14:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed in regards to principle 1. Someone who reverts but refuses to engage in discussion afterwards is just edit warring. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose this wording There is nothing special about making a controversial change versus reverting a controversial change. The original editor should also be prepared to discuss their original good-faith edit. Also, while it is only an essay, WP:BRD recommends that a "bold" original edit should remain reverted during the discussion. Anomie⚔ 05:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a point there. Perhaps something to the effect that the original editor must also be willing to engage in good-faith discussion? Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you do the same thing you did above, that would be good. This proposal addresses Alice making the change, Bob reverting and refusing to discuss, and then Alice taking that as "silent approval"; it neglects other possibilities such as Alice changing, Bob reverting (and ideally attempting to initiate discussion), Alice restoring but refusing to discuss, and the Bob taking that as "silent approval". Anomie⚔ 05:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The wording is confusing. Astronaut (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring without discussion
1) Should a party be found to have made a content revert and subsequently failed or refused to engage in reasonable discussion regarding the matter, yet to have continued to revert when the edit was again made, that person may be cautioned to either engage in discussion or cease reverting by any uninvolved administrator. Should this caution go unheeded and another revert be made without appropriate discussion, that editor may be banned from the article(s) in question for up to one month by an uninvolved administrator. Article bans shall be logged in the appropriate area of this page. The log shall include, at minimum, the name of the banning administrator, the start date and length of the ban, the article(s) which the ban applies to, and the rationale for the ban. Unless exceptional circumstances exist, the ban shall apply only to the article itself, not its talk page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:


 * Discussion of reverts would go a long way toward reducing the problems here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose this wording There is nothing special about making a controversial change versus reverting a controversial change. The original editor should also be prepared to discuss their original good-faith edit. Also, while it is only an essay, WP:BRD recommends that a "bold" original edit should remain reverted during the discussion. Anomie⚔ 05:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case, I think there is something from making a change rather than reverting it. If one makes a change, and no one objects, one may presume it to have consensus until and unless someone does. On the other hand, when one makes a revert, it is already quite certain that disagreement exists and discussion is necessary (except of course vandalism reverts and the like, "revert" here means a content revert.) If one then goes to the reverting editor and says "I see you disagreed with my edit to Some Random Article, why did you revert it?", and they refuse to discuss, one is well-justified in presuming they no longer disagree. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused; this reply seems more applicable to the proposed remedy than this proposed enforcement. The only change I would like to see here is that it should apply to any editor who misbehaves rather than singling out the editor who made the original revert. Anomie⚔ 05:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * comment I do not think its a matter of a change versus a revert. The large scale deletion, or the removal or redirection of material is potentially destructive, and should be discussed in advance. B should not apply to these sort of changes. If it is only a n essay, we should say something there that not everyone agrees with it. DGG (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban enforcement
2) Anyone who edits a page after they have been banned from editing it under remedy 1 may be blocked by any administrator to enforce the ban. Such a block may be up to the original length of the ban, regardless of how long remains in the ban period. Blocks shall be logged in the appropriate area of this page. The log shall include, at minimum, the name of the blocking administrator, the length of the block and the time it was placed, and the reason for the block.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * I'm not sure how I feel about the need to define the time of these blocks that much (since often it depends on the situation, and something the blocking admin can evaluate), but I do support the idea of temporary topical blocks before moving to an over-all block, should a block be used. -- Ned Scott 08:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Enforcement for topic bans. Pretty standard if a topic ban were to be done. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Applicability to subject area
3) Any editor who repeatedly engages in conduct which would be sanctionable under this arbitration in the disputed areas of content (television episodes and characters) may be placed under the restrictions of this arbitration by an uninvolved administrator. Prior to any sanctions being applied, the editor shall be notified by a notice on his or her talk page that he or she is subject to these restrictions. The notice shall include, at minimum, a link to this case and a summary of the prohibited behaviors and applicable sanctions. A party believing that he or she has been placed under restriction without adequate cause may appeal to the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, currently arbitration enforcement, for a review of the decision.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Support the basic idea. Arbcom is ruling using concepts the community agrees with. With that in mind, the same logic used to block an editor that is a party can be used to block other users, should a block be necessary. -- Ned Scott 08:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * As longstanding as this has been, I don't think applicability to only the parties here is going to solve anything. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, if the above objections can be addressed. Also, as a side note, editors should not be "preemptively" warned as was attempted for a similar ArbCom ruling at ; discussion on that attempt is currently ongoing at Templates for deletion. Anomie⚔ 05:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring considered harmful
1) Edit warring is not an acceptable method of settling content disputes on Wikipedia. Editors who disagree about article content are expected to discuss the issue on the appropriate Talk page and/or policy page, and, if necessary, to employ dispute resolution.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * I agree. --Pixelface (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. This one is fairly obvious and non-controversial. <font color="#11A"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 09:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. - PeaceNT (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom does not handle content disputes
2) The Arbitration Committee is not responsible for handling content disputes between good-faith editors. Arbitration can deal with behavior problems arising from such disputes, but is limited in its ability to deal with the underlying disputes themselves.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. Again, this is fairly straightforward. <font color="#11A"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 09:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict over articles involving episodes and characters
1) There is a long-running and heated conflict on Wikipedia regarding articles on individual television episodes and individual fictional characters. In many cases, this feud has resulted in disruptive edit warring. A previous Arbitration case has failed to adequately resolve the issue.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Support Tim Q. Wells (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. --Pixelface (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose this wording. I don't think the arbcom case "failed". We simply need more clarity (as in, we just need and call it a day). -- Ned Scott 06:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. Would anyone dispute this? <font color="#11A"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 09:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I doubt it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Doubt what? o.O (not meant to be mean, I just honestly don't understand the context of the statement) -- Ned Scott 07:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I figured it'd be obvious since Crotalus' comment was right above mine. For the sake of explaining, "doubt" that anyone would claim there's no dispute. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ooooooh, ok, that makes a lot more sense. -- Ned Scott 07:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Requirements for Wikipedia articles
2) All articles on Wikipedia are required to conform with site policies on verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. In questionable cases, it is the responsibility of the Wikipedia community to determine a consensus on whether the article follows policy. Generally, this consensus is determined through the articles for deletion process.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Support obviously - also, WP:NOT is important here.  BLACK KITE  14:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. Fairly simple statement of Wikipedia article policy. <font color="#11A"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 09:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Finally, one of these I can support.Kww (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Good proposal. Personally, I don't think episode articles should be given a free pass on these fundamental policies. We can make good great articles that meet these standards. The community really does need to decide whether we apply policies evenly or not. However, I don't think that only afd should be used to detemine consensus. Deletion may not always be preferable; a good merge discussion can determine consensus also. <font color="FF69B4">Seraphim Whipp 13:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are our policies; character and episode articles are no exception. - PeaceNT (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive activity by User:TTN
3) User:TTN routinely redirects episode and character articles to parent articles on the series in question. When these redirects are challenged, he does not discuss the issue with the users or on the article Talk page, but instead engages in edit warring. (See John254's evidence section for specific examples.) This edit warring is disruptive to Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Support. I think the term "parent articles" is fine but could maybe use some tweaking. --Pixelface (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is not always the case. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ...which is why the proposal uses the language "routinely", not "always". -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 18:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose In many cases TTN is editing in line with policy and uses explanatory edit summaries, yet is reverted by those who do not.  BLACK KITE  14:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have any evidence for this claim, please provide it on the evidence page. Thank you, - PeaceNT (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit history of Bulbasaur should provide you with a very recent example of this, Black Kite. Kww (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be counterproductive, you may see Bulbasaur's AfD and DRV for more information. - PeaceNT (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support consistent with what I've seen. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. As others have mentioned, User:TTN seems to be the common denominator in the edit wars. He's obviously not the only participant, but he is the most prolific. As such, I think the remedy should mention him by name. <font color="#11A"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 09:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per the evidence page. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support since his 11th edit TTN has been dedicating his contribution to removing articles. His kill count is pretty high. -- Cat chi? 07:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Inflammatory terminology is not helpful. --Jack Merridew 09:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ned. While TTN has redirected many articles, there are also many examples of his discussing the issues. Please note that the vast majority of articles redirected were in violation of some policy or guideline; often many. --Jack Merridew 09:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as this is usually the case. I have seen little evidence of TTN discussing his being reverted. Instead, he edit wars until he wears protestors down. Ursasapien (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per the evidence page. --User: (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per strong evidence. - PeaceNT (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My recent experience with Bulbasaur confirmed all the reasons that TTN tends not to talk ... it's completely useless in the face of fans of the article. An entire article without a single relevant third-party source, and people are describing it as well sourced on the talk page. The AFD was allowed to be up for only a few hours, during which fans piled in, voted keep, and the AFD was then speedy-closed ... I never knew that it was a race. The disruption is from people resurrecting the articles, not from people trying to keep valid redirects in place. When the article is in blatant violation of our policies, we should be focusing on how to avoid having it recreated, not on how to punish the person that tries to take care of the problem.Kww (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - This is an accurate summary of his usual modus operandi. The only times he does break from it is when he runs up against an editor who can't just be steamrolled over. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 18:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, seems pretty clear cut. Wizardman  17:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Kww, especially regarding the disruptive nature of fans. I would generally encourage anyone closing AfD or merge discussions to give far less weight to the views of those who are clearly fans. Uninvolved participants should be given the most weight. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you consider uninvolved participants? Certainly no editor that has had any part in this arbitration could be truly considered uninvolved.  Ursasapien (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Preferably someone who isn't a fan of the material. Generally, that tends to cause skewing and ownership (my favorite episode can't get redirected!). Better that it's someone who couldn't care less and is looking at "sourced or not?". Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally, I have not seen any who are currently involved that "could care less." Deletionist are most certainly emotionally involved as evidenced by their passion.  Those that care less do not edit these types of articles.  I think you meant to say, "I think more weight should be given to deletion-minded policy-wonks because I think they are RIGHT!"  Ursasapien (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Example: I couldn't care less about the Bulbasaur article, so I won't weigh in on the TTN/WP:POKE-vs-fan battle there, although I am fully aware of it. I also couldn't care less about any type of popular anime (One Piece, Naruto), so I won't make my opinion heard in the character merge debates, despite my belief that almost all of their characters are completely wiki-nonnotable. And why should I weigh in? TTN already volunteered to do the job and take a lot of inappropriate criticism for it, so I'll save me the wikistress for topics that I actually care about. – sgeureka t•c 12:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree to Ursasapien's premise that there are on both sides who get excessively emotional or go too far in their preferred direction. And please don't get me wrong, if there were anyone on the fan side asking that same tough question ("Can we source this, or not?"), I'm all for them. (The Pokemon project has done an excellent job of this, generally speaking, and have really done a great deal of cleanup.) I do find it somewhat ironic that one participating in an arbitration case would use the term "policy wonk", especially linked to the zombie essay&mdash;arbitration is about the most policy-wonkery you find around here. And that while TTN is roundly condemned for...not following policy and not participating here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been sometimes involved a little in discussions on these articles out of a general concern for the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, but have have no particular involvement about the subject, and have seen relatively few of the series being discussed. I go by general editing principles and considerations of notability for fiction in general. I even edit a little when copyedits are obvious. I work on a great deal of material that does not personally interest me, and so do many people here. On the other side, some of the more deletionist editors in these matters are self-declared fans of the series. The effect of personal involvement is by no means automatic or obvious.DGG (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:TTN has promised to stop, but continued
4) User:TTN, in a previous Arbitration case, said that he would "be utilizing AfDs more often rather than revert warring." (Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters) While he has used the AFD process in some cases, he has also continued to engage in revert warring as well.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * I don't know if that statement in the previous case was a "promise", but I think it's obvious than since that case closed, TTN has not been utilizing AFDs more often than revert warring. --Pixelface (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Lack of evidence to show how many reverts he did before and after the past arbcom case. He has improved, though I do feel more clarity will help as well, which is why we are here. -- Ned Scott 07:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per the evidence. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. <font color="#11A"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 09:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. This is one of the behaviors that is causing contention. TTN seems to be saying, "No one has really told me to stop, so I will continue." Ursasapien (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, although we need to be sure that AfD doesn't become flooded either. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Liar ? - PeaceNT (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per the evidence. --User: (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, seems rather obvious. Wizardman  17:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Template
5) {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.

Discussion encouraged
1) In general, editors should obtain consensus before moving, redirecting, or merging articles if these actions are likely to be controversial.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Basically agree. Might think about the wording, but the general idea is logical. -- Ned Scott 07:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically agree, with the caveat that enforcing policy is often controversial, but that is no reason not to do so.  BLACK KITE  14:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. People need to edit collaboratively. <font color="#11A"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 09:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the wording of this needs to be revised. As it is currently worded, I can see editors using it to requiring all moves, redirects, and merges to be discussed first. --Farix (Talk) 12:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Farix's comment. I know that is how this would be used. Nice section heading, with problematic language under it. --Jack Merridew 12:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support the wording "if these actions are likely to be controversial" is perfectly reasonable. While the idea could be considered vague, as some may argue what is the concept of actions that are likely to cause controversies? I'd say, without a doubt, that redirection of articles that have survived previous AfDs, GAs, or former FAs is potentially controversial. Yet the redirection is continually performed without visible discussions anywhere, now that is at the very least disturbing and often actually disruptive. (note that this is supported by evidence page, also) Common sense should be used to calculate the probability of contention that ensues from non-consensual redirection/deletion; if the probability is high, then discussion is not optional. - PeaceNT (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of Transwiki for unencyclopedic fan material encouraged
2) When a popular culture article consists primarily or entirely of material that the community has determined does not meet Wikipedia standards, it is recommended that it be transwikied to an appropriate free-content site before being deleted.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Not sure on the wording. Agree with the spirit. Noting that this is not required. -- Ned Scott 07:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant - off-WP doesn't enter into this really. Any material can be put anywhere else. If people wish to move material they may move it regardless of what happens on WP, and admins can always fetch deleted material and anyone can fetch material lost in a redirect later anyway. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed to satisfy the pedants who object to mentioning Wikia by name. Right now, the most popular fan wikis just happen to be hosted on Wikia. If there are appropriate wikis somewhere else that are GFDL-compatible, we should use them. Free content is our primary mission. <font color="#11A"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 09:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume this would be done only once efforts to improve the article have been exhausted; via suitable tagging for improve, merge or delete and subsequent discussion? Astronaut (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's assumed that this would apply only to works that could not meet our requirement for reliable, non-trivial third-party sources. Cleanup should be attempted first, and, if it succeeds, then the article stays on Wikipedia. <font color="#11A"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 19:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Broadly Support but modify wording to recognise that a (poorly done) merge and redirect is pretty much equivalent to deletion. A possibly suitable wording: "...transwikied to an appropriate free-content site before being deleted, or merged and redirected to a suitable parent article" Astronaut (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: TTN and etall considers nearly all fiction coverage unencyclopedic. Transwikiability isn't a license for mass deletion. -- Cat chi? 07:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The community at large consider excessive plot-recap without real-world-context to be unencyclopedic. That is not the same as fictional coverage that does have real-world-context, or is justified in some other way for the parent topic (which still wouldn't be just providing recap for the sake of recap). -- Ned Scott 07:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that this is a good idea. This may be the better wording if the Arbitrators prefer not to mention a specific (commercial) site. Though White Cat is right that this shouldn't be a license to edit against consensus, editors should bear in mind that a local consensus should generally bend to a broader one. I.e. the line in terms of notability of fictional characters and the like should be drawn by the community at large not the editors of a specific fandom area, who are mostly fans. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all of my comments above at . Transwiki-ing is available to interested editors; editors uninterested in unencyclopaedic fan material are free to ignore this option and are free to simply seek its removal from this site. --Jack Merridew 11:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. "Simply seek[ing] its removal from this site" has resulted in an unacceptably high level of drama. I believe the only way to defuse this drama, while still maintaining Wikipedia's high standards, is to assist editors in finding other wikis that are better suited for their interests and helping them move the material there. <font color="#11A"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 19:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If editors objecting to the removal of unencyclopaedic content are creating too much drama then they may need to be removed. --Jack Merridew 11:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's.. a really bad way to look at it. We're all flawed people, and we all have our.. things. Again, I don't think anyone is trying to make anything mandatory, but simply looking for ways to help ease the process. -- Ned Scott 11:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly making no claim to perfection. I am, however, equating creating too much drama with disruption. --Jack Merridew 14:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To Crotalus: You disagree that uninterested editors are free to ignore the transwiki process? --Jack Merridew 14:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree that someone proposing deletion is an uninvolved editor. If you are nominating an article for deletion and you have good reason to believe that this might be controversial, I do think you have an obligation to attempt transwiki to an appropriate site first, in recognition of the time and effort people have put into the article. If you don't want to do this, don't nominate it for deletion. <font color="#11A"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 17:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We certainly disagree then. Also, obligation certainly has a more compulsory sense than encouraged. --Jack Merridew 08:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Tim Q. Wells (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It says encouraged, not mandated, so I'm all for it. And if anyone ever needed admin assistance, like a deleted article being userfied, to aid in a transwiki, I'd be the first to help. The whole point of free content is it can go elsewhere with minimal fuss or barrier and no need for permission. Let's take full advantage of that. Just because material might not be appropriate here doesn't mean it's not appropriate anywhere. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TTN prohibited from redirecting or merging articles
1) User:TTN may not redirect or merge any articles related to popular culture, broadly interpreted. If he does so, he should be briefly blocked from editing Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Support. Per Crotalus horridus. This will be especially effective for discussion. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, but I have issues with the phrase "related to popular culture, broadly interpreted." It could be changed to "related to television series, fictional characters, or fictional works." This would be a looser topic ban, mentioned at Editing restrictions. I agree, if there really is consensus to redirect, someone else can do it. But I do predict hundreds of AFDs which will basically amount to forced cleanup within 7 days. --Pixelface (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose No way in hell this will get support from arbcom, per the reasons stated in similar proposals. Way to harsh, and overkill. TTN needs to cool down when challenged on some stuff, but restricting all fiction related merges and redirections is uncalled for. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. In some cases, this wording means you are proposing blocking an editor for enforcing policy.  BLACK KITE  14:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. I don't think anything short of this is going to be effective with this user. If there is really consensus to merge or redirect, then someone else other than him can do it. <font color="#11A"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 09:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, perhaps only something like this will stop these disputes from continuing. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support A preferable sanction to the total ban I supported earlier. Astronaut (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the general idea behind this. A proposed enforcement and note of how long the remedy is in effect (i assume indef based on the wording) would help though. Wizardman  19:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: A bot can actualy preform TTN's edits more effectively. -- Cat chi? 07:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a very strong remedy but should be seriously considered by the Arbitrators. While not everyone of TTN's redirections is disruptive, many are, and this may be the most efficient way to stop them. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per the evidence and track record. --User: (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tentative support - I'd prefer it if TTN would just stop acting so rashly, but this may be the only option. If arbcom elects for a lesser editing restriction to be placed on TTN I would however suggest that this one be put in place should he violate the terms of the first. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 02:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. Too many articles have nothing salvageable beyond using their name as a redirect to another topic, and TTN has proven extremely reliable at detecting them.Kww (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If an article is truly unsalvageable then it shouldn't take one specific editor to figure that out; it should be obvious to nearly everyone. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 18:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It usually is, but it's a very boring job and not a lot of people are eager to do it. -- Ned Scott 07:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Admitting it is harder for some than detecting it.Kww (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support TTN doesn't have to be the entire system. Others can do the work without stepping on as many toes. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Right now TTN is one of the few editors willing to clean up these messes, and a lot of us are grateful for that (even though I agree that he needs to back off on some of the situations). The vast majority of TTN's redirections and merges are not disruptive themselves, and this proposal is total overkill, and has a snowball's chance in hell of even making it to the proposed decision page. -- Ned Scott 07:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that he's doing some good work, and I have even supported his merging/redirecting on several occasions (I will note, however, that in both instances I supported merging episode articles, he made no effort whatsoever to finish the job). However, it has become obvious that he's lost focus in what he's doing. He's not doing this in a helpful way anymore. He's doing it because he wants the articles gone, and resorts to edit warring long-term to achieve that goal. When he hits the smaller shows no one may notice, but if they do it results in edit warring, and in the case of the larger shows where he does try discussing, he's uncooperative at best. It's hard to consider work good when pages of arguments and week-long edit wars with people running just shy of 3RR result from almost every contested attempt. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - too broad a spectrum. I'm going to make a guess that popular culture has hundred of thousands of articles. Will (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and that somehow means he shouldn't be prohibited from unilaterally blanking them all? -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it does. In many cases, the redirections/mergers appear to be well-warranted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then someone else can do it. Having TTN in charge of any sort of merger appears to be a surefire way of pissing everyone off. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble  <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 00:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support' this addresses the exact problem that brought us here. Unreasonable user behavior that he has repeatedly continued in the face of criticism. This is the only alternative to banning him from editing such articles entirely. No one person is essential to WP, and for those which need merging or redirection, there are a great many other editors quite ready to do it. DGG (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But if anyone else tries, they face the exact same problem ... hordes and hordes of editors that want to hold on to absolute garbage articles that defy any reasonable interpretation of policy. If we ban people for trying to fight that, it simply becomes a war of attrition that the wrong side wins. People will either give up trying or be banned for their efforts.Kww (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * DGG, being criticized doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong, it only means there are people who disagree with you. -- Ned Scott 05:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Principle
1) WP:PAPER should not be used as an excuse to neglect encylopedic standards.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Ummm..huh? - redundant/already in place as we have processes in place to enforce these WRT notability and reliable sources etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)
 * Indeed, but this RfAR exists because these policies are routinely ignored.  BLACK KITE  14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Not core to the issue of behavior, but might be good to point out. Too often NOT#PAPER has been used alone, without considering our full spectrum of policies and guidelines. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support strongly. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site.  Or at least it is until this RfAR concludes, depending upon which way it goes.  We have external wikis for extreme specialism, and we have policies that exclude unencyclopedic content.  That is all.  BLACK KITE  18:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. User:Dorftrottel 20:20, January 26, 2008
 * Strong oppose as we are not trying to just be a clone of Britannica. Wikipedians' definitions of encyclopedic and notability vary immensely and we need to be inclusive of the members of our community. If by encyclopedic we mean factual information, then yes, I agree, but if we mean narrow-mindedly only material that would appear in any normal paper encyclopedia then no, I disagree with such a definition as apeing Britannica or Comptons in an online version misses the point of what Wikipedia is and greatly diminishes its potential. In fact doing so makes it less unique and interesting as a reference source and will reduce our readership and contriburs astronomically. After all, too often I see in AfDs "No sources can be found" and yet with all the magazines, websites, novels, etc. in existence sources do exist and sometimes when editors point these sources out the nominators will still just ignore them. More time needs to be spent helping the effort to reference and build articles and less time destroying others' work. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 20:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant - Not the issue here. Except in rare instances I've only seen WP:PAPER brought up to refute the "all this cruft is clogging Wikipedia" argument. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble  <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 09:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability
1) A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Cutpasted from WP:N. Will (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is true. However, if an article currently does not have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, that doesn't mean the subject is non-notable. Currently, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is used to make a presumption. I'm sure there are other criteria that could also be used to make that presumption. Speaking of television episodes and fictional characters, there is a disagreement whether they should be referred to as topics or sub-topics. --Pixelface (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose in a sense that "secondary sources that are independent of the subject" do not assert notability. For example each veteran of the world wars or any armed forces for example has "secondary source coverage". Not every soldier that served the military is notable. The wording in question without the rest of WP:N hence is misleading and open to interpretation. "secondary sources" is one way to test but it is neither the only way nor the 100% efficient way to test notability. -- Cat chi? 16:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * that's why the word significant is included, to meet exactly this objection.DGG (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Similar as to what White Cat said, the way this principle is worded would definitely make it subject to abuse. Wizardman  16:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, but, as a standalone, it needs to expand significant coverage with its definition: direct and detailed examination. Clearly, though, this is a necessary test: if secondary sources aren't covering it, is isn't worthy of inclusion.Kww (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is not arb-com's place to sanctify the wording of guidance or declare that any page has a consensus. This does not affect the behavioural issues, and proposed principles such as this cut to teh heart of why this dispute keeps happening. Rules on Wikipedia re not set in stone, and when you are in a dispute, you try to resolve it through dispute resolution processes. Hiding T 23:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, a topic is notable if it is covered in reliable secondary sources, but a topic can also be notable if it has been covered in a variety of primary sources. A fictional character familiar to millions of people and who appears in movies, video games, novels, comics, etc. does not need a thesis or dissertation to prove notability. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 01:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Arbcom doesn't give legal advice, nor do they dictate what the consensus is on policy or guidelines. No arbitrator is going to touch this principle with a 10 foot pole. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble  <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 05:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking
2) Editors should not agressively revert users based on their identity.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * See Stargate article edit wars. Will (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose this wording. Editors revert users (such as vandals) based on their identity all the time. --Pixelface (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Somewhat agree, but it should not be considered "Wikistalking". The editors following TTN around believed they were correcting something wrong that he had done, and were probably not doing it to harass him. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Weak support. Need to clearly distinguish users from vandals.Kww (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I have had some experience with editors who have done such things to me (almost or all of which it turned on were sockpuppets), I think we should avoid going after people, because of who they are, but as Kww wrote above, we do need to separate vandals from good faith editors. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 01:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Article development
3) Article development is desired in all cases, instead of continuous, rehashed debate.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Will (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, although removing unneeded plot summary is often the result in both a redirect/merge and an FA. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - obvious really. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Weak support:Should be clear that frequently, deletion is preferable to wasting effort on a non-notable topic.Kww (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Improving an article or taking the time to find references is almost always preferable (barring the article is a hoax or personal attack) to redirecting or nominating for deletion. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 01:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviews
1) Reviews by professional writers are independent and significant coverage. Thus, reviews may be used to assert the notability of an episode article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * True, but now we're getting really off topic. A lot of the proposals are going into the content dispute area, which I think might be reasonable as a step to aid in resolving the dispute, (even if the core of the issue is that some redirects/merges have been forced when they shouldn't have been). This might be going too deep in that path, and isn't likely to be something that any of us disagree with anyways. -- Ned Scott 05:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongest Possible Oppose this is a free pass for trivia, because it doesn't define any of its terms, especially "professional" and "significant". If the TV reviewer of a newspaper just throws the sentence "Did you see last night's episode of X?  Rubbish, wasn't it?" into their column, does that count?  I can't stress this enough: if this one passes without the above being tightened, we might as well give up; Wikipedia would no longer be an encyclopedia.  Black Kite  10:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I interpret your oppose as an intent to remove coverage of all book and other creative work from wp unless they have ben discussed in academic sources? is this the intention--it would be the effect. That is what would ne a total change in the nature of Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No - that's not what I'm saying at all, but what that suggestion would lead to is a free pass for the most unencyclopedic chunks of plot summary purely because an episode has been reviewed by someone - let's face it, that is what would happen.  Black Kite  12:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 01:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as obvious. Hobit (talk)
 * I think we can say they're clearly third-party and generally reliable, but significance would depend on the individual case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * support as modified by Seraphimblade. I think those qualification were intended. Denying this is a denial of WP:V and WP:RS.

Bad faith
2) Both sides in this dispute have been assuming bad faith.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Obviously. Will (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

TTN
3) User:TTN has made disputed, albeit good faith, changes to Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Fair wording. Will (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per wizardman. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am uncertain if they were in in good faith. That may be disputed. He definitely made disputed and perhaps disruptive edits. Making lots and lots of disputed edits by nature is disruptive. -- Cat chi? 16:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the fact that he continued after the first arbcom case and after a ton of discussion meant one could no longer assume good faith on him. Wizardman  17:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you don't understand what it means to assume good faith. -- Ned Scott 05:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the dispute part, but otherwise, I agree with Wizardman above. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Most revert warriors do war in "good faith", in that they truly believe that the version they want is something worth fighting for. That does not mean that it is not disruptive, especially after several concerns have been made. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface
4) User:Pixelface has made disputed, albeit good faith changes to Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Fair wording. Will (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Geni
5) User:Geni has used two accounts in a dispute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Evident. Will (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well yes. Since there is no attempt to hide who the accounts belong to this is allowed per wikipedia policy.Geni 14:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If not the letter, the spirit of WP:SOCK forbids it. Will (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not remotely. My use of multiple accounts while not considered normal has widespead acceptance.Geni 14:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose irrelevant. He hasn't done anything wrong in doing this. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Uh...who here is not aware that genisock is Geni? I think it might be reversed&mdash;the letter of WP:SOCK might forbid it, but the spirit does not. There's no attempt to fool or trick anyone into thinking more people support something than really do, it's clear it's just Geni. What if I used my alternate account from a public machine to comment here? Surely you wouldn't say I was being duplicitous or trying to create a false illusion of support? Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Age of articles
6) Some episode articles predate the notability guideline - e.g. was on Did you know? on 27 March 2005, eighteen months before the notability guideline was established.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * See WP:WHO. Will (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I would guess that most of the episode articles that have been redirected predate the notability guideline. WP:N became a guideline on September 23, 2006. --Pixelface (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the reason for pointing this out. -- Ned Scott 05:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Comment — Do we have a WP:GRANDFATHER clause that I'm unaware of? I was not aware that WP:NOTE was a recent idea; no wonder there's so much clutter underfoot. --Jack Merridew 09:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * True but not clearly relevant. Hobit (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Factually correct but not really relevant. We don't have a grandfather clause. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons
7) The Simpsons WikiProject have been continuously developing articles. At the time of writing, over ten percent of articles in the project's scope are of a good or featured quality. However, despite the amount of good/feature content, the project has been used continuously as an example of "What about article X?"


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * While the Simpsons project wouldn't like being mentioned, this is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * Oppose I have not seen it used as an example of "what about article X". I have seen it as an example of "we don't need to worry about those articles because they are being dealt with in a timely and reasonable manner". Do I think every article within their scope is going to be notable simply because of their high rate of GAs and FAs? No, and I've stated that several times. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose as we already have OTHERSTUFFEXIST and I do not think Simpsons articles have achieved any "above scrutiny" status. If we decide on a notability for fiction standard and we decide that it must be doggedly enforced, we must apply this to the Simpsons articles as well.  Ursasapien (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Scholarly sources exist for The Simpsons episodes. For example, quite a few episodes are cited in the following: Cantor, Paul A. 1999. The Simpsons: Atomistic Politics and the Nuclear Family Political Theory 27(6):734-749. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

TTN and wikistalking
8) TTN has been wikistalked. For example, the Stargate Wikiproject developed a consensus to merge episode articles. Only TTN's redirects in this scope after the consensus was developed were reverted, and no explanation was given at the time.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Evident. Will (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I'd have to see some evidence or diffs to support this. I suppose this refers to the evidence presented by Sgeureka. Looking at Talk:List of Stargate SG-1 episodes and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate, it appears that Sgeureka spearheaded the discussion. Even if WikiProject Stargate did come to a consensus, editors who are not members of WikiProject Stargate may not agree with it. Looking at the history of Cold Lazarus (Stargate SG-1), Sgeureka redirected the article on December 5, 2007, Catchpole undid that edit on December 31, 2007, TTN undid that edit on January 2, 2008, and Sgeureka changed the redirect to point to Stargate SG-1 (season 1) on January 27, 2008. Now, Catchpole may have been following Sgeureka's contribs, TTN may have been following Catchpole's contribs, I don't know. Articles like The First Commandment (Stargate SG-1), I'm not sure. This string of edits by TTN looks like TTN was following Catchpole's contribs and reverting them using Twinkle. --Pixelface (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose because I would call it a form of prejudice, not a matter of Wikistalking. -- Ned Scott 05:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Weak support but only in a few cases. Yes, some people are quite obviously stalking him, but in cases like Catchpole or Pixelface, at the worst you could say they followed his contribs to catch a specific series, not maliciously undo everything he's ever done. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I most certainly did not follow TTN's contribs to the Scrubs episode articles. I believe I saw Scrubs mentioned at WT:EPISODE by JoshuaZ, Gwern, Ned Scott, and Seraphimblade and then I went to Talk:List of Scrubs episodes, where I saw no consensus. --Pixelface (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not what I meant. I meant following his contribs to locate the redirects, not that you tracked TTN to find the series itself. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose If someone is known for working on a particular type of article, and one thinks his pattern of edits worth discussion, it is reasonable to use his contributions to find he articles. Wikistalking means looking for his work in other areas entirely in order to conduct a vendetta against him personally. There is not the least evidence of this. The Stargate articles are within the sort of material in which TTN has been actively redirecting, and it is reasonable to see how he is doing there--to determine, among other things, whether he did obtain consensus. DGG (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose use of term stalking which is a mere redirect to harassment, which may be the case. Stalking is about fear and mebbe showing up at someone's door with a gun. See Robert John Bardo; harassment is a dick-move but to call it stalking is inflammatory. --Jack Merridew 08:19, 7 February 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.

Restriction
1) All episodes that relate to fictional concepts are subject to a restriction with regards to merging, redirection, or reversion of merging and redirection. Before any page regarding a fictional concept can be merged, a consensus, silent or not, should be attained regarding their notability. Likewise, before a page can be unmerged, an editor must show that an episode is notable, by virtue of either a talk page consensus or by inclusion of third-party reliable sources.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * While against BOLD, this seems like the only way that is both fair and doesn't exclude single editors. Will (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongest Possible Oppose Yet again, this is claiming that consensus trumps policy. Given what some editors in this dispute seem to think passes for consensus, this is a recipe for utter chaos.  BLACK KITE  18:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus trumps guidance every time. Ursasapien (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Policy is not guidance. It's policy.  Black Kite  18:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:N is a guideline, not a policy. If one wishes to make it a formal policy, that would need a global community consensus--which is not the least likely to be obtained. Trying to do it by fiat here is unacceptable. Further,more, even for policy--how is policy made, but by consensus? We discuss changes in policy on their talk pages continually, for every possible policy. WP:V is for example a very basic policy, and there would certainly not be support for eliminating it, but what is required for V is subject to community discussion, and frequently discussed. DGG (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not really talking about WP:N, more about WP:NOT, which is policy.  Black Kite  12:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Oppose Making the default case require large amounts of discussion is non-productive. Redirecting an episode article should only require that the article be tagged and subsequently not cleaned. Undoing the redirect should require talk-page consensus, with it being made clear that consensus is not a vote.Kww (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason I put "silent or not" is that, if over a certain period of time no-one objects to the merge, it can be interpreted as consensus. Will (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kww, although I like some of the statement after "Likewise". Basically I see the first part of this restriction as a way for Popularity to fill-in for Notability. Non-notable plot summary articles should be redirected or deleted; half and half articles should get bits of the one half merged unless there is sufficient coverage already there. A local consensus is often mere WP:ILIKEIT on whatever talk page. --Jack Merridew 09:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * your opposition is based on denial of a very basic WP policy, that we edit by consensus. You are suggesting in effect that your view is the consensus.DGG (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your analysis of Jack's oppose is wrong. We're still getting comments in, but so far people like WP:FICT's rewrite, and of course the spirit is the same, which has always had support. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting that a few shrill voices arguing I like it can be ignored when wider consensus and policy contradict them. See Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop for many, many examples. --Jack Merridew 08:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as general practice anyways. Hobit (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as consensus is what is important. I am far more concerned about appeasing the majority of our contributors and readers than allowing Wikipedia to become some kind of narrow, elitists venture. We are an encyclopedia, specialized encyclopedia, almanac, etc. as the Five Pillars states. We are an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

0RR on fiction articles
1.1) All episodes that relate to fictional concepts are subject to reversion of merging and redirection. Pages which fail to show notability may be merged without prior discussion per "Be bold". However, before a page can be unmerged, an editor must show that an episode is notable, by virtue of either a talk page consensus that it is notable, or by inclusion of third-party reliable sources.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Proposed rewrite of 1) allowing bold actions - by "consensus" in the original proposal, I meant "consensus that the page is notable", and is intended for borderline cases. Will (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Oppose. This is poorly written (All episodes that relate to fictional concepts?) and goes against the concept of being bold, getting reverted, and then going to discussion. I agree that the revert warring is awful, but discussion, collaboration, compromise, and cooperation is the only solution. Ursasapien (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Ursasapien. - PeaceNT (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose a total prejudgment of the situation, assuming that fiction articles are inherently unworthy. Biasing BRD to B, do not revert, D--but only then under limitations, is a major change in WP policy, intended deliberately to force a desired outcome. DGG (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Geni
2) Geni is allowed to use all of his alternate accounts, but must not use them outside the purpose prescribed on his userpage User:Geni.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Proposed. Will (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This would involve paying far more attention to which account I'm using than I have any intention of doing. Since the accounts do not attempt to hide their common ownership this is not a problem.Geni 14:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tim Q. Wells (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose what does this have to do with the case? -- Ned Scott 05:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Oppose have to agree with Ned, here. Can you show what this has to do with this case?  Ursasapien (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I also fail to see the relevance. And really, all of Geni's socks have "Geni" in the name, so it's not like we've got some plot on Geni's part to avoid scrutiny. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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:

Negotiation
1) Although negotiation is not explicitly mentioned in dispute resolution it is contemplated under the initial steps of Wikipedia's dispute resolution policies under language which suggests users who are in conflict talk to one another on their respective talk pages and on the talk page of any article in dispute. Effective negotiation often requires courtesy and respect for the other party and their point of view, see Wikiquette.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Highly relevant as shown in the evidence I have presented as well as that presented by other users. Hiding T 16:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruption
2) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. See Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Highly relevant as shown in the evidence I have presented as well as that presented by other users. Hiding T 16:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change
3) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. When a section of the community wishes to evaluate whether consensus has changed, all parties should engage to determine where the consensus lies.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment. Agreed, with the caveat that consensus, unless it is global, does not override policy.  Black Kite  18:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Highly relevant as shown in the evidence I have presented as well as that presented by other users. Hiding T 16:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Specialised guidance
4) In determination of specialised areas of guidance, discussion on the talk page of the relevant project page plays a central role. It is important that sufficient interest be generated in the discussion to formulate a valid consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Highly relevant as shown in the evidence presented. Hiding T 16:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Discuss and compromise
5) The Wiki software and Wikipedia policy anticipates that disputes may arise regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles. When disputes arise editors are expected to engage in research, discussion with other users, and make reasonable compromises regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Highly relevant as shown in the evidence I have presented as well as that presented by other users. Hiding T 16:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Good faith in resolving disputes
6)Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and etiquette. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Highly relevant as shown in the evidence I have presented as well as that presented by other users. Hiding T 16:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Reversion not a substitute for discussion
7) Reversion states, "Editors are discouraged to revert because there is disagreement, or the edit is bad or problematic. Users are encouraged to explore alternate methods such as raising the objections on a talk page, or following the processes in dispute resolution." When disputes arise among experienced editors, consensus should be built and demonstrated using the talk page instead of through repeat reversion, even when the content in dispute is clearly problematic.  (See WP:LIVING for exceptions)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support. I was about to propose this myself, since it has wide support in this ongoing arbitration case and certainly applies to this one. -- Pixelface (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That part of the guideline only applies to revert wars, not reversion in general. While the sentiment is admirable, of course obviously bad edits (as opposed to vandalism) will tend to be reverted.  Such good-faith edits might, for instance, include the addition of a large chunk of OR to an article. Of course, there is no harm if the editor is told WHY their edit is being reverted.  Black Kite  18:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose, at least as stated Reversion of destructive edits or major edits that were not accompanied by consensus is to be encouraged, not discouraged. It should then, of course, be followed by discussion. At least such is the present policy, which is BRD not BDR. if we want to modify BDR, which might not in my opinion be  totally bad idea, (though I would modify it to require all possibly contentious or major edits to be  DCE--discuss, consensus, edit, eliminating the need for B and R altogether as inherently prone to disruptive behavior)  then this needs to be done by the community. DGG' (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus
8) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than disruptive editing. Editors involved are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war and for helping the debate move to better approaches, if they wish to contribute. Edit warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is widely agreed to be harmful, and not to be undertaken. With only a few exceptions, this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Highly relevant as shown in the evidence I have presented as well as that presented by other users. Hiding T 16:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Pages are not owned
9) Ownership of articles provides that Wikipedia pages are not owned by particular individuals or groups. Even on those pages where relatively narrow conventions exist regarding who may edit, the community at large is expected to enforce the convention, not the individual or group who, by convention, edits the page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Highly relevant as shown in the evidence I have presented as well as that presented by other users. Hiding T 16:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
10) Users should not respond to inappropriate behavior in kind, or engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism across different forums. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Highly relevant as shown in the evidence I have presented as well as that presented by other users. Hiding T 16:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines are not policy
11) Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that all users should follow. Guidelines are more advisory in nature than policies.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Highly relevant quote from Policies and guidelines, which applies to editors as much as it does to arbitrators who appear not to have been aware of this distinction in the first case judging by certain comments. Hiding T 16:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Both are flexible, though to different degrees--and they are related in that policies are typically interpreted by the guidelines. Though true, this statement is too vague to be meaningful. DGG (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute
1) Whether to redirect an article or not amounts to a dispute over content.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Oppose per DGG below, it is only a dispute over content in regards of whether that content is encyclopedic, not what the content actually is.  Black Kite  18:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I know this is the traditional view, but how it is different from deletion? It has exactly the same effect, except for the survival of an redirect.DGG (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Article history is left visible to non-admins. Unlike deletion, anyone, not just an admin, can view the history of the page and can undo the redirection. It also allows for a later merge; since the history is still intact, the GFDL allows the content to be reused/merged. Redirecting is an edit, it's not an admin tool. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No ordinary reader is likely to know how to do it--to click on the redirect statement to go back to the redirect page to then look at the history. They have no idea that it is even there. We write for the readers,not the more knowledgeable among the editors.DGG (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, we have several ideas, and are even using some of then, to help editors not only find the version before redirection, but understand how to restore those articles. It's a simple technical limitation that we can overcome. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How is the ordinary reader losing out? If they feel the information is missing, they can add it.  They will just add it to wherever they have been redirected, rather than the page that was redirected.  And the whole cycle restarts. If they do not think there is anything missing, they will not add anything and therefore we are not disadvantaging the reader. Hiding T 14:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The ordinary reader I have in mind is not the specialist contributor who will add back the material somewhere, but the reader, the one looking for information, and will not know to click on the link to the redirect at the top of the new page, and go back to examine its history to find the information. Maybe I'm stupider than ordinary, but it took me a good while time to catch on to that myself. DGG (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dogmatic editing
2) Dogmatic editing is harmful to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. When reverting other people's edits, be sure to give a rationale for the revert (on the article's talk page if necessary), and be prepared to enter into an extended discussion over the edits in question. Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in their agreeing with you; being dogmatic or uncommunicative evokes the same behaviour in others, and gets you embroiled in an edit war.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Many parties have never been guilty of not doing this.  Black Kite  18:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This applies to everyone listed as a party. Hiding T 20:09, 29 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.

All editors on revert parole
1) All parties are placed on revert parole for six months. They are limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Weak support. It's a fair remedy, although I might support it more strongly if the time period was three months or if it only applied to articles about television episodes and fictional characters. Six months is quite a long time for parties who have not engaged in much edit warring. --Pixelface (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm an admin, I stepped in once to try to stop an episode of what I believed to be edit-stalking (which is why I'm a party), and you want to put me on revert parole? Don't be so utterly ridiculous.  Black Kite  18:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I hadn't meant to tar anyone, and just copied this over from the irc page. It seemed relevant here and perhaps relevant last tine around, and seems odd it hasn't as yet come up.  I actively encourage the arbitration committee to limit this to specific editors per their assessment of evidence presented, or disregard it entirely.  I do, however, think it should be on the table. Hiding T 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, but I think the parties are so varied on this RfAR that any "All parties are..." is probably doomed to failure.  Black Kite  19:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:


 * Should only apply to articles in this subject area. DGG (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation
2) All parties are to engage in mediation to come to a consensus on resolving the dispute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Forcing someone to mediate is like forcing them to apologize&mdash;meaningless and quite possibly even counterproductive. Mediation only works if all parties go into the process voluntarily, thereby having at least some level of desire to participate constructively. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Edited to clarify That's a good point, but anyone who drops out of mediation [after this arb-case which is pretty much a last chance saloon] is, to my mind, not interested in forming a consensus and is therefore in breach of Consensus and is therefore acting unilaterally and should therefore ultimately be blocked. The funny thing about Wikipedia is that we appreciate the right outcome, but we only accept it when it is done in the right way. As a community we have more belief that we will get the right outcome eventually than that we need to have the right outcome now. And I think we also believe that when we get it right and do it in the right way, it tends to stick better. Hiding T 11:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Probation
3) Any party who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on episode related articles may be placed on Probation by any uninvolved administrator.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Consensus
1) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:


 * Support. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change
2) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:


 * Support, this is also covered by WP:CON. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Breakdowns in consensus
3) Sometimes efforts at dispute resolution amongst a group of editors can fail, and the process of building consensus can stall. Where editors are unable to resolve disagreements amongst themselves, they should turn to others for help, for example by requesting a third opinion or making a request for comment.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:


 * Support. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Building consensus: external discussion
4) Whilst editors are free to discuss matters of content and policy outside of Wikipedia, only positions expressed on Wikipedia itself are relevant in evaluating consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:


 * Comment:I'm not sure if this is relevant to the case, though of course I could be uninformed — is there evidence that on-Wiki consensus has been concluded from external discussions? --PeaceNT (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects
5) A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia; and, simultaneously, a group of editors that use said pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work. It may maintain various collaborative processes, keep track of work that needs to be done, and act as a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:


 * Oppose. Editors who take an interest in a particular topic may or may not be a member of the Wikiproject concerning that topic (and they are certainly under no obligation to become one); thus, it's entirely understandable that they might not be aware of discussions held on the project talk pages. This is a reason why a wikiproject per se is not a good "forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed."; debates should be held, or otherwise linked/noted on individual article talk pages so as to make sure as many interested users as possible are properly notified, and consensus, if achieved, is agreed on by a wider community than a group of Wikiproject participants. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Building consensus: WikiProjects
6) WikiProjects have no special status in developing consensus on matters of content or policy. Any Wikipedia editor may participate in developing a consensus on any matter that interests them.

As a purely practical matter, to the degree that a WikiProject's membership correlates with the corpus of editors who have an interest in contributing to a particular subject area, the consensus of the WikiProject's membership may be said to be the consensus at large.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:


 * Absurd — Any local-consensus is subordinate to project-wide consensus (re your practical matter). --Jack Merridew 12:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Absurd, indeed These local-consensus problems are just that, problems. I can show you half a dozen problem areas where a small group of people on a Wikiproject are trying to bulldoze their decisions over bunches of articles where nobody wants their involvement. If anything, Wikipedia should be entirely skeptical of any consensus that can only be shown by participants in a project.  In the end, consensus is not what some wikiproject says, it's in what editors do.SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * The degree to which WikiProjects set guidelines is nebulous, and ought remain that way. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I commented above. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ownership of articles
7) Wikipedia editors, whether acting as an individual or as a corpus, do not have the right to control content that they contribute to Wikipedia articles.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:



Guidelines
8) Editors working to implement guidelines that have wide consensus support within the community need not rehash the discussion of a general guideline each time they apply it.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:



Indefinite block of Jack Merridew
1) Per remedies on the previous arbitration case and per the evidence on stalking and likely sockpuppetry User:Jack Merridew is blocked indefinitely.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by CheckUsers:


 * I just wanted to note here that the information about Davenbelle is correct. He is a banned user and was known to edit from Bali, Indonesia. I compared the information on Jack with the old information we know about Davenbelle, and both are in the same large city, but Jack is on a different ISP. That in itself doesn't mean much because it is simple to have changed ISPs over all that time (even by editing from work or school), so sockpuppetry can't be ruled out, while at the same time, CheckUser alone is certainly not conclusive in this case. Dmcdevit·t 22:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there any way you can check during the 10 April - 8 May period (when Moby Dick and Jack were active, yet have no overlapping edits)? It might be a bit more definitive. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble  <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 00:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * CheckUser data is time sensitive, and does not go back that far. Dmcdevit·t 21:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not in a large city (a lot closer to a kampong, really), although the connections I edit from may make it look that way. Most connections available are DSL from the phone company and I've seen myself on the same IP at many locations; i.e. after clearing cookies and having to login when I next visit wikipedia. I expect that the number of IPs here is low and that the norm folks may be used to of one IP per user simply does not apply. FWIW, I'm at a restaurant at the moment and there are at least 6 other folks online here at the moment. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is simply that since all the IP addresses in the surrounding area including where you might be resolve to the one big city, that according to the IP you two both share that location, since the same is true of his IP (whether he is technically in the city or not). Dmcdevit·t 21:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I understand now. I really just wanted to point out that that IPs seem to be used across large regions. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to add — before too much personally identifying information is posted here — that the harassment I endure on wikipedia includes regular death threats. See Abuse reports/8x Ranges and this diff as an example. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added a new ANI report regarding new "threats" and vandalism to your and another user's pages that seem to be from the same editor. Please see here. These types of edits go beyond disagreements. Even if one thinks an editor should be indefinitely blocked, they should not sink as low as these IPs have. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I posted a note there. Thanks for you comment below, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Interesting evidence provided above. Really need an answer either way to confirm or deny this. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose White Cat has a tendency to accuse people he disagrees with as being socks of Moby Dick. IIRC, he did it to me once. When I first saw Jack interact with Cat, it didn't appear that he knew him at all. In fact, I felt bad for Jack, not knowing what he was getting into when you disagree with Cat. I'd consider building an evidence section to support his, but this assertion is so laughable that I don't think it's worth the effort. -- Ned Scott 06:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Pay close attention to Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick. And both you and Jack clearly did more than simply disagree with me. You made disagreeing with me a habit. How many times have you or Jack agreed with me? -- Cat chi? 16:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I agreed with you in the section below ; so did Ned. I also agreed with you at Featured list removal candidates/List of Oh My Goddess episodes. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:


 * I would also recommend more aggressive measures to keep this person off of me should arbitration committee conclude that he is indeed a sockpuppet. If not my most formal apologies. -- Cat chi? 21:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think there could be any connection here and here? Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 05:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What? That that's me? Nope; just an editor with a dim view of trivia. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If not you, which if it is not, then fine, hence why I asked, it looks like it could be a reincarnation of Dannycali, Burntsauce, or Eyrian--all three of which have been banned for sockpuppeting and have an intense anti-"in popular culture" editing history. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per the evidence of unconstructive editing behavior. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 23:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The first link you give documents disruptive editing by White Cat; the second, we've discussed and I don't see why you're mentioning it again. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we did discuss that other edit, but it hits to the spirit of editing behavior, i.e. the tendency to focus overwhelmingly or disproportionately on wanting to remove material rather than to help us revise and expand articles. Just as I have greatly reduced my AfD participation to articles that I believe I can help fix, it would be reassuring to see others not focus so much on deleting articles.  Regards, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Whoa. Massive assumption of bad faith of an editor who edits with the intention of positively contributing to wikipedia. <font color="FF69B4">Seraphim&hearts; Whipp 23:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Davenbelle/Moby Dick edited with that disguise. Once the mustache fell he ended up getting blocked indefinitely. Bali, Indonesia is a non-English speaking region with a population of 3,150,000 (capital Denpasar: 491,500). What are the odds of someone on the web stumbling to two near-native English speakers from such a small region on a topic not concerning anything local? It may be understandable for people from Bali to commonly edit Bali related articles. But Oh My Goddess! episodes or some ANI discussion on ASALA attacks are hardly related to Bali or Indonesia. Granted 10% of the web visit wikipedia according to alexa, but surely such a crossing of paths defies statistics. Jack is actually the third person from Bali that cause me grief as Davenbelle and Moby Dick were never officially confirmed as sockpuppets as logs expired before such a check could be preformed. -- Cat chi? 02:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: 3,150,000 is a pretty big region by some standards (as a comparison measure, my country, the Netherlands Antilles, isn't even 200,000). The chances of there being two Balinese editors with fluent English skills are actually pretty high. The chances of two editors getting irritated with White Cat are also pretty high. Not saying that you aren't right, but your logic isn't persuasive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs) 02:56, 17 February 2008
 * Oh really? Per List of countries by English-speaking population The Netherlands ranks 14th most English spoken country. Netherlands Antilles alone is ranked at #114 despite its very small population. On the other hand Indonesia isn't even ranked in the top 120. Bad analogy. Mind you Moby Dick had a lowly opinion of Pop Culture something Jack also demonstrated as early as 19 July 2007. So to summarize.
 * What are the odds of two people to...
 * ...know fluent English?
 * ...be in Indonesia?
 * ...be in Bali?
 * ...be a foreigner in Bali, Indonesia? (how many are there? total?)
 * ...have lowly opinion on pop culture?
 * ...visit wikipedia?
 * ...edit wikipedia?
 * ...come across White Cat on wikipedia
 * ...get irritated by the most annoying White Cat so much that they follow him around ?
 * ...participate in Turkey related discussions in an inflammatory way? Something one of them is sanctioned from.
 * ...edit the article Belldandy?
 * ...edit over 100 pages that User:White Cat also edited?
 * White Cat has edited 7696 distinct pages. Wikipedia has 11,941,671 pages currently. Your chance of editing a single page as White Cat has edited is (100*7,696/11,941,671) = %.0644. For editing 100 different pages that number gets much much lower roughly (.0644)100 ~ %7.73*10-120 I think. This is the chance of such a coincidence.
 * ...join wikipedia a day after the other leaves?
 * ...a combination of any four items from the list above?
 * ...a combination of all of the items above
 * What are the chances? And mind you these are the similarities at a glance. -- Cat chi? 05:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt edited at least 100 articles you have also edited, and so have others. It's not surprising because Jack probably is interested in some the same stuff as you are. When I stop to think about it, despite how we've driven each other crazy, you and I have a some very similar tastes in anime. You're also counting all the stubs that Jack probably redirected. Jack knows you've created articles that likely don't pass WP:FICT, Jack wants to clean those articles up, there you go. Given that, I think 100 is a low number, and not at all suspicious. That sums up at least seven of your above points. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And the community told you to disengage for it. See the thing I love about this is that when you were RfCed (Requests for comment/Ned Scott), jack was there to defend you despite overwhelming community consensus telling you to disengage. Among the issues involving you there was an entry concerning Porthos, the dog from star trek which Jack was present on every step. He was also present with the rank insignia debate. These are articles I edited most. He didn't just edit articles and run, he participated in the discussions to purge them till the end. -- Cat chi? 16:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Now of course you would feel 100 to be a low number as you have edited 398 pages that I have also edited. Thats about 400 or in other words four times 100. -- Cat chi? 16:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In contrast TTN actually only edited 236 articles I have edited and he edits like a bot... processing entire categories. -- Cat chi? 16:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, don't lie to people, Cat. The community told me to let go of an issue regarding your signature. Never, I repeat and add fancy formatting  NEVER  have I wikistalked you. You're continued accusation that I have is really getting old. What I meant was regarding non-controversial stuff, like the anime shows we've watched, or some other page or template. I find it likely that I've probably edited at least 100 of those same pages as you have, ones that are completely unrelated to any dispute you or I might have. But hey, way to completely miss the point. -- Ned Scott 22:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll let FloNight and others sort this out. It isn't right for me to speak behalf of them. That certainly was not my intention. The combined 'common' edits of Davenbelle and his sockpuppets (Moby Dick, Diyarbakir) is '367'. You on the other hand have edited 398 pages that I have edited. In other words you have edited more common pages with me than the person that had been banned indefinitely for stalking me. Does that not say anything? -- Cat chi? 02:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It says nothing. I'm sure we can cross reference contributions of several user pairs and find some really interesting numbers. What separates me is that I don't intend to harass you, and more often than not, I have edited those pages for reasons unrelated to you. I'd be interested in seeing a list of those 398 pages. -- Ned Scott 04:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes we can make such compassions to a number of users. Once the tool is complete I can provide more useful results. The one I provided in /evidence was processed by hand. I am putting raw numbers below:
 * Number of Edits (Distinct pages):
 * TTN: 30050 (13881)
 * Jack Merridew: 6544 (2802)
 * Eusebeus: 5361 (3395)
 * Ned Scott: 31447 (8215)
 * Common edits:
 * TTN - Jack Merridew: 750
 * TTN - Eusebeus: 521
 * TTN - Ned Scott: 363
 * Jack Merridew - Eusebeus: 246
 * Jack Merridew - Ned Scott:226
 * Eusebeus - Ned Scott: 216
 * TTN - Jack Merridew - Eusebeus: 109
 * TTN - Jack Merridew - Ned Scott: 90
 * TTN - Eusebeus - Ned Scott: 135
 * Jack Merridew - Eusebeus - Ned Scott: 83
 * TTN - Jack Merridew - Eusebeus - Ned Scott: 60
 * So you reversion of my signatures, recreation of my former talk page, redirectification of articles I created, complaining about me on a wikiproject page, you revert waring on this very page of my sub workshop page - all that has nothing to do with me? I find that rather hard to swallow.
 * -- Cat chi? 21:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * They involved you, but never was my intent to harass you, and none of it was because I held a grudge or anything like that. Not to say that frustration was never a factor, but that describes the tone of my messages, not the motivation behind my actions.


 * I reverted you once on this case. I redirected articles you created because I felt they should be redirected, and it had nothing to do with you being the article's author. The fact that you can show that others are editing these pages only means you have a tendency to make articles that we think needs to be cleaned up, and again, this is an assessment independent of the author. I don't go looking for Cat created articles. I reverted your edits to archives in the same way I have reverted a lot of users who've done that (and I've even gone though to fix those edits on other pages, and left them messages to not edit archives). Your former talk page was never "re-created", it was your userspace, which you deleted to justify the sig changes (as in, that was one issue, there's no sense in trying to make it seem like there were two issues just to pad your "list").


 * When others wanted to delete your episode template, I opposed that. I voted to keep several main character articles of the OMG series, articles you've prided yourself on. I specifically stated that I would not force or push the issue regarding the OMG episode merging discussion, and voluntarily restricted myself to only editing on the talk pages. I've agreed with you on many issues, but they're different issues than the sub-article fiction thing. I've even sought your advice on more than one occasion.


 * Cat, I'm going to give you some very good advice: Don't conclude that the world is out to get you simply because we disagree about some issues. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is always about you isn't it? I merely reported activity I consider disruptive on wikipedia. Arbitrators are more than capable of reviewing it and reaching a verdict. For reporting such activity people collectively filed a complaint against me doing so. If what you (plural) are doing isn't wrong why are you (plural) going to such extremes?
 * For example, on the mailing list I stated to you: "I value your opinions on the matter greatly". You responded in return with: "How can you expect anyone, on either side of this debate, to have any respect for your views when you disrespect us with this rubbish?".  I don't understand why do you (plural) expect me to participate in discussions if all you are going to do is ignore anything and everything I post and even insult me. I will only participate in discussions when the people on the other side of the table don't act as if they are inquisitors purging heresy (cruft? alas back then it was witchcraft) in the middle ages.
 * So please save me the lecture as it is not sincere. You cannot even begin to "agree to disagree" let alone listen or reach a compromise as demonstrated on the mailing list as well as other places.
 * For instance the issue concerning User:Cool Cat: deletion log of [[User:Cool Cat] ] page, the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat, and Deletion review/Log/2007 May 30 and thats not all. You pursued the matter as far as you could. You wasted how much community time over a simple deletion of ones former userpage that is done all the time? If all you did was opposing my workshop sub paging, why would I be even complaining?
 * -- Cat chi? 16:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "It is always about you isn't it?" I'm not sure why you would say that.. or what it has to do with anything I just said. You gave specific examples of when I disagreed with you, and I gave you specific examples of when I agreed with you. At one point in this case you've even asked if we've agreed on things before. This should be on the flip side, in that this case is not about you. You are not a party to this case, nor is Jack a party to this case.


 * My comments are sincere. As much as you make me want to pull my hair out on some things, I do respect you on many other issues, and I have no grudge or personal reason to oppose your views. You have a tendency to conclude that people are out to get you because of a few content disputes, and that makes working with you very hard. I've already explained myself about your userpage/sig issue, I don't feel the need to re-explain every time you try to use it as an example. -- Ned Scott 17:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoa -- I'd like this to be a coincidence, but I'm not sure. The evidence White Cat presents, while circumstantial, is very nearly what Yogi Berra would call "too coincidental to be a coincidence." It's not just the region Jack comes from, but the timeframe of his edits, specifically how there is no overlap between what might be his other socks during a period where both were ostensibly "active". Like I said, it's circumstantial, but it certainly bears closer examination. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 05:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Coincidences... I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences. -- Cat chi? 05:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 *  Absurd — I have not read everything White Cat has linked to yet, but put simply, Bollocks. He has had it in for me ever since the Ah! My Goddess (TV series) episode articles were redirected. See the evidence I presented in the prior TV case. A hundred pages? Sounds about right; these case pages, an/i, our talk pages, the OMG episode and character pages. FWIW, I'm tempted to go and confiscate the WP:AGF image on his user page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've read more of his "evidence". It seems to be focused on three issues; geographic, professional edits and editing of common articles (and a whole lot of original research). I will stipulate that I am currently in Indonesia and have visited Bali. I am not Indonesian, I am a native speaker of English which is widely spoken in Indonesia as it is worldwide. There are a great many foreigners here; villas are cheap. I have also lived in 6 other countries, visited several dozen, and travel often. I'm sure that logs will confirm this; ask User:Alison who did the User:Grawp case. White Cat refers to gaps in my editing — which are there, so? Last May and some of June I was in Singapore and was not focused on this site. He also refers to my professional editing, which I would thank him for in other circumstances. The professional edits to my first article seem rather tame to me; Bold text, for example. I added categories, too; I believe I looked at other articles and followed what I saw. His third point is that I've edited a number — I think he says 190 — of the same articles as he has. So? I believe I first encountered him on Talk:List of Oh My Goddess episodes/Archive 1 which was unpleasant. That whole discussion led to edits to common articles such as the episode articles and later the character articles. He has been very disruptive as I've previously documented. When I've seen this, I've pointed it out on places like an/i. This is not harassment, and it is certainly not stalking.
 * I have been aggressively harassed by Grawp and others. I have been impersonated something like a half a dozen times. That White Cat is accusing me of "stalking" him while seemingly reviewing every edit I've ever made is creepy in the extreme. No, I don't think he is Grawp. What I do see in common is harassment of deletion-minded (the nice, civil way of saying deletionist) editors by some who would keep the endless crappy articles they've created. In the Talk:List of Oh My Goddess episodes/Archive 1 discussion, White Cat implores other editors to leave him alone when, in fact, the discussion is about the articles. Ever since that encounter, he has been very vocal about tv issues but has not done much about the poor state of the many articles. This is what has led to him being here on these two cases.
 * I am here to clean things up. There are many, many articles that need work and many more that need to go because they are fundamentally unencylopaedic. I see this as an issue of scalability. Wikipedia has reached a point where it is time to empty the trash. --Jack Merridew 10:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If it was that absurd why would you be trying to defend yourself that hard? -- Cat chi? 14:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll not be baited by you. --Jack Merridew 15:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Bait? You have participated in every discussion concerning Oh My Goddess! Every template deletion, even the afd, deletion review, and flrc? Now there is a logical reason why I would participate or edit such articles: I edited them regularly. I created most of those pages, spent a good deal of time. Why have you been involved with nearly every discussion and edited every article concerning Oh My Goddess? How about your involvement with ASALA on ani? Is it pure coincidence that you started editing just a day (less than 24 hours after) Moby Dick made his last? You visited Singapore the same period Moby Dick went missing and was unable to comment on the deletion discussion? User:Diyarbakir was very careful not to give me any evidence to help identify him as Moby Dick. He avoided Bali related topics all together for example. -- Cat chi? 15:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Completely inappropriate for this venue. While I personally find this to be disgusting, scurrilous and scabrous, even judged by the abominably low standards induced by the bleating querulousness & rampant fractiousness of User:White Cat, it is nonetheless completely inappropriate to bring this kind of gutter slandermongering accusation to this page. User:White Cat knows perfectly well that we have venues for the suspicions he raises; by bringing it up here, this aspires to little more than a smear. This should be taken up at SP or ANI. Eusebeus (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your personal attacks aside (please be creative in the future), this is exactly the right place for this. Entire arbitration cases can be constructed around stalking and sockpuppetary. WP:ANB/I will not handle such requests. I can't relate WP:SP to this at all, you probably meant WP:RFCU but that isn't necesary as we know they have similar IPs (same geographic region). You may be in the business of spreading disruption but I am not. -- Cat chi? 18:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You, White Cat, have a long amply documented history of argumentative, tendentious and disruptive editing across many subjects so who needs to be creative? - you bring your own rope (Cf. links at any of WC's RFAs. That you have imported your brand of confrontation to this arena is therefore not surprising. Proclaim away that calling you out on this bullshit is disruptive, but who, exactly, do you think you are fooling with this? You practically have a permanent space at AN/I, so maybe we should shift this discussion over there. I am sure that there are many admins who would jump with joy at the prospect of dealing yet again with more of your high drama. Eusebeus (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And I am causing drama, dude you are one one swearing - almost as if you are panicking. And I haven't even begun collecting evidence, this is just the raw data for the most part. As for my RfAs, see the full list before commenting any further. Feel free to post it to WP:ANB/I and observe how it flies. Why are you asking me about it? If this was supposed to intimidate me, it didn't work. -- Cat chi? 21:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot see any degree of panicking in Eusebeus' post... <font color="FF69B4">Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp 10:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose you are right. -- Cat chi? 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One thing I will add to this discussion is that while I may not find Jack's contributions all that constructive (i.e. too quick to want to delete articles, not enough article improvement, etc.), I do strongly disagree with some of the bizarre edits socks have made to his userspace as we discussed here. It is one thing to disagree with editors or to even not find them that positively productive, but these personal attacks that I have seen on both sides of this debate are incredibly disturbing.  All of us involved are human beings with emotions and feelings and we should keep that fact in mind and do the best we can to avoid even our most severe reservations from getting out of hand.  We can disagree with each other and even believe that some of us do not help make Wikipedia better, but we should not hate each other.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * White Cat has posted evidence that I added ER to list entry to a number of Oh My Goddess! episode redirects and gives links to the ones for season two. This is true. So? What's wrong with this? This is a mechanism that was developed after the fact; it was not available when the redirects were performed. I did the season one redirects some time ago. I believe I've gotten them all. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Completely inappropriate This isn't a forum for you to attempt to get editors who disagree with you blocked by posting vague evidence of sockpuppetry (The geolocation is one thing, but the overlapping edit count evidence is laughable). Still, you got your checkuser, which I suspect is what you wanted. I'd suggest this section be struck, to be honest.  Black Kite  16:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words sockuppetary of any kind, harassment and other forms of disruption is perfectly acceptable so long as it is to remove fiction related articles from wikipedia. That is what you are saying. If the evidence is so vague, why is it not disregarded? Why is Jack Merridew defended like this? -- Cat chi? 19:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not at all what he's saying. -- Ned Scott 18:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

TTN restricted when challenged
This proposal will no doubt need some tweaking, but to get it started here's my first take on it:

1) is prohibited for six months from reverting another editor when the edit is related to the notability of fictional subtopics (mainly episodes and characters). This applies to tagging articles, merging, redirecting, and major content removal. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Proposed. Not sure how to work AfD noms in here, nor am I sure that it's even a major concern, but I'm sure we can work something out if desired. TTN might have had a liberal interpretation of ArbCom's instructions from the last case, but something like this would be a lot more clear cut, and I have no doubt he would follow it. Perhaps this could be given a trial time of a week or two, and if not effective then simply default to something stronger. I really believe this issue comes down to when situations where forced, and not the initial editorial actions. He would learn a lot from that kind of six month (or whatever) probation, and still be able to be constructive on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Much better than the other arbcom-proposed solutions because it stops the edit-warring (independant from who's right) while still allowing bold cleanup. If this was adopted, the new WP:FICT/N noticeboard could serve as a neutral meeting ground to review TTN's edits in case there is fundamental disagreement. – sgeureka t•c 08:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am still not sure if singling out TTN will be sufficient as wouldn't the couple of his most ardent supporters just pick up where TTN left off anyway? Plus, we changed this ArbCom case from TTN to Episodes an characters 2.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to argue that that will happen (ABF much?), the other remedy does not prevent it either. And as for your last point, that clearly doesn't matter, since we're still kidding ourselves about who this case is really about; since the only editor who edit-warred (of which there were many) and is being censured is TTN. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing to assume, when editors have already said that they "will also volunteer to proxy on TTN's behalf". --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Fait accompli will take care of the rest. Personally, I think Fait accompli would be enough on it's own, but arbcom seems to wants to comment on TTN specifically, and it's hard to blame them considering what has happened. -- Ned Scott 00:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A much better proposal. It addressed the actual problem here &mdash; the edit warring. I think we should include all named parties to this case in this remedy though. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis


 * Rather telling that this whole section is being ignored. --Jack Merridew 11:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Disconnect between /Evidence and /Workshop
There is a disconnect between the evidence presented at Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence and remedies proposed here on workshop. A good number of the proposed remedies presented here has no /Evidence basis.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * Agree, too many editors here want blood, or are trying to use this case to attack the guidelines, rather than addressing the real issues at hand, and doing so in an appropriate and balanced way (for a lack of better words). -- Ned Scott 07:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * '''Initiator. -- Cat chi? 13:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree — much of what's being proposed is unsupported/unwarranted. A lot of TTN's opponents are just champing at the bit to propose penalties. --Jack Merridew 13:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You apparently missed my entire evidence section then. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 17:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I read it last time; you didn't even post new evidence for this case. FYI, I've refactored those section headings to omit the '|' character as this impedes linking; you should avoid that format in the future. --Jack Merridew 07:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The fact that it's "old" evidence doesn't make it any less relevant. 2) I can't help it if several other users have brought up the various points I intended to before I had a chance to formulate how to present them. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 07:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it wasn't relevant, rather that I didn't miss it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree  TTN (and to a lesser extent, some others) have continued to edit war or put articles up for deletion, claiming they have the backing of community consensus, when megabytes of discussion on talk pages, here on this RfA and on policy/guideline talk pages, show there is not consensus. The evidence presented clearly show TTN's actions do not have consensus, and the proposed remedies presented here are us lot debating what to do about it - some proposals are broadly accepted whilst others are still under discussion. Astronaut (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't about a spesific issue. -- Cat chi? 16:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Please explain what is unclear about the evidence, or which remedies are not supported by it. I think the evidence is pretty clear, especially the evidence of edit warring presented by John254, as well as the context of the last arbitration case. <font color="#11A"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 19:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When one editor is the locus of the dispute, he'll logicially be the target of much of the proposals. Evidence matches up quite well with what is being proposed. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A good number of Workshop material presented here isn't based on anything on /evidence. This does not mean all entries lack a /evidence backing. Merely SOME entries here have no /evidence backing which is unhelpful in resolving this dispute. Workshop entries that lack /evidence backing shouldn't even be presented here IMHO. If it has /evidence backing examples of the /evidence material should be presented. Words have no meaning without context. -- Cat chi? 16:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not every entry would need an evidence section. Some are just common sense. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of Evidence presented by Hiding

 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:


 * What we have here are various breaches of the expected behaviour on Wikipedia. First of all, editors are using the edit summaries to continue arguing, in breach of Help:Edit summary:
 * Proper use of edit summaries is critical to resolving content disputes. Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial. If the edit involves reverting previous changes, it should be marked as a revert ("rv") in the edit summary. Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. Instead, place such comments, if required, on the talk page. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself.
 * Second, a number of editors are failing to observe Dispute resolution:
 * Discuss the issue on a talk page. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question.
 * Most situations are not urgent. Please give both you and the other party some time. Often it helps to just take a deep breath and sleep over it. Don't worry! You always can fix the problem later.
 * Third, editors are breaching Assume good faith:
 * To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it.
 * Fourth, User:TTN is to my mind in breach of WP:3RR. Had I not edited the article in question I would have blocked him for a breach of the spirit if not the literal meaning.
 * The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting multiple times, discuss the matter with other editors. If an action really needs reverting that much, somebody else will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable.
 * Fifth, editors are in breach of Consensus.
 * When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite reasoning, cooperation, and if necessary, negotiation on talk pages
 * Because not all the involved parties in the article I am presenting here are party to the arbitration, I am unclear how to further proceed. This one simply caught my eye because I got caught up in it by trying to clean up a tagged article. I do not think one editor alone should be sanctioned.  However, I think I have demonstrated where editors have edited in breach of the fundamental principles on Wikipedia:
 * When reverting other people's edits, be sure to give a rationale for the revert (on the article's talk page if necessary), and be prepared to enter into an extended discussion over the edits in question. Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in their agreeing with you; being dogmatic or uncommunicative evokes the same behavior in others, and gets you embroiled in an edit war.
 * To me, many of the editors involved seem to be of the opinion that their given preference is the only possible outcome they will tolerate. This violates Ownership of articles and The Wrong Version, and to my mind, such editors need to be educated to the awareness that such an approach is not conducive to collaborating on building an encyclopedia. Hiding T 16:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of Evidence presented by User:White Cat

 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:


 * This evidence would be much more compelling if there were diffs to back it up. "Some of the involved parties use cunning tactics" in particular needs AfDs to show that users are using "cunning tactics". As for the "Vandalism" and "Trolling" section, what User:White Cat sees as vandalism and trolling, I see as trying to improve the encyclopedia. WP:NOT applies, even if WP:EPISODE's status is unclear. I think that an article consisting entirely of plot summary (especially if it is of a fanboyish nature) lowers the reputation of the project, and that removing the article, while maintaining a "list of" article, is an overall improvement. If User:White Cat thinks that certain users are trolls or vandals, he/she should provide diffs to prove it, otherwise I'll assume that editors are acting in good faith. --Phirazo 03:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That information will be available only after toolserv returns back to service. Toolserv dying down roughly the same time I made that post wasn't planed. :P Also TTN had been blanking "list of" articles as well. -- Cat chi? 15:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Blanking "list of" articles like this?  --Jack Merridew 11:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly like those. That was my only two TTN-like edits. Can you please link to the ANI discussion as well? I can't remember which archive it was in. Also I bet three million US dollars that you can't find a third diff of me blanking such an article. -- Cat chi? 18:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The an/i thread is at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive353
 * an attempt at scorching the Earth because you couldn't get your way
 * I think you are gaming the system
 * This behaviour is childish and WP:POINTY
 * Put the money in escrow and I'll review more of your "contributions"
 * --Jack Merridew 12:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to review all my contribs. I have nothing to hide and I am not paying you. However what you are doing here is attacking the person providing evidence. /Evidence is there for a reason. -- Cat chi? 02:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Bet's off then? --Jack Merridew 08:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a point? -- Cat chi? 23:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes; that you disrupt to make points. --Jack Merridew 10:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How about TTN? He made identical edits and those aren't WP:POINT violations now are they? What is so pointy in blanking redirectify articles "not in line with guidelines"? Or is it that only users you approve are allowed to make such edits? Aren't you applying a double standard? -- Cat chi? 11:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * TTN's purpose is to clean-up Wikipedia; yours would appear to be to endlessly make points. --Jack Merridew 11:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that so? How can something as trivial as a clean-up be controversial or even be a WP:POINT violation? Maybe it isn't a simple 'clean-up'. -- Cat chi? 11:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

-- Cat chi? 12:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't I see a post of yours about Combative Mentality recently? Spot-on. See here re your last query. --Jack Merridew 11:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What's so combative about seeking community attention and discussing issues? Rather than revert waring and 'forcing' my will that is? How is this edit any more right than my edit you liked to above? I ask you again. How are such edits simple "clean up edits" given the thread you just linked? To put it mildly, I am rather confused. On one side you are considering my edits WP:POINTy yet you are referring to identical edits by TTN as a mere "clean up"
 * I was referring to your approach to this thread, which I now see amounts to the entirety of your editing for the last two days. Go pester someone else. --Jack Merridew 12:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than avoiding the question how about answering it? I guess you consider discussion mere pestering... -- Cat chi? 12:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered. [Personal attack omitted]. --Jack Merridew 12:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No you have not. How come identical edits by TTN not WP:POINT violations while mine are. I mean when I or someone else corrects grammar, wikify, and etc they are not accused of WP:POINT violations. If TTN's edits are mere minor clean-up, so are mine. If not, neither are his. I made my edit under the assumption that it was acceptable to remove articles' content like how TTN was doing. Minor edits by very nature cannot be WP:POINTy by themselves. -- Cat chi? 13:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, you're trolling; cut it out. You're only proving my point [pun noted]. --Jack Merridew 13:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Trolling? I am merely asking a question you are so desperate in avoiding to answer. -- Cat chi? 13:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered; and here, too. Don't be a dick. --Jack Merridew 13:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Civility people, that last comment was completely uncalled for and it is this type of attitude that has gotten us in to arbitration in the first place, we should all just back off and leave this as is nothing can be gained from further discussion on this topic as it will just result in more sniping from both sides. --Sin Harvest (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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:

A number of proposed remedies here seem to me to be attempts to get the arbcom to validate every step of a policy argument short of actually saying "and therefore the policy shall be to redirect episode and character articles." Whatever the merits of that position, I dislike the attempts to get the arbcom to backdoor that as policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be ironic, because as I see it the case was actually started to take issue with the manner in which people were doing such redirects; any reasonable decision here, would morel likely have the opposite effect. DGG (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a ruling on the proportion of guideline editors to article editors needed for a consensus would settle this. For example, do 100 editors at the guideline level have more clout than 100 at the article level? Maybe that's a "content dispute," I'm not sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not so much a content dispute as an attempt to get the arbcom to create policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've posted some comments on the proposed decision talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)