Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Halt to activities proposed injuction
Might I suggest that the halt be extended to cover other fictional material such as books and videogames also. Similar tactics are being used on these as found on the episode articles, and the conclusions here may well have an effect on their status. LinaMishima (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that may be a good idea, but from what I've seen, the edit warring related to those is mostly centered around characters that appear in fiction books and videogames (which the proposed injunction already covers). Although I have seen edit warring on books, like the City of Bones article. --Pixelface (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think at present the injunction really should only apply to television series episodes because the editors on those articles are the ones primarily involved in this case. I've added that clarification to the injunction, although of course the other arbitrators who have voted for it may remove that if they wish. If there is a view that the problem is broader than TV series articles, then evidence to that effect should be presented, and editors on those articles should be given some kind of notice of the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole Bulbasaur issue at least shows that there can be "bleed-over". -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble argue  check ) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I second the opinion that it should not be TV alone. TTN is running out of TV articles to go after. He's headed for video game articles now.     Unless he's specifically limited from doing anything of the sort, TTN will just dodge avoid the specific series the wording indicates and go for the things he'll believe he can get without incident. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Question for the arbs (not sure if this is where it goes?) &mdash; does this apply to things deleted via AfD? What happens to articles currently at AfD and result in a delete? seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't propose the injunction, but I would imagine that AfD decisions can continue to be implemented, since the aim here is probably to target unilateral and not community consensus decision-making. On the other hand, it might be a good plan not to put contentious articles involved in this dispute up for AfD until the case is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it might be a good idea to adjust the wording to provide for already existing AfDs, since the injunction prohibits deletions of any kind. Otherwise we might have AfDs legitimately closed as delete not being fulfilled and piling up due to this injunction. seresin | wasn't he just...? 06:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree, else we're asking for trouble. Also, what about uncontroversial merges/redirects, where everyone involved is in agreement on what is to be done and how? I have seen that happen, and I don't think it would be good to discourage actions based on genuine consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There we're treading along that fine line just before the slippery slope, to butcher a few metaphors. Any language which allowed for such situations would either take several weeks to formulate or would leave enough wiggle room for people to abuse it.  There's no reason why the mergers can't wait. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble  argue  check ) 11:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) I understand that a point of contention is that some prior mergers have been unanimous, possibly because they have been done in a way which limited input was given (especially from those who would oppose it). The obvious solution would be "any uninvolved administrator" plus "a significant number of contributors in agreement", but then "uninvolved" and "significant number" are open to varied interpretations. Just my $0.02. Daniel (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * AFDs should also be avoided during the duration of the arbcom hearing. Lets stop all deletion and recreation for at least a while. -- Cat chi? 22:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would grudgingly support restricting new AfD nominations until this case is over, but any already in existence should not be restricted. But since the whole point of the injunction is to prevent unilateral, sans-community editorial actions, I don't see the point in restricting new AfDs, which, by definition, have community input. seresin | wasn't he just...? 03:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, with the provision that mass nominations by parties to the case should be restricted regardless of the starting time; we don't want to see someone who's part of the case attempt to "get a bunch in under the wire" by throwing out a whole bunch of mass-AfDs should it become clear that the injunction will pass. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Until there is consensus over the matter it will be disruptive to go for mass xfding these pages. Furthermore votestacking and etc will occur as a result of mass nominations. "Stop all activity people" is the intention of the temporary injunction I believe. Tricking the system by avoiding the arbitration remedy to continue the exact behavior arbcom tries to halt is the definition of disruption. -- Cat chi? 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree as a number of AfDs concerning editors involved in these discussions have become quite contentious and may turn off other editors not inolved in this case. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As currently phrased the injunction limits not just individual enforcement of guidelines or CSD's but also prevents action based on a consensus from AfD or another forum. I do not feel that such a draconian limitation is necessary, but the committee may. In any event, they should be clear about how broadly the injunction is to be understood. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it just passed. So I still request that the arbitrators clarify quickly if this applies to currently existing AfDs, or G4 speedy deletions. (There could be more loopholes that need to be addressed) seresin | wasn't he just...? 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do tags "related to notability" include merge tags? TTN (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As the english wikipedia has no issue currently with permastubs, the only reason other than notability I can think of to add merge tags to episode articles and the such would be for MOS and reading clarity. However justified that may be, however, I suspect that editors will find it possible to AGF and not blame notability debates for the duration of this ArbCom and the debates elsewhere, no matter who adds the tags. For now might I suggest that you get involved with the discussions to decide upon the community's view of the content side of this subject, over at WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE? EPISODE's talk page in particular would be a good place for you to let your opinion on this matter known. LinaMishima (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for the arbitrators, but I would think that if an editor added a merge tag to an article because they believed the topic to be non notable, the tag is related to notability and not allowed while the injunction is in effect. --Pixelface (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * has recently engaged in behavior which I contend amounts to either a technical violation of the injunction, or, at the very least, a concerted effort to thwart its purpose -- please see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement. John254 04:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a very bad call by the arbcom. To block even tagging is absurd and unnecessary. -- Ned Scott 08:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume the language about tagging applies to the templates notability, merge, and mergeto &mdash; but some clarification from the committee would be appreciated. --Pixelface (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Above, there was mention of extending the injunction to cover more than just TV episodes (given that activity has shifted to game videos). I don't think that the change to game videos is useful, but as someone who has been working to carry out merges in articles related to Middle-earth, I wouldn't want to have to stop doing that. As the injunction only mentions TV episodes, I will carry on doing that for Middle-earth-related articles until I hear otherwise (I may not see future changes to the injunction - a note on my talk page will be enough to stop me if needed). My suggestion as regards the scope of the injunction would be to ask the parties to the case to stop tagging, merging and redirecting on any articles, but to allow others to carry on with non-controversial stuff outside TV episodes. If certain areas become controversial, add the editors as parties to this case and ask them to stop for the duration of the case. Also (worst case scenario), be on the look out for sockpuppet accounts created by the parties to carry on "uninvolved" redirecting and reversion of redirections outside the area of TV episodes. Carcharoth (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Including video games in the injunction would be a spot on, wise move as a number of the parties involved have also arguably edit-warred or mass nominated for deletion articles concerning video game and not just television characters. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Halt to activities
I can tell you that I will not follow this request by arbcom. My tagging and work is in no way close to edit waring or controversial, and the fact that the arbcom didn't even consider such things is a great lapse in their judgement. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to hear any response from arbcom first regarding the points I've made before taking any action. -- Ned Scott 08:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what they are saying is just work in other areas for a few months. Every editor should be able to do that if needed. It will be difficult, and if you see others still doing lots of work in this area despite this injunction, and after being warned, bring it to the attention of the committee. Carcharoth (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people seem to dispute the scope of the injunction, believing that it applies to only the parties in the case. What is the correct reading with regards to scope? LinaMishima (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The injunction applies to all editors, regardless of whether they're a party to this particular case. Kirill 23:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought as much. Thank you! LinaMishima (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So, is someone going to go through and leave that same injunction message on the talk page of every last editor? Because otherwise, how is every editor supposed to know that all of a sudden no one is supposed to do a damn thing, even though several projects are actively working on cleaning up episodes and character articles?  Or will all the individual episode and character articles be protected?  Otherwise, this seems like an overly broad injunection that will just cause even more issues because people will get punished for doing something they now don't even know is wrong. Collectonian (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The injunction requires warnings before any blocks are imposed; any editors that get blocked here will certainly be aware of the matter beforehand. Kirill 00:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't comment on the informing process, but I do strongly suspect that it will be applied sensibly and with assumptions of good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary. The injunction also does not prevent the merging of content into another article, only the redirection, deletion or removal of content after this has been completed. LinaMishima (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't comment on the informing process? What does that mean? It says right there in the injunction: "...after being warned of this injunction". It is quite clear that no-one should block without first warning the user in question. And to pre-empt any wikilawyering - it is quite possible to carry on editing after a warning has been left, and to only see the message that has been left for you a few minutes later. Anyone enforcing this - please consider whether specific editors have seen the warning. ie. Don't block someone if they carry out a revert or redirection 5 seconds after you leave a warning telling them not to do this - it is likely they won't have seen the warning yet. Carcharoth (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot comment of the quality of the informing process because I am just a normal editor, and I personally am not sure what to comment with regards to this matter. You are free of course to suggest that this implied policy (of knowing of injunctions) is reviewed. Again, I would have thought that an assumption of good faith would mean that people would generally understand that warnings take time, and allow for one or maybe two edits before assuming the worst. Even then, I doubt that unless there was serious problems that anyone would be blocked with but a single warning. LinaMishima (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to post a notice of the injunction on WT:TV and WT:EPISODE? I can think of several editors off the top of my head that should also probably be notified on their talk pages. --Pixelface (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, that is a good idea. LinaMishima (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added this to Fiction notice that appears on all these pages, but likely should be a new section entry too. --M ASEM 02:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree and think it would be a good idea for you notify anyone whom you deem it appropriate to inform. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no way. Arbcom does not have this authority, they cannot demand that all editors stop working on such things. Members of arbcom need to get their freaking heads checked. -- Ned Scott 04:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC) My apologies for the rude comments. -- Ned Scott 02:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this kind of 'freeze' sets a bad precedent, and a lot more detail is needed, but maybe suggest alternatives and show how the current situation can be managed? Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedias arbitration committee is the ultimate authority traditionally hand picked by Jimmy Wales, the founder of wikipedia. They are the only group of people who can levy any kind of restriction to prevent disruption and assist in dispute resolution. Disregarding arbcoms rulings is probably not the best of all ideas. This is intended to be friendly advice and should be treated as such. You are actually free to disregard arbitration committees decision but you would risk facing the consequences. -- Cat chi? 23:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification regarding the injunction
I'm not quite sure where to ask this, perhaps on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 or Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop or an arbitrator's talk page, but for now I'll ask it here.

Is the following correct?

While this arbitration case is open, if any Wikipedia editor who has been warned of the injunction on their talk page:


 * 1) Redirects a television episode article
 * 2) Un-redirects a television episode article
 * 3) Redirects a television character article
 * 4) Un-redirects a television character article
 * 5) Adds a notability tag to a television episode article
 * 6) Removes a notability tag from a television episode article
 * 7) Adds a notability tag to a television character article
 * 8) Removes a notability tag from a television character article
 * 9) Adds a merge or mergeto tag to a television episode article because they think the episode is not notable
 * 10) Removes a merge or mergeto tag from a television episode article
 * 11) Adds a merge or mergeto tag to a television character article because they think the character is not notable
 * 12) Removes a merge or mergeto tag from a television character article
 * 13) Deletes a television episode article
 * 14) Un-deletes a television episode article
 * 15) Deletes a television character article
 * 16) Un-deletes a television character article

..then administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of the injunction.

If any editor on Wikipedia performs any of those actions, they need to be warned on their talk page of the injunction. (Is there a standard format for this?)

Editors may still:
 * 1) Nominate television episode articles/television character articles for deletion
 * 2) Trim content from television episode articles/television character articles
 * 3) Remove content from television episode articles/television character articles and merge it into List articles

Is that correct? --Pixelface (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It would probably be a good idea to avoid nominating episode or character articles for deletion for the time being as many of those nominated on episodes and characters during this case have become particularly heated if not unconstructive at times. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Pixelface, I think you missed out that people can still add summaries to lists (ie. carry out that stage of a merge process), as long as they leave out the final stage (carrying out the redirect). The episode article could then be put in Category:Episode articles that have been merged and may need redirecting after the Arbcom injunction has been lifted. In other words, I don't think expanding list articles is in any way forbidden - that is, after all, a constructive activity. I now see that this is sort of covered in your point 3, but I disagree that "removing material" is OK. That is in effect allowing people to stub articles, and requiring others to check whether any material has ended up in the list articles. Carcharoth (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Removing significant amounts of material would likely break the injunction, especially since it has been recommended to be enforced with a broad interpretation (or words to that effect). However performing the merge into a list in indeed most certainly allowed and maybe even encouraged (since other acts relating to notability and major rearrangement of content are prohibited at the moment, leaving only that). LinaMishima (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest everyone to just STOP whatever they are doing or thinking of doing involving the content of fiction related topics. People ought to get consensus first. Otherwise they may be wasting energy as if the consensus turns out to be against what you are doing, your edits will be promptly reverted eventually. This should not be remotely difficult to do unless people are here with a combative mentality. Such combative mentality is frowned up on and on occasions such people have been blocked indefinitely for pushing the communities patience to their limits. This post is not directed at either side of the discussion but instead to both sides. -- Cat chi? 23:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I ask in part because of this thread Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement, where editors discussed TTN, who was removing much content from List of videogame character articles, and since TTN also asked whether merge tags are tags related to notability. From what I've seen, edit-warring has occurred on articles about all fictional characters, not just fictional characters from television. --Pixelface (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "FT2 (Talk | email) 02:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Support adding tags which are a concern on the matter too. A few loopholes (consensus decisions? new topics? contentious processes?) but this will catch the main ones. Favoring a broad interpretation by administrators, geared to the spirit of this, which is to quell the disputed actions whilst the case is in progress."
 * I think arbitrators are pretty clear. -- Cat chi? 02:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Injunction revisited

 * 1) For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; 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.

What's to be said about de-populating and deleting categories which relate specifically to episodes and characters? ,, , , , , , , etc., etc. While not the letter, I believe this would violate the spirit of the moratorium imposed. — CharlotteWebb 22:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any examples of articles which were in these (now deleted) categories? The "empty category" CSD requires the category be empty for four days before speedy deletion (this is to prevent rapid fire depopulation and deletion without discussion). However, if the categories were never populated, then their deletion is not a problem. If one the involved parties has been depopulating in order to achieve a speedy deletion without any discussion, then that is something ArbCom should put an end to. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not evidence per se, but at least in two cases, (Gen Hospital and Dexter's Lab) the category was populated, then when the episoded were merged (just prior to this decision). Of course, once the episodes were merged, the category automatically depopulated, and thus likely lead to the deletion of it.  However, the Death Note merge seems to have happened after the injunction (this edit is dated on the 7th, but it is not by an involved party (User:HadesDragon).  --M ASEM  14:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

AFD limbo
A template (Template:FICTWARN) was created to post in AFDs such as those in Deletion sorting/Fictional characters and Deletion sorting/Television, and I'm wondering about it's wording. I assume that AFDs may still take place and they may end in five days, but the articles may not be redirected or deleted while the injunction is in effect, correct? Some editors are saying speedy keep while the injunction is in effect, but should editors in AFDs just ignore the injunction, argue as usual, with the closing admin waiting to enact any result until this case is closed? The template says the AFDs should continue to be relisted (and I suppose the discussion would go on for as long as this case is open), but if the discussion does not result in a keep, should the AFDs just be closed and perhaps relisted after this case is closed? --Pixelface (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion that led to the template being created can be seen at Articles for deletion/My Bad Too. Davewild (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the template. I just don't know if the AFDs should be continually relisted while this case is open. The AFDs could be continually relisted, they could be relisted after the case is over, any consensus to delete/redirect could be enacted after this case is over, they could be speedy kept, etc. Maybe non-admins could even close them, I don't know. --Pixelface (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The template should probably be added to these AfDs concerning characters that appear on TV shows: Articles for deletion/Strongarm (Masters of the Universe) and Articles for deletion/Shane Casey. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added the template to those AFDs. Davewild (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the fast response! Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. I urge the arbitrators to either allow AfDs to run their course or close them all.  --Phirazo 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And it is being carried to ridiculous lengths. Editor Jerry tagged Articles for deletion/List of fictional barefoot characters with FICTWARN, merely because the list included links to characters which might fall under the injunction. Jerry said it was best to "cast a wide net" without better guidance from ARBcom. This is just plain silly. Under this reasoning, all articles in AfD which link to a character in question would have to have their outcomes delayed. Please stop the insanity! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed it. That AfD has no bearing on the notability of the articles it lists. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe just closing all non-hoax, non-copy vio, and non-personal ones would be a good idea for the time being, as many of these unnecessary AfDs are just increasing tensions. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I messed up.
I'd just like to hold my hands up and say that I tagged all the character articles of characters from Degrassi: The Next Generation with the notable tag, not knowing about this place, and not realising I wasn't supposed to. Now I read that they can't be removed either. Sorry -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem plenty of users are not going to realise there is an injunction; as the injunction says that 'Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight' I will remove the notability tags you added myself. Davewild (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Prodding
Should admins remove prod templates from television character articles such as this one while the injunction is in effect? --Pixelface (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding such templates now is probably a bad idea. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Scope
Is this injunction really applying to all TV articles, Wikipedia-wide? It seemed to make sense when it was just "involved parties", but now a lot more editors are getting dragged in, who weren't really involved in any kind of contentious cleanup. So the injunction seems to be causing more disruption than it was designed to forestall. Can we perhaps narrow the scope a bit? --Elonka 04:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never thought it was a good idea in the first place, especially since it doesn't correspondingly provide for speedy deletion of any new TV episode articles created after it passed. I agree that the injunction needs to be modified to be less excessive in scope. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it theoretically applies to all character+episode articles and is hindering current cleanups, but I can live with it (with gritted teeth) as it's just temporary. Editors are already backlogging all the things that need to be done, so I predict there will be a huge flood of AfDs and performed mergers after this injunction gets lifted, there will be a huge outcry, and everything will be back on track within a couple of days. – sgeureka t•c 09:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, do you have any examples? I appreciate the attention this injunction has brought to this important discussion.  Some editors have continued with business as usual, but this injunction has slowed others enough to bring them here for discussion and reasoned debate.  Ursasapien (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The first that I heard of this injunction was when I saw a notice, placed by Pixelface at the talkpage of the Soap Operas WikiProject. A similar notice was also placed at the Anime/manga WikiProject.  I can't speak for other areas, but I know that in the realm of soap operas, we are constantly doing cleanup to prevent the creation of articles on very minor soap characters.  To suddenly tie our hands on this, meaning that articles can be created by anyone, but we're not allowed to continue with our normal cleanup because of this injunction, has ruffled some feathers. --Elonka 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It would have made a LOT more sense to have restricted a group of users instead of a group of articles. -- Ned Scott 03:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The injunction applies to television character articles and television episode articles (although I think the edit-warring has not been limited to television). I was also surprised to see the injunction applied to all editors, although it makes sense if some editors were not initially listed as involved parties. Adding parties to the case seems to be a very long process. I don't think the injunction is causing disruption &mdash; it's meant to put a stop to massive edit-warring. Some editors consider blanking articles and turning them into redirects as "cleanup &mdash; and that's a contentious issue. I would certainly like more clarification from the arbitration committee on how the injunction applies to the AFD process.


 * I did notify WikiProject Soap Operas (after seeing many of articles linked at List of supercouples &mdash; which I'm sure some of the involved parties would be happy to redirect/un-redirect), And I did notify WikiProject Anime and manga (although if a character appears in manga and anime, the injunction is somewhat less clear but I think it still applies). You can probably help prevent the creation of articles on minor soap characters by removing any redlinks you see. If there have been a flood of minor soap character articles created since the injunction was enacted, I'd like to know about it. --Pixelface (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The injunction would seem to preclude an admin acting on this: Puppy Love (TV series). --Jack Merridew 13:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I deleted it. The injunction doesn't apply there since that article was about a series, not an episode or character.  Mango juice talk 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I applaud your boldness. --Jack Merridew 10:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Query regarding temporary injunction and AfD
I would like some official clarification from the committee on how admins should take this injunction into consideration in light of various ordinary WP:AFD debates on TV episode/character articles. Specifically, I see three ways of interpreting things: Personally, I think the first makes the most sense, but the second also seems like a plausible solution. The third seems less than ideal to me; I only mention it because it is the initial interpretation some admins have taken; see Template:FICTWARN and Articles for deletion/Shane Casey for instance, among others. I would also like to add that it may be reasonable to interpret the injunction as discouraging even nominations for AfD on this type of article, but it isn't clear on that point. Mango juice talk 18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) AfDs closure should proceed as normal, and administrators implementing the result of an AfD closure may consider themselves exempt from the injunction.
 * 2) AfD closure should proceed as normal, but administrators are not excepted from the injunction and thus should not implement the result of any such closure.
 * 3) AfD debates should not be closed in a way that would require deletion, merging, or redirection, until the injunction is lifted.


 * I would also like clarification about AFD during the injunction, although you should probably contact the arbitrators on their talk pages because only two active arbitrators have left comments on this talk page, and that was nearly two weeks ago. I appreciate the attention the case has received, but it appears to me this case has largely been ignored, perhaps in favor of "higher profile" cases. --Pixelface (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving on?
This case will have its four-week "anniversary" very soon, but there has been no proposal from arbcom so far, so this case is still far from the voting phase and consequently from closure. In comparison, the first Episodes&Characters case had its first proposal after two weeks, and was closed after five weeks. If it wasn't for the injunction, I probably wouldn't say anything, but it is becoming increasingly hard to do even the most non-controversial kind of basic cleanup because no-one wants to violate the vaguely-worded injunction. The workshop discussions seem to have run their course, and the recently rewritten WP:FICT is also on its way to be widely accepted (as far as it can). Is it the time to lift the injunction or at least to resume the decision-making? (I apologize a thousand times for coming across as pushy, but I thought that the first case paved the way so that this case would find a resolution much quicker.) – sgeureka t•c 19:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * unless there is some guidance about how to proceed after the injunction is lifted, I predict an immediate return to chaotic edit-warring. Indeed, while the injunction was pending, the merges continued until the very last minute--and even afterwards, there have been drastic contents cuts in articles. DGG (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the injunction was helpful in reducing the edit-warring, but I am concerned that the injunction has switched from being a temporary solution to a semi-permanent decision that has de-facto disabled core cleanup. If only the edit-warring is of concern, the injunction could be rewritten into a 1RR deal. If the injunction is however intended to allow arbcom to review all editors's actions in depth, I'd like to know how more time they need so that I can plan my wiki-time accordingly. I like working in a pipeline type of way, but I can't even finish my merge proposals back from December, and I can't start tagging what will be my wiki-work in March/April. – sgeureka t•c 16:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, users are actively adding their input to discussion on workshop page,it is not a good idea to rush things here. This arbcom case need not take so little time as the previous one (which is considered by many a failure in that the same problem continues to exist like no arbcom decision was ever made); the arbitrators are wise and they will know when this case is mature enough to be closed. --PeaceNT (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The workshop discussion had 290kb (50% of the current whole discussion) in its first week, 205kB (35%) in the second week, 48kB (10%) in the third week, and 25kB discussion (5%) in the last/fourth week. There is nothing really new now, and all major parties have said what they had to say. The rewritten WP:FICT has been moved to main space two weeks ago and has had several polishes/copyedits, with only insignificant changes in meaning. A basis for work is clearly there. It's not my intention at all to initiate a rush, but to urge arbcom to make progress in some way, even if it is just a "give us ten more days for reviewing". For all I know, the injunction could be in place for two more months and nothing else from arbcom (which is their right), but that is really not desirable in any way. – sgeureka t•c 17:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If I may, it appears that the only ArbCom Member who really contributed to ending this case and getting Wikipedia back to running is Kirill Lokshin. Is it possible that there is a backlog at ArbCom and this case is just too low priority to deal with?  Ever since this injunction, the only edits I have been able to make are vandalism reversion and link fixes to articls made prior to the injunction.  It's been getting under everyone's skin and I think it's time to move on with our lives. Sasuke9031 (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it does look like some more people are getting involved in the voting. Hopefully this injucntion of hell will not be in place and some real cleanup can begin (Following the decision of ArbCom of course, in all the meanings of that phrase) Sasuke9031 (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Injunction causing chaos
Link.  Black Kite  12:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid your point doesn't come across ( at least to me). I don't see any considerable chaos in the linked AfD, compared to other ones. And is it anything to do with arbcom injunction? --PeaceNT (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is when people are voting Keep because they think that ArbCom have declared that episode articles are notable.  Black Kite  17:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No one said such thing. --PeaceNT (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * People are saying keep because the article cannot be deleted or redirected while this case is open. --Pixelface (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

afd ?
Are afd allowed to be added to episode and character pages at the moment? If not, what is the process for removal? Should they just be removed from the article, does an administrator have to do it, and does the person who put them there be told off on their talk page? Thanks! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The injunction does not prohibit the use of deletion debate process. You may nominate these pages for deletion and use the template notice normally, otherwise most users wouldn't be aware that the AfD exists (which would defeat the point of having a debate, wouldn't it?) It should be note, however, that if the result is anything other than a "keep", then actions may not be taken until the injunction is lifted or modified by the Arbcom. --PeaceNT (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin's proposals
Re: Kirill Lokshin's proposals from today.


 * I've already stated several times that I'm in favor or Fait accompli, and hope it passes, but ssome of the other proposals really miss the mark. The indefinite restriction on TTN, for example.


 * TTN is not in error or his initial actions, but in the response when challenged on some of them. This proposal is broad and detached from the case, and does nothing to help the main issue. This is also an insult to the good work that TTN has done. It's also premature, as TTN is perfectly willing to follow "the rules". He didn't follow a broadly stated decision from the last case because it was so open to interpretation.


 * I ask that before such a restriction be placed, at least try something in between. This proposal is a needlessly wide swipe. At the very least, allow him to preform such actions, but not be allowed to revert if others revert him. TTN, for the most part, has had the right idea, but for some situations, forced the issue when he should have discussed. I'm not even convinced that accounted for the majority of the situations, and the evidence doesn't support such an assertion either.


 * I honestly don't mean any disrespect, but this proposal seems like a lazy solution to the problem. To go from a fluffy statement about how we should all work together, to a brick wall, is not an acceptable solution. -- Ned Scott 03:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder if it is right, sufficient to focus only on TTN as the evidence page suggests that there are a number of editors with controversial edits and/or less than civil "discussions" regarding those edits? After all, the title of the cases was changed from "TTN" to "Episodes and characters 2".  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am of two minds on this. On the one hand, I think Ned has some point in that the previous case was wide open to interpretation and did not specifically condemn TTN or anyone else's misconduct.  On the other hand, I think we need a brick wall.  This time the ArbCom needs to make it clear what editorial behaviour is wrong and out of bounds.  I disagree with Ned that TTN was basically in the right, but I think he is fully convinced of the rightness of his actions.  I implore ArbCom to make things clear and smack some editors with the sanction stick this time.  Ursasapien (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I largely agree with Ned on this, but I am torn between "TTN is doing a great cleanup job" and "if there only was a away to stop the edit warring". The only sensible approach I can think of to put both TTN and those reverting him on a 1RR (edit: that would make it a 2RR for an article in order to prevent us-against-TTN situations) and then not allow another revert unless (1) a discussion is initiated (allowing some time to actually have a discussion), or (b) the existing discussion had a clear consensus (either to merge/redirect, or to go to dispute resolution), or (c) the article(s) in question were improved to address a minimum of TTN's concerns, which would start a whole new discussion cycle. Initial boldness should not be disallowed per se, but BRD should be strongly encouraged. – sgeureka t•c 09:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I encouraged the arbitration committee to say something stronger one way or the other last time, but I have to agree that fluff to brick wall is overkill. Kirill's solution also punishes the wrong side of this endeavour. If you need to go to a brick wall, then establish sanctions against any editor that reverts a redirect of an article that isn't composed primarily of material sourced by third-party sources. Directly in line with established policy, gets to the real root of the problem. If you feel the urge to do both, fine. But not a one-sided sanction against a good editor. It's not like the discussion problem is one-sided ... any of these situations I've been involved in has made me want to scream, reading one hundred variations of "I like it" without a single editor being willing to engage on any point of debate.Kww (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no "wrong side" to be punished in this endeavour. That said, I think if TTN is the only one who walks away from this case with any sort of admonishment then there are serious issues.  I've shown one party who has serially reverted against TTN, there must be more.  The proposed admonishment against TTN is extremely harsh and appears more so through lack of balancing.  Whilst believing that TTN's actions have played a large part in leading us here and that he does need some sort of admonishment and restriction, I cannot in my heart under any circumstances accept that he not be allowed to even tag an article for a proposed merger.  TTN should be allowed to edit the same as anyone else in the first instance.  In the second instance he should be restricted, namely in the reverting. If TTN finds the right solution, others will support him.  That is the wiki way, and that is the behaviour which should be allowed through restrictions.  And the same goes for the other parties.  We are here to work together.  We should not drive good faith editors away through our actions, whether we are editors or arbitrators. Hiding T 12:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect TTN's refusal to respond to either of these two arbitrations except in the most perfunctory manner and his attempts to continue the same editing habits in the arena of video games have been noted. It is indicative of TTN lacking a hinterland. Catchpole (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect they have too. The question is, do the arbitration committee want to rehabilitate TTN or not? Hiding T 21:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If anything is "wrong" here, it's WP:N. It may reflect common arguments in deletion debates (a sort of "arguments to use in deletion discussions"), but it simply does not describe common practice when it comes to actual articles. The article Baldrick, about a fictional character from the television series Blackadder has existed for over 6 1/3 years. The article Moaning Lisa, about an episode of the television series The Simpsons, has existed for over 4 1/2 years. Coverage does not mean notability and WP:N is violating the policy on original research in saying so. Coverage means coverage. That's it. WP:N is not policy and should not be enforced like it is policy. There should probably be an RFC started on it.


 * Material does not have to be sourced to third-party sources. That is not "established" policy. By policy, it only has to be verifiable. One user proposed adding the part about third-party sources to WP:V and that same user proposed adding WP:PLOT to WP:NOT. The whole policy argument in relation to these articles rests on the proposals of one editor. I think those suggestions are good when treated with common sense and not taken to the extreme. But those big changes to policy are part of why this case exists. Policies should describe common practice &mdash; not what a small group of editors think common practice ought to be. This arbitration case shows the dangers of changing the "rules" after something has been done a certain way for years. Some editors will edit-war to enforce the new "rules" and other editors will edit-war due to what has been considered acceptable in the past (and apparently even now). --Pixelface (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ''I strongly suggest that you consult WP:V more closely, specifically the section WP:SELFPUB, where it states that articles cannot be based primarily on self-published sources. The requirement for third-party sourcing is policy, from WP:V, not a guideline.Kww (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless a television episode is on a public access television channel, they are not self-published. And the "requirement" for third-party sources is a relatively recent addition to policy. --Pixelface (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're seriously opening the door for every letter writer published in a magazine, newspaper or other publication to have an article? Heck, even my comics were printed by someone other than me.  I qualify! Hiding T 21:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that television episodes are not "self-published" in any sense of the word. --Pixelface (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's right. And letters to the editor are not "self-published" in any sense of the word either. So you are seriously opening the door for letter writers to have articles then? Also, I'd be interested in testing this television episode theory.  How does a television show get on television? Hiding T 09:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not opening the door for letter writers to have articles. I don't know of anyone that was pushing to have an article because they wrote a letter to the editor before WP:V insisted on third-party sources. Articles about people are still covered by WP:BLP and WP:BIO anyway. This statement by Shirahadaha indicates that television networks can be considered third-party sources. And the article Television pilot has some information on how a television show gets on television. --Pixelface (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedian policy has called for third party sourcing since day one, pretty much, in the form of Neutral point of view which as early as 2002 was stating that A solution is that we accept, for purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different (significant, published) theories on all different topics. So we're committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense. Note that it asked that we summarise previously published theories on all topics. I'd be interested to hear how a television episode is a theory.  A critique is, but the thing itself isn't. And if you are declaring that WP:BLP be followed, which is newer than WP:V, why are you insisting we can ignore that?  Is it because it suits your purpose? the statement by Shirahadaha is based on a flawed understanding of Wikipedia, since it makes no mention of WP:NPOV or WP:NOT, so misses fundamental points, as well as ignoring fundamental points in WP:V and WP:NOR.  And the article Television pilot makes it quite clear television episodes are self-published, so I am unclear how exactly your argument stacks up.  Perhaps you could state it so that I can better understand it. Thanks, Hiding T 19:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I could make an equally good argument that requiring articles to meet WP:N is common practice. The guideline itself says editors are strongly encouraged to follow it, and implies that exceptions should be rare. Check just about any AfD debate (especially in non-fictional subjects) where notability is questioned -- the majority of editors commenting will hold that the article needs to demonstrate that it meets WP:N, and the majority of admins will agree with that argument in closing the debate.


 * You've brought up the point that articles such as Baldrick have existed for years. What point exactly are you trying to make here?--Fabrictramp (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's common practice for editors to !vote delete in AFDs because they think a topic is not notable. WP:N became a guideline (on September 23, 2006) because it described a practice seen in AFDs &mdash; people were arguing to delete because they felt a topic was not notable. To turn the subjective notion of "notability" into a guideline was a bad idea &mdash; and editors enforcing it like it's policy is an even worse idea. 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. The Baldrick article has not been nominated for deletion in over six years, which indicates that editors don't consider articles like that a "problem." --Pixelface (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Arguing that because the Baldrick article hasn't been nominated for deletion / merge / refimprove verges on the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, doesn't it?


 * As far as WP:N goes, we'll need to agree to disagree on this. Your very argument shows that it is supported by the community. But I can tell I'm not going to change your mind on this (and you aren't going to change mine), so there's no point in you and I discussing it further. --Fabrictramp (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't care what WP:OTHERSTUFF says today, or any day for that matter. You may want to read WP:BASH. It looks to me that WP:N was created relatively recently on Wikipedia and now people are trying to apply it retroactively and claim that articles that have been considered acceptable for years are no longer acceptable. And it's not just the Baldrick article. I can cite hundreds, even thousands, of articles that were created before WP:N became a guideline (in a short 16 days) &mdash; a guideline that they suddenly "fail." --Pixelface (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just want to comment on the age of WP:NOTE. On 7 september 2006, the previous version of WP:NOTE was moved to Notability/Historical/Arguments. This previous version was created on 19 May 2005. Before that, we had Notability/Historical/Importance, created 26 August 2004. So to claim that it was created relatively recently, or that it became a guideline in 16 days, is incorrect: it was created 3 and a half years ago, and took some two years of discussion and polishing to become an almost generally accepted guideline. As for policiers and guidelines being applied retroactively: that's only normal. Old BLP violations are (or should be) treated the same way as new BLP violations, old FA's are defeatured because they fail the current standards, old fair use images which are not updated to comply with the new policies are deleted, and so on. We should never blame an editor for creating an article that no longer complies with the guidelines or policies, but we should not treat articles differently just because they are older. Fram (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes but the old version treated notability as the Wikipedia construct it was, and rightly conveyed that many editors viewed the entire concept as a re-writing of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We now have new editors treating notability as law that must be obeyed and whose first instinct is to delete something as "non-notable" rather than by starting the normal clean-up process. You also get editors who go through categories of articles that have been tagged for needing improvement in various ways and just dump them all in articles for deletion. This is not to mention the frequent mixing-up of the criteria for speedy deletion A7 and notability. If you've ever looked at the English Wikipedia mailing list you will get the sense of the contempt many long-term contributors hold for WP:Notability. Catchpole (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never looked at the mailing list (or IRC or other off-Wikipedia places), but on Wikipedia, I have the impression that the vast majority of regular editors agree with WP:NOTE as at least a minimum standard. That editors bring things to AfD before at least checking if something is obviously notable is not the fault of AfD or notability, but of these editors.12:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)
 * Those engaging in edit-warring and incivil behavior (regardless of the "side" should be prevented from disrupting the project further. If the evidence supports and the arbitrators believe that TTN engaged in such behavior, then they should also acknowledge that the evidence suggests his handful of enablers have added to that wikidrama and thus focusing solely on TTN may not be enough in that regard. We need a decisive decision to stave off these repeated ANI threads, Requests for Comment, unproductive if not vicious AfD discussions, etc. How many sprung up even during the ArbCom? Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * People should not be sanctioned for voicing an opinion. -- Ned Scott 17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly. Both sides need to keep it civil. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The status of WP:N doesn't matter, who's right or wrong doesn't matter, what matters is how we handle ourselves in a dispute. That is the core of this situation.

Back to the topic at hand, I believe Kirill's proposal is too harsh, too board, and doesn't help anyone in the long run. It's very much worth exploring other solutions, especially considering no other clear solution has even been tried. TTN has demonstrated that he is very willing to follow policy and guidelines. Give him some clear guidance on when to disengage and he will cooperate. Allow him to merge, to redirect, and so on, but give some clear guidance on when to stand down when challenged.

By doing so this case will also address the core issue, which will help us when it's another situation, another subject, and another editor. That will help us in the long run, it will help everyone on both "sides". -- Ned Scott 04:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * TTN was given clear guidance. I can not think of anyway he can qualify his editing behavior meets the following from the previous case.
 * The parties are urged to work 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.
 * Like many editing guidelines, Television episodes is applied inconsistently. For an example, see List of South Park episodes and note that there is an article for each episode. An ideal response to such situations would be broader discussion of the guideline among editors with varying editing interest, with consensus achieved prior to widespread changes.
 * I, personally, think the sanction on TTN is completely justified. My one reservation is that every effort should be made to rehabilitate his behavior.  However, I think it is perfectly reasonable for him to come back to the ArbCom and petition for a lifting of the restriction after he has demonstrated an ability to engage in discussion and work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community.  Ursasapien (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * TTN felt he did have consensus on his side. For most of one's I've seen so far, I'm inclined to to agree. The problem was that even with that, many of these actions were still hotly debated on individual talk pages, as well as the guideline page. TTN might have been right, but my point is that being right or wrong doesn't matter, what matters is the response to the situation. Forcing the issue on this scale caused a lot of problems, right or wrong. Arbcom gave absolutely no guidance on what to do then. Both "sides" failed to work together, both sides felt they were right. While I respect them and don't have any demands (they are volunteers solving other people's problems, after all), they didn't really give us anything that helped.


 * Even if you feel the proposed sanction is justified, this doesn't help us when this will happen with another user. Believe me, it will. This isn't a solution, it's a band-aid, and a poor one at that. -- Ned Scott 17:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If TTN thinks the proposals are too harsh or if TTN feels he has consensus on his side, he's free to comment anywhere on these case pages (like he did 17 days ago). --Pixelface (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * TTN isn't required to do anything, he's an unpaid volunteer, just like you and me. That doesn't mean we don't give proper consideration to what's being discussed here. -- Ned Scott 03:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, TTN does have consensus on his side in almost every action he has taken in this whole episode mess. It is clear that the majority of contributors support the prescription against turning Wikipedia into a fan site and view rampant TV cruft as unacceptable for an encyclopedia. Every time this issue gets aired at public fora, such as AN/I or AfD, this consensus is reconfirmed, the committed efforts of a vocal minority notwithstanding. Moreover, there has been no success in changing our prescriptions against plot-summaries (at WP:NOT), despite efforts by DGG and others to make the case for relaxing the existing standard. An editor whose actions are confirmed by consensus does not deserve sanction: Kirill's remedies are simply off-base. Eusebeus (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If it were true that had consensus and majority support from the community, there would not be so many ANI threads and arbitration cases begun by many contributors and administrators challenging these actions. The fact that so many editors are willing to write episode and character articles demonstrates that an incredibly sizable segment of our community believes such articles worthy of online encyclopedia that anybody can edit and that contains elements of not just encyclopedias, but also specialized encyclopedias and almanacs.  We should not worry about what Wikipedia is not, but focus on what Wikipedia is and work together to truly provide the sum total of human knowledge.  Clearly he does not have consensus on his side and the majority of contributors would rather Wikipedia be as comprehensive as possible.  If there is a "vocal minority" then it is the handful of determined editors who support him in all of these discussions.  If anything, Kirill's remedies do not go far enough and should include video game characters as well and perhaps not just one editor, but those others for whom sufficient evidence has been presented engage in incivil behavior and revert-warring.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The classic inclusionism line and I respect your viewpoint even if I vehemently and completely disagree it. The threads at ANI are the results of the same editors who keep kicking the can in a bid to expand our tolerance for this kind of in-universe fancruft, so I am not sure your point on that is valid since those efforts have been repeatedly rebuffed. Moreover, feel free to mosey over to WP:NOT and propose its deletion, but I doubt you'll get very far. WP:NOT is absolutely critical to the project and was developed and has been rigorously supported precisely to combat the kind of extreme inclusionism that you are espousing. Bottom line: the prescription against in-universe, fancrufty articles on fictional topics enjoys a broad depth of support among Wikipedia editors generally and this arb case is not going to alter that basic fact. Eusebeus (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you respect my viewpoint as I believe that polite disagreement is a good thing. Aspects of what Wikipedia is Not, I can buy and I have actually argued to delete a lot more articles recently than I did when I became a Wikipedian.  Hoaxes, personal attacks, articles that exist entirely to express some kind of an argument rather than straightforward facts, and copywright violations all do not have a place in any encyclopedia, specialized encyclopedia, or almanac.  And I agree that articles should not be entirely in-universe, but that can be fixed by spending more time adding critical reviews and articles (as I have been doing lately) to balance out such information, rather than just giving up on the article altogether and alienating editors and readers who do find the information worthwhile and the subject notable.  Do these policies really have the full support of the community, including of course those familiar with them?  Not entirely.  And there is probably a reason why this category has far more members than this category.  Personally, in all of these discussions, I just cannot take seriously made-up words like "cruft".  If nothing else, it makes no sense to me why anyone would care about deleting information that they do not like but that others obviously find useful, interesting, or encyclopedic.  There is all kinds of information on Wikipedia that has no obvious relevance to me, but I respect that it does for other people and I will defend their ability to continue improving such material so long as it again is not a hoax, personal attack, thesis driven essay, etc.  Unless if we're running out of disk space, it strikes me as incredibly elitist to not attempt to be as comprehensive as possible.  Maybe its from personal experience, but I just do not find exclusivist mentalities helpful in communities and societies and when we have a rare opportunity to catalog human knowledge unlike anyone has every been able to do before, limiting that scope seems an antithesis to the original idea, especially because editors' whose articles on episodes and characters are not going to say "okay, well, I work on so-and-so's article instad now," rather they'll just give up on Wikipedia as I have already seen many editors do.  I too have been discouraged at times, but my motto has long been: "We try until we succeed."  And it feels good to be part of something that has the potential to bring together all aspects of human knowledge compiled by people around the world.  That goal is one I believe worth fighting for.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Le Grand Roi, I could take that same argument and use it to show there is a community consensus that Wikipedia should have a lot of articles saying "My school is great", "Hi, I made an article", and "poop", because there are an awful lot of editors who spend an awful lot of time creating them.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not the same as there is a big difference between edits made in good faith and those made to be deliberately disruptive. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to imply that the articles are the same, just that the logic of saying thre is community comsensus for something because a minority of editors put a lot time into it might be faulty.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I, however, directly imply that editors who create articles on episodes and characters do so in good faith and my observations are that a large number of editors put a lot of time into making such articles, whereas a much smaller number of editors protest these articles. I would agree with a logical fallacy if I meant only that a good segment of the community feels this way, but my meaning is that a good segment of the community feels this way in good faith, whereas even if a good segment of editors think vandalism is a good idea, those editors operate in bad faith.  My argument centers around editors with well-meaning intentions.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * we will only see what the overall consensus of WPedians is about these articles when we openly discuss it in a general context, not in discussions of multiple individual talk pages monopolized by a few editors attacking hundreds of articles simultaneously with their own private view about it. Such attempts to pretend at general consensus is what this arbcom is about. Fabrictramp, yes there IS general consensus about the sort you mentioned. Not about the ones at the focus of this case, though.   DGG (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Working group
On the workshop, it was proposed to create a working group like the one for the Israel/Palestinian case for these issues. I said there, and I will repeat here, given the divisiveness of this issue and the long-standing failure of the community to come to a conclusion, this seems to me an excellent idea, and I hope the committee will consider it here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am starting to warm to this idea myself. Hiding T 20:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting idea, but I would not say that the community has failed to come to a conclusion, far from it. There are growing pains for sure, and some things will always be debated, but as far as the actual issue of "notability" and other inclusion considerations go.. We're doing pretty good. This case is an issue of behavior when in a dispute, and I'd rather that be all that arbcom focuses on. If arbcom, as a group of normal editors, wishes to help us with this proposed work group, I'd welcome that. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

TTN restricted
Maybe this is just my own feeling, but if TTN is restricted from editing television episode/television character articles, I suspect he'll just move on to videogame character articles (based on this evidence and TTN's edits since the injunction was enacted). TTN also contacted Seresin one day after Seresin became an admin and asked him to revert several television/videogame character articles back to redirects. Here TTN asks Seresin, "video game articles are free game, right?" --Pixelface (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this case and the editors involved really go beyond just television episodes and characters; it is more about editing on popular culture of fictional articles, especially video games as well. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not too concerned with this. If TTN continues his past edit behaviour by simply working around arbcom remedies he will be blocked for good if past decisions of the community and arbcom on such persistent behaviour is any indication. Of course I would welcome modification of the remedy to prevent this. -- Cat chi? 13:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I am starting to warm to this idea myself. Hiding T 20:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Clicked edit to wrong section, should have gone above. Hiding T 23:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Another reason why this is a poor proposal. As much as some of you might want blood, I think you'd agree that a proposal that limits force, rather than focuses on who and where, is less likely to be gamed. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * anything can be gamed. Even a ban of TTN from WP would still leave the possibility of meatpuppetry -- as in this apparent attempt at it. DGG (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if TTN decides to game the system by refocusing his current editing tendencies and style from Episodes to Video Games... We have a policy against this kind of behavior. And seeing as that he would be showing that he is either unable or unwilling to change, I'd think that the third time round he would be shown the door - permanently. Charon X /talk 11:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It still needs to be proven that his current editing "tendencies" are against any kind of policies and guidelines, no matter whether it is about episodes or video games. The only thing he is guilty of is edit-warring, but then again it takes two to edit-war, so both sides should be restricted or neither one. – sgeureka t•c 12:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's edit warring, and then there's edit warring. TTN's behavior has extended beyond the scope of normal edit warring into a category that warrants action specifically against him, especially because he is a constant in 90% of the related edit wars.  No other editor on any side meets that qualification. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble  argue  check ) 13:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is reverting to article versions that are inline with policies and guidelines, and there is reverting to article versions that fail a handful of policies and guidelines. TNN does not belong in the second group, and getting him banned is clearly the wrong message if it is our goal to produce a high-quality encyclopedia. Find a solution to stop the edit-warring while still allowing the necessary cleanup. "Getting rid" of TTN will just give you more editors doing exactly the same thing as him (although admittedly slower, but with the same effects). TTN was yesterday; Eusebeus, Jack Merridew and Gavin are today; and I predict I'll be the new scapegoat for tommorow because AfDing a nn-tagged article after four months "is not enough time for improvement". – sgeureka t•c 13:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Torquemada's death did nothing to stop the Spanish Inquisition; the Inquisition had institutional support and the law on its side. Others will step in to pick up the slack, and since purging Wikipedia of excessive plot summary isn't as bad as burning people alive, the excessive plot summary will be purged eventually. Blast Ulna (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the plot summary stuff shouldn't go, nor am I saying that having other editors pick up the slack would be bad. What I am saying is that TTN performs these tasks with no tact and without really caring what other editors say.  He decides what is going to happen to any article he edits before starting a discussion on the relevant talk page, and frequently ignores clear-cut evidence that his assumptions about the notability of an article are wrong.  I'm legitimately surprised that any of you (well, maybe not Kww and Euseubeus) are defending him because, quite honestly, he gives you all a bad name; I have little doubt that more than half the resistance you're going to encounter in further cleanup drives will be directly caused by TTN's charming editing habits.  This isn't like taking out Torquemada, it's more like locking up William Calley. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble  argue  check ) 15:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree with that. TTN's manner of editing is a direct consequence of so many editors wilfully ignoring our consensus injunction against lengthy plot summaries, in-universe continuity, trivia and the other guff that he is cleaning up. The claims that five or so people making objections on some local tv series page can outweigh our overall policies is tedious to the extreme and we need a clear decision from arbcom to which these people can be directed in order for them to understand that such disruptive tendencies will result in blocks or other sanctions. TTN is not the problem: the proliferation of unencyclopedic content backed up by small groups of committed defenders who consistently ignore our policies and guidelines and game the system through false appeals to consensus building and AGF is the problem. Eusebeus (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See? Inclusionists take note, the material will be removed eventually. If it will be removed eventually, then why waste time fighting? The deletionists will not go away, and they have been content to allow TTN and others to be their attack dogs. Kill their attack dog, and others will increase their efforts. Blast Ulna (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All those editors who create those articles on television episodes and fictional characters demonstrate that the actual consensus is for such articles to exist and that there is widespread opinion that such articles do not fail any policies. We our the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  We are not a paper encyclopedia.  We are a combination of encyclopeedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs.  We are providing the sum total of all human knowledge.  I whole-heartedly agree that excessive in-universe plot summaries can be problematic, but the solution is balancing that out with more reviews and interviews to building up reception and production sections.  Just getting rid of the information altogether and limiting our ability to catalog human knowledge does not make much sense and only alienates our contributors and readers.  What human beings find important varies from person to person and imagine how many sources could have been found or articles rewritten instead of all the time spent attempting to exclude people and their contributions to our project!  The problem is indeed not just TTN, but the handful of "committed defenders" that he has that are vastly outnumbered by others who spend much more time attempting to improve these kinds of articles.  And I have had enough interactions with some of these editors to see that while some are indeed operating in good faith and willing to engage in polite if spirited discussion (and sometimes even willing to be open-minded), an incredibly small but prolific minority of others by contrast do not merely edit-war, but also violate our no incivility and no personal attack polcies.  This case is not so much about content, but about behavior and the behaviorial problem is that the minority of editors bent on limiting Wikipedia's scope typically make unilateral redirects, mass/disruptive nominations for deletions, and insult article writers in some holier than thou "everything you create is 'cruft'" and "only what I think is important matters" tone.  None of those attitudes are conducive to bettering our project or providing for a cooperative environment.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "providing the sum total of all human knowledge", huh? Sounds like a compendium, not an encyclopedia. As for the argument that it is a minority of editors who act to remove material, that is true; but only if you count the mass of newbie editors who (in good faith) add detail to their favorite subjects. Once you get up to the level of editors who actually participate in policy debates, it's about even. Blast Ulna (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales, Slashdot Interview (28 July 2004) And as our Five pillars state, we are not just an encyclopedia, but also a specialized encyclopedia and almanac, as well as not a paper encyclopedia.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the First Pillar speaks for itself. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree; Wikipedia is "written for the benefit of its readers. It includes elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs."  It is therefore not written for a minority of editors and is therefore more than a traditional encyclopedia.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, you are cherry-picking. It continues, "All articles must follow our no original research policy, and editors must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, arguments or experiences. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory." 23:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blast Ulna (talk • contribs)
 * What is great is that articles on episodes and fictional chracters are hardly "soapboxes" and hardly indiscriminate and hardly personal opinions or experiences. Moreover, they are easily verfied with primary and secondary evidence and because they don't offer a thesis are not original research.  In other words, they fulfill the entire letter of what you and I both cited and so if editors spent more time helping in the quest for references rather than just attempting to remove stuff, we would better meet these policies.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Easily verified, but not so easily found in the secondary or tertiary literature. I have been unable to find sources for characters on my favorite show, and I'm really pissed that I can't, but until sources are found, I'll survive with the list page. Blast Ulna (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok then, what is your favourite show then? You'd be surprised at what is out there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * SpongeBob SquarePants. Blast Ulna (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's okay, though, because Wikipedia is a work in progress and the early copies of the Enlightenment era encyclopedias had articles based entirely on primary sources. So long as there is no thesis expressed in the article, then we make do with the sources we have.  It's much easier to have a stub or article based on primary sources as a place-holder until the secondary sources can be added.  What frustrates me are all the AfDs where editors claim no sources can be found and then I find sources with astonishing ease and the AfD rightfully ends in a keep, but it should have never happened in the first place as an honest search for sources by the nominator would have found the same sources I and others found to cause the article to be kept.  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 unencyclopedic is not factually accurate or reasonable.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 14:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Give me a break. You created the Symphony No. 59 (Haydn) article (and it doesn't contain "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject") and I don't see you complaining about "symphonycruft." Go apply your notability standards to the articles you've created. TTN is clearly on a mission to enforce his POV. He "can't stand laugh tracks", finds sitcoms "annoying", and favors certain shows over others: "Only in the case of a show like the Simpsons do the episodes as a whole receive enough individual coverage to actually matter." The only way TTN has policy on his side are two statements (in WP:V and WP:NOT) both introduced by one user, Hiding. Don't try and say that television character articles are "unencyclopedic" when articles like Baldrick have existed for over six years. --Pixelface (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you like me to prove you wrong about the lack of sources for Symphony No. 59? Would you like me to BURY you in sources? Would you like me to make you eat your words, right here and now? Please say yes. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and add them to the article. Or shall I pull a TTN and redirect it to List of symphonies by Joseph Haydn? Maybe I could add merge tags to all of them! Providing sources won't make me eat my words. I realize that WP:N is a guideline, not a policy. I still don't see Eusebeus complaining about "symphonycruft." --Pixelface (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it's obvious that those sources exist, but haven't been added yet. The same cannot always be said for other articles relating to episodes or characters. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know Ned...maybe I should cut all those redlinks off List of symphonies by Joseph Haydn. We wouldn't want new contributors thinking that they should create articles and clog up Wikipedia with impossible-to-manage symphonycruft. --Pixelface (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We are way off topic at this point, but Ned what rationale do you have for this statement, "it's obvious that those sources exist, but haven't been added yet. The same cannot always be said for other articles relating to episodes or characters"? This is blatant bias.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We're talking about Joseph Haydn. I'm an anime nerd that doesn't know much of anything about classical music, and yet I can see that the parent article has an incredible wealth of sources, indicates the guy had quite the impact on the musical world ("...was one of the most prominent composers of the classical period, and is called by some the "Father of the Symphony" and "Father of the String Quartet"."), and am able to do some basic Google book searches. It's not bias, it's that I actually do look for sources when evaluating examples presented in these discussions. After a few hundred years it is a bit easier to find sources for individual symphonies composed by Joseph Haydn than it is to find sources for last week's episode of NCSI. But if you want to call it bias, ok.. -- Ned Scott 03:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And take a look at AfD and see if your "zomg over six year" comment means anything. You'll be laughed off the discussion page. Wikipedia not notice something for six years? Are you new here? Do you have any idea how common that is, how many freaking articles we have, and how impossible it is to manage all of them? How many times do we have to prove you wrong, Pixelface? How many times do you continue to make absurd assertions, only to be proven wrong again and again? -- Ned Scott 06:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdented) I have to say, Pixelface, you have seriously blundered in your choice of comparative material, although I think this is just your ignorance not malice. I would note that for almost every Haydn work, the 5 volume biography by HC Robbins Landon remains definitive and is based on an astonishing level of scholarly work, including archival work in at least 5 or 6 languages. Additionally, however, you will find the Haydn Studien series of some use in this regard, if you speak German. A similar reference is available in French as well (I have referenced one of the reviews of the Haydnstudien). Further, a Google Scholar search will turn up any number of specific sources on specific symphonies. I have added various details and references, for example, to Symphony No. 73 (Haydn), as well as Symphonies 22 & 26. When you can provide that level of reference and citation to all this TVcruft, I will be the first to change my mind and enthusiastically support your efforts to allow this cruft to proliferate. Eusebeus (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've blundered in asking you to apply your strict notability criteria to articles you've created yourself? I don't know Eusebeus, I better redirect the rest of those symphonies to a list article &mdash; there's plenty of room to describe them there. Wikipedia is simply straining under all this symphonycruft. I don't know how much more it can take. You know that notability is not inherited Eusebeus. I don't think a biography of Haydn would apply to his symphonies. We simply can't have articles on symphonies that don't assert their notability laying around. People would trip over them. --Pixelface (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When ever you give us an example that you think you are able to compare with most problematic articles, we turn around and fix them very quickly. We prove over and over again, this is not an issue of double standards, but of actual source availability, plain and simple. -- Ned Scott 03:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Coverage does not mean something is worthy of notice. Unless a source says something is notable, the source has nothing to do with notability. If you use a source to advance a position (X is notable) not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research. --Pixelface (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with what I just said. -- Ned Scott 03:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. When you talk about source availability, I assume you're talking about WP:N &mdash; which is what all the edit-warring by parties in this arbitration case has been about. --Pixelface (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)..and is there nothing that TTN (and others such as KWW, Jack Merridew etc.) hold as important as to find sources themselves? Over a year? The issue is that many have not done any of this. They are either unwilling or unable to be scrutinized by others, or to perform any tasks the nature of their editing forces on others. It's all one way traffic and is insulting at best. It is a volunteer project which is dependent on a good atmosphere and the turbulence caused by all this is bad for morale. Tagging and nominating for AfD is obviously essential but inherent within it is a direction for others to clean up. Why is it that some of these editors will never find refs, even for something else they may value then? (sound of falling off computer chair as I noticed Eusebeus adding refs to music). I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong as appear to have been with Judgesurreal's recent work. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I add plenty of refs to stuff; I also clean-up refs often, i.e. take a raw url and use cite web which involves reviewing the site linked. And I remove bogus refs when I find them. The burden is not on editors interested in clean-up to find sources; the onus is on those who wish material to exist here. FWIF, I don't have a favorite tv show; I don't watch tv, don't even own one. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ....and have never played RPGs either? In which case if your knowledge of certain areas is so meagre, then how can you decree so authoritatively on their notability or the reliability of sources? Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have played quite a few such games (not in some time). I have also watched too much television in the past. Live and learn. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this calls for a new process, Articles for Redirecting, where the time frame is less then Deletion (due to its less serious consequence) and it can be closed by any editor (who isn't involved in the discussion) after that time frame, that way users such as TTN arn't redirecting en mass, but the development required is decided by the community at large (at least those whom are interests). &#9775;Ferdia O'Brien (T) / (C) 21:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I beg all of you to keep focused. We are not here to decide if these actions should be done, but how they should be done. To put it simply: How do we resolve these actions when challenged? Do we need more steps in DR, do we need some arbitrary time limit, etc. If we can figure that out, it won't matter what topic someone is editing or who is editing. We need to focus on those core concepts, because they will need to be true even if consensus changes. -- Ned Scott 18:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Injunction applied to categories?
Does the injunction apply to categories? More specifically, user categories? See User categories for discussion. I would guess no, but just want to make sure. VegaDark (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't apply at all. User categories are not actual content for the readers. -- Ned Scott 18:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Part of the process undertaken by those seeking to merge articles into parent articles, is to remove the project templates and associated categories from the merged article's talk page. I think VegaDark's comment was more about the removal of these categories from articles and the subsequent hiding of the articles from the projects whose members are in a better position to find reliable sources. Astronaut (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no connection between the articles and this category. No article namespace article would get tagged with these categories, only userpages would. This isn't even a category used for a WikiProject. Now, on another note, I would argue that such categories often get needlessly deleted and can be used for collaboration, but that's a whole other issue. -- Ned Scott 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a user category, so no mainspace articles should be included. The injuction doesn't apply. --Phirazo 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How about for regular categories? VegaDark (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's unrelated to the notability of those articles then it doesn't apply. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised... Will (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ned. I'm happy to be corrected when I'm wrong - I didn't notice the word "user" in VegaDark's comment. That said, I still think my comment has some value. I have seen project templates removed from the talk pages of merged articles before consensus has been reached as to whether the article should be merged.  Removal of these tags, removes the associated categories and has the effect of hiding the article from the project members.  Astronaut (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * When I consider one of my bold mergers non-controversial, I immediately remove the talkpage tags, but not because I want to hide my mergers, but because I want to do the cleanup properly and not leave half the work for others afterwards. That said, I can totally see how the tag removal could be interpretated as malicious, but I doubt it is ever intended that way because there are so many other ways to keep track of mergers. – sgeureka t•c 17:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Temporary injunction as applied to copyvios
I've deleted Naruto--Biography as a blatant copyvio. I would presume that the injunction is not intended to prohibit the deletion of blatant copy/pastes from copyrighted sites, but I would like to note here why it was done. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Absurd Ruling

 * 1.1) TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate.  Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

This is ridiculous since it has in no way been demonstrated that TTN's actions violate consensus policies and guidelines at WP:NOT and WP:FICT which strongly discourage the kind of in-universe, fan-driven, trivia-laden content that has been the subject of redirection. Since there has been no success in watering down those provisions at WP:NOT and WP:FICT - to change consensus in other words - to place such a sanction against TTN and not on those editors who willfully ignore our policies and guidelines is a travesty. Committed editors have consistently gamed the system by obstinately refusing to adhere to our consensus policies governing content and notability for fictional topics and then using that refusal to claim lack of consensus or unwillingness to discuss. This decision is absurd. Eusebeus (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's clear to me it's because of how he was doing it, not what he was doing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Being right, which is itself disputed, is no excuse for being uncooperative, and the same gaming tactics you accuse one side of are equally used by the other. This ruling is the natural result of that. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And yet, arbcom singles out TTN as the only one "not 'work[ing] collaboratively and constructively with the broader community' as he was urged to do." There are at least half a dozen established editors of both sides who edit-warred without seeking discussion on the talkpages, and several dozens of anons doing the same. Although TTN was often the initiator of mergers/redirects (nothing bad, so am I), it has been clearly proven that not few at least some of his reverts concerned article versions for which merge/redirect-consensus had already been formed, or where the whole month-long merge discussions didn't result in anything else than WP:ILIKEIT wikilayering where nothing was done to address his (i.e. policy and guideline) concerns (I wanted to link to  here, but that merge discussion was in fact initated by someone else). Note that I am not saying that TTN was/is always right. But the editing of others is just as troublesome in the big picture. – sgeureka t•c 00:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And let's not forget that TTN did in fact collaboratively and constructively work with the broader community in several cases before going ahead with the mergers, see e.g.   (I do realize that I am not on the evidence page, but I thought the evidence there already spoke for itself. Hmm.) – sgeureka t•c 01:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your evidence is a long way from establishing that he didn't engage in edit warring, harassment, incivility, et. al. when dealing with other articles. A few instances of rational behavior do not make up for a more frequent pattern of asshattery. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble  argue  check ) 02:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On May 1, 2007, TTN (who was signing his posts as Nemu back then) said (referring to Category:Lists of science fiction television series episodes) "All of the single episodes that those lists have are indeed crap. Less then 100 of the (tens of?) thousands of episode articles on this site actually need articles. This was singled out because I just happened to choose the category when looking for episodes to cut. I don't have an agenda or anything." &mdash; yet he's carried out what can only be described as an "agenda" for months and months. --Pixelface (talk) 04:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (Reply to both) My point was and still is, even though TTN was involved with edit warring, harassment, incivility, et. al. (the extend is open to interpretation), he is not the only one by far who did so, so why is he getting singled out? I don't know how to reply to Pixelface (is your reply in the right section?) because your investment in trying to "save" the Scrubs episodes for weeks despite no established notability brings me to another conclusion regarding your last sentence. (BTW, I had and still have "agendas" to cleanup the (former) mess in Category:Carnivàle and Category:Stargate and possibly get them up to FT, so TTN's "agenda" to cleanup all other shows is not bad in itself. I guess his mistake was his dedication and efficiency that didn't work well with fan-wikilayering in a few cases.) – sgeureka t•c 08:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, TTN is not the only one involved in edit-warring. But I think the evidence points to TTN being the main individual. My point was that TTN has been doing this for months. I didn't try to "save" the Scrubs episode articles for weeks. My first comment on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes was during the first arbitration case. When I checked the Talk page later I saw absolutely no consensus. I've un-redirected articles relating to one television series and I didn't revert anyone who reverted my edits. Do you know how many different television series there are where TTN has redirected every article for every episode, and continued to revert? I'd be happy to add that information to the /Evidence page. Featured articles/lists/topics are great and all, but not every subject on Wikipedia has to reach that level. --Pixelface (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This still is a needless extreme without addressing the core issue, but if it passes I will make the open offer to TTN to act on his behalf for those six months. Obviously I might not always agree with him on some stuff, but that's more often about issues that are challenged, not the initial action.

If any of the arbs are reading these messages, I beg of you to accept a proposal that limits TTN's actions only when challenged. Like the others, I'm still not convinced TTN has even done something grossly wrong, but it's far better than the current proposal, allows TTN to preform non-controversial actions, and addresses the core issue of force rather than content judgements. -- Ned Scott 04:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I will also volunteer to proxy on TTN's behalf any discussions he may wish to initiate concerning non-notable fictional topics including episode redirects during the period of the ban should this absurd sanction actually pass. Eusebeus (talk) 05:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a grand show of support and all, but if the sanction is passed the only thing that'll accomplish is getting both of you (along with TTN) indef-blocked for meatpuppetry. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 05:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In case I didn't make it clear, I would only do such a thing when I agreed with him, which in itself might not be a bad way of checks and balances for this situation. My thinking is to help TTN preform non-controversial tasks, should this proposal pass. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter what your feelings are on his actions, you'd still be helping him circumvent a sanction, however slightly. I wouldn't chance it if I were you. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (<sub style="color:blue;">ramble  <small style="color:red;">argue  <sup style="color:green;">check ) 05:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If he proposes something that I agree with, and it's non-controversial, only a fool would block me. This is why we have the term wikilawyering. We don't block editors when they're not disruptive simply because the wording might be twisted in a certain way. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved from below -- Ned Scott 06:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ned, are you truly agreeing to act on behalf of an editor whose behavior has been determined to be disruptive. I beseech you to reconsider.  Remember the enforcement by blocks and simply act as you have with reason and consensus building.  Ursasapien (talk) 05:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, what? Did you mean to put this higher up to my other comment? -- Ned Scott 05:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah, but there is little sense in me moving it now. I suppose I could have simply put it on your talk page, but oh well.  Ursasapien (talk) 05:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have left a note on the talk pages for the four arbs that have commented so far with a copy of the last paragraph in my message, and this additional text:
 * 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 the 1.1 proposal that you are supporting now. I really believe this issue comes down to when situations where forced when challenged, 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. I also believe it's something that both "sides" would be able to live with.
 * -- Ned Scott

I also belive this ruling is problematic. Why would we restrict TTN from proposing merges, and thereby gathering consensus (for or against, mind you) which is what we've wanted all along? It doesn't seem like it does anything beneficial to prevent him from proposing deletions/merges/redirects. Isn't the problem here that he edit wars over the changes? I think a more effective solution to that actual problem is put him on 1RR probation. Allow him to make these changes and propose mergers, but don't allow him to revert it. I think he should be allowed to nominate for AfD, since that allows for consensus to form from a very wide group of editors, and is enforced by somenoe else. I also wonder why there are no censures on the other editors who edit warred. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Because TTN hasn't been proposing mergers &mdash; then he'd actually have to merge something. He's been proposing redirects. He's looking for a redirecto template, not mergeto. He redirects even when nobody discusses the proposal. In the last arbitration case, I suggested the major contributors of an article should be notified on their talk page so they can discuss the "merge" proposal. That is why I created the mergenote template. TTN stays under three reverts a day, he just reverts again the next day &mdash; so I don't see how 1RR would help. And if TTN is put on 1RR, like-minded parties will just help him edit-war (like they've been doing). He's been shown to withdraw AFDs when he isn't getting his way and then add a merge tag right after that. And I think it may benefit Wikipedia if several of the involved parties were given a topic ban (and the list of involved parties expanded). --Pixelface (talk) 04:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If a merge is proposed, it is not up to the nominator, nor the closer, to actually merge; indeed do you want someone who is not knowledgable on a subject to merge? No, you want active editors of a page who know the material to. As for 1RR, I think it could be more than 24 hours, perhaps weeks. We should put all named parties on 1RR in my opinion, but since we clearly aren't really censuring anyone else, I doubt that will happen. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's my first attempt at the "when challenged" proposal: Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a non-starter, as far as I'm concerned. The core of the case, in my view, is Principle #3; in other words, my problem with TTN's behavior is not so much the narrow tendentiousness (i.e. revert-warring over a single article)—although this is also a problem—but rather the broad tendentiousness (i.e. his actions over the entire body of articles in question).  Right or wrong, TTN is simply so active that it is unreasonable to expect that those who disagree with him must follow him to every new article he attempts to dispose of and argue the matter in detail; your proposal would essentially encourage him to provoke edit-wars on as many articles as possible, in hopes that some of them will miss being reverted in the sheer volume of changes.
 * My intent is to get both sides here to negotiate in good faith; and I believe that forcing those who wish to retain the articles to choose between negotiating and following TTN around to hundreds of articles in order to prevent him from forcing changes through in the meantime will be grossly unproductive in this regard. Kirill 05:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This completely misses the point as I see it. Concerted efforts as a consequence of TTN's actions to change our consensus policies and guidelines at WP:NOT and WP:FICT have been consistently rejected - there is no broad support for a lowered threshold that would allow the content he is redirecting or merging to be considered encyclopedic. Indeed, consensus has been reconfirmed again and again and again - at AN/I at WAF at NOT and at FICT - that our injunction against fan-driven content is sound and salutary. TTN routinely links to these policy pages, just as he routinely indicates that per WP:CON, consensus is global and not local. Despite this, local groups of committed editors continue to game the system by using obdurate opposition as a basis for claiming - falsely - that such actions, legitimated by policy, are nonetheless problematic. What we REALLY need is a central page, signed off by, oh say an arbcom committee, that patiently explains 1) What consensus means at Wikipedia, 2) why we have policies & guidelines, (3) why these should be followed and (4) why obdurate local opposition that willfully ignores those policies and guidelines is considered disruptive. When consensus changes in a way that determines this kind of content is encyclopedic, then sanction is justified. But this remedy focuses on a behaviour that is itself the product of the far worse transgressions of editors who refuse to abide by or reasonably engage with the consensus policies we have in place. To wit: almost all the editors who have participated in this discussion to inveigh against TTN's actions consistently refuse themselves to apply or to even accept the encyclopedic standards that have been articulated for fictional topics. They clamor disingenuously for good faith even as they repudiate consensus in a bid to preserve content that per consensus does not belong here. That is unacceptable and this proposed decision is horrendously flawed and will solve nothing. Sorry to be so prolix, palaverous and circumlocutory. Eusebeus (talk) 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Good guidelines should not need to be forced down the throats of an unwilling editor base; I tend to view the conflict that ensues when TTN tries to enforce them as being a per se indication that they have not yet achieved real widespread consensus (as opposed to, say, support among those editors with a tendency to hang around guideline pages).
 * Certainly, the question of how television episodes should be presented is not, in my view, a sufficiently critical one that its resolution needs be effected by fire and sword. The encyclopedia will not collapse if these articles remain in existence for another month, or even another year; they have, in many cases, existed far longer than that already.  TTN, unfortunately, seems unable to act with the lessened sense of urgency that a negotiated long-term solution requires. Kirill 05:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So how does postponing these actions for six months help him learn anything? If you are concerned about the volume of edits then place a limit on that, but if it's all or nothing then he won't learn anything in that time, because he simply won't edit durning that time. If we give him a path that lets him preform actions, but with guidance, he's more likely to learn better ways to handle these situations. -- Ned Scott 06:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because in six months, you all will have negotiated a way forward, per the second remedy. (Or we'll be hearing E&C3, in which case the whole point will become rather moot for a lot of people.) Kirill 06:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We're doing that without your !help. My point still stands that it's an ineffective (and lazy) solution that won't teach TTN anything. If you're not willing to keep an open mind and listen to people, then why did we make you an arb? If you've already made up your mind, don't bother responding to us. We'll be busy coming up with a real solution to the problem. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I so appreciate the arbs standing up and making a real decision this time. Part of your complaint during the last go round, Ned, was the wishy-washy, unclear nature of the decision.  Now you seem to be complaining about a clear decision that did not go your way.  I support Kirill and all the arbs that have stepped forward to make a clear statement about what behavior is acceptable.  Ned, if you are not willing to work with this decision, why do you continue to engage.  Let's just get about the business of improving the encyclopedia.  Ursasapien (talk) 06:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Making a real decision this time does not make it a good decision. There is no "my way" in this, it's simple logic. I'm not willing to work with this decision because it's a bad one, and we have much much better solutions available to us. Don't be so desperate to accept anything, and don't be so disgruntled at TTN to accept anything that "stops him". Forget grudges, forget who's right or wrong, and look at the core of the issue. I know he's pissed you off, but move past that. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, TTN has not "pissed me off." I bear him no ill will and I can not think of a single incident where we were in direct confrontation.  As a matter of fact, only a small amount of my work on Wikipedia involves fiction, and even that is generally out of TTN's purview (like plays).  I do not like rude people and I feel strongly that we need to work together in a cooperative manner to best build a great encyclopedia.  I still support this proposed sanction.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "To wit: almost all the editors who have participated in this discussion to inveigh against TTN's actions consistently refuse themselves to apply or to even accept the encyclopedic standards that have been articulated for fictional topics. " Your logic is flawed here.  This is due to your rigid interpretation of our policies on what is encyclopedic (i.e. what belongs in an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit) and your misperception that "fictional topics" are somehow to be held to a higher standard than other topics in the encyclopedia.  In addition, you suffer from a misperception that editors that interpret our guidelines and policies more liberally do not have any intention of supporting or upholding said guidelines and policies.  Your rhetoric reminds of politicians in the U.S. that say we are the only party with "values".  Ursasapien (talk) 05:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Go change our policies - not my interpretation, note, but our consensus policies on the need to adduce reliable sources and provide demonstrable real-world significance and THEN you can slap me vigorously with a trout. As it stands your response simply makes my point for me: you have no interest in following consensus policies and guidelines. Instead you refocus the question to my intractability, as if it is mere caprice on my part that these are the standards for fictional topics. I genuinely understand that you think we are ruining Wikipedia for everyone (although Wikia IS 3rd door down on the left) - but this response is why arbcom really needs to derive an injunction for editors who refuse to accept our consensus-driven practices. TTN is not the problem here. This kind of game-the-system thinking is the real concern. Eusebeus (talk) 06:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your and your small group of like-minded editors consensus on how to interpret and enforce guidelines is the problem. Your intractibility and obdurate opposition despite a greater consensus to allow articles (not just on "fictional topics" but on all topics) a chance to grow, improve, and enlarge is as obvious as being struck by a large Oncorhynchus mykiss.  I think it is high time for you to reevaluate your rightness in this whole situation.  Ursasapien (talk) 06:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I beg both of you to stop. Please keep this thread focused without rehashing every part of this debate. If this section gets bloated with this kind of stuff then the arbs aren't going to look here for discussion, and they're just going to make decisions without any input from us, and no one wants that. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (To Kirill) I can't say that I like that kind of logic. You're restricting an editor for being active rather than being disruptive or not. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus, this dispute came from the situations that were forced and edit warred on, not on his level of activity (though that level made the situation very noticeable). -- Ned Scott 05:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) and we consider these actions in groups, not in individual situations. TTN normally does start a discussion for a group of articles, and preforms actions for those articles as a group. This is not about following around individual articles. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 2
"The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict..."

Wait a second, you can't mandate that we stop having a conflict by commanding us to. A conflict in itself is not bad. It only means people differ in opinion and don't always see eye to eye. ArbCom can ask us to not be disruptive about it, but demanding we magically no longer have a conflict is beyond absurd. You might as well make a proposal that says "ZOMG YOU ALL BE GOOD NOW, HAPPY NO PROBLEM LOL" -- Ned Scott 06:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Have to agree here. "Engaging in edit warring", or some variation therein which highlights the unproductive acts instead of the natural part of the editing process, would be a bit better. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I took it to mean cease edit-warring with each other in article space and actually discuss a way forward. I suppose the discussion could take place at WT:FICT and WT:EPISODE but it may help if ArbCom designated an area. --Pixelface (talk) 06:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Then they need to clarify that this is referring to disruptive behavior. -- Ned Scott 02:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the wording is not the best, but I did not take it as, "ZOMG YOU ALL BE GOOD NOW, HAPPY NO PROBLEM LOL" I took it as an admonition to forgive and forget, stop edit warring, and move toward compromise instead of trying to get our own bias declared "right". I think we, as a body of editors with diverse viewpoints, need to remember WWJD to move forward.   Ursasapien (talk) 08:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously, but my point is that this sounds exactly like what I'm talking about. Conflict, on it's own, is not bad, and is nothing more than people differing in views and opinions. Arbcom cannot sanction anyone for that, only for disruption. The dispute about inclusion and detail and "notability" is hardly over, nor was it ever the goal of this case to address that. This case is about the force of actions that some editors took, which escalated some of the conflicts.


 * I understand that you don't want to sound demanding or whatnot from arbcom, and they you're thankful for their time and effort. I feel the same way. However, there is a burden of responsibility by those who accept the position of an arb, and that includes clarifications of their proposals, and making sure that people can't game the system with those proposals. If ArbCom does not have the time to properly do this then they should not accept the case. So while it's harsh of me to use the wording that I have, I think you'd be able to understand my concerns, especially given how problematic and poorly thought out the injunction was. -- Ned Scott 02:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A challenge to the arbitrators
I have a challenge for the arbitrators supporting Desperate Pleading #2 (you may also know it has 'Remedy' #2, but who are we kidding?). I would like to challenge them to find me an examle of a past case where any improvement in the situation can be reasonably attributed to a remedy from this family of remedies, rather than to other, more direct, remedies in the case. I'm willing to be quite flexible about "reasonably attributed". If they do not, or cannot, I would challenge them to explain why they are supporting again this time. Splash - tk 13:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems like a filler remedy if you ask me. It's one of those doesn't-really-mean-anything-but-sounds-nice proposals. And as I pointed out in the above thread, could be problematic. -- Ned Scott 02:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

not limiting to television
I strongly urge that you rethink the wording of limiting the restriction placed on TTN to television episodes only. The evidence placed here has shown that he extend this activity to articles on all fictional and game-related subjects. &it should apply there similarly. DGG (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I second DGG's urging indicated above. The disputes and controversial editing have NOT been limited to television epsidoes and characters; they extend to articles concerning video games, fictional characters in general, and "in popular culture" articles.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One arb supports limiting page moves, which, to my knowledge, has never been a problem, yet while ignoring the concerns you guys have mentioned here (that has been mentioned through out the case). I think this is all further evidence that arbcom is not paying sufficient attention to this case. -- Ned Scott 19:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is hard to deny that practically all of us who have participated in this case have also had some disagreements over fictional/popular culture articles in general and that if this case ends by focusing just on television episodes and characters (notice the name of the case does NOT have "television" in its title, incidentally), I am concerned that the heated disputes will just continue (and if not intensify as the focus shifts somewhat) over video game related or non television character topics. I really wish we could come to agreement more often and work cooperatively as you (Ned) and I were able to do in that Weapons of Resident Evil 4 AfD for example.  There is no good reason why we cannot have friendly disagreements, but still keep things civil as sgeureka has done with regards to me, i.e. without devolving into outright hatred as I have seen on both sides of the debate.  I think some of us have been able to disagree with each other and still at the end of the day respect each other, but there are others on the fringes of the discussion that are just unyielding and I fear that such intense and unproductive, unconstructive animosity will not be resolved by the current decisions as they do not adequately reflect the full scope of the disputes or other involved parties.  It would really be nice if we could live up to that community model.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is certainly an important practical issue. At the very least, it would be good to clarify the scope in respect of common borderline cases such as:


 * crossovers such as comic book/game characters that are on TV too, like Spider-Man and Professor Oak


 * inhuman characters such as creatures or computers. K-9 may do as an example for both.  Colonel Warden (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with DGG, and I urge the arbitration committee to note that the edit-warring has been on all kinds of character articles, not just television character articles. I've seen no evidence that the most edit-warring has occurred on television character pages. --Pixelface (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, couldn't have put it better me self. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If TTN's behavior becomes similarly disruptive in other areas, the scope of the restriction can be extended by motion; but I'm wary of trying to nickel-and-dime the matter, and remain hopeful that TTN will understand the message we're sending and will avoid similar activities in other areas. Kirill 04:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the articles for deletion pages for today, we appear to be heading down the same road with Dungeon and Dragons related articles. (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons). Catchpole (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Kirill, how will you address any editors who act as proxies for TTN? Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "All editors are expected to comply with the rulings of the Arbitration Committee.... The parties are... warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute." Kirill 23:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just hope that starting an AfD on a TV article won't be taken as evidence that someone is acting on TTN's behalf. --Phirazo 23:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, it won't be, in and of itself. But please do things with moderation as you go forwards; nominating hundreds of articles for AFD probably won't be a very productive way of getting anything done other than causing more aggravation all around.  What's needed here is broad agreement on where we want to end up, not more piecemeal efforts. Kirill 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I also hope that if any one does start on AfD on a TV article they make a good faith effort first to see if references can be found first and do not nominate it out of an anti-TV article bias. And I am not saying Phirazo specifically who had made my list of nice editors for a previous interaction we had.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Now the mass-deletion nominations are indeed occuring for fictional D&D characters that are just flooding and overwhelming AfD:


 * 10:12, 2 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shedu (Dungeons & Dragons)‎ (Adding to list of Game-related deletions)
 * 10:12, 2 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volodni (Dungeons and Dragons)‎ (Adding to list of Game-related deletions)
 * 10:12, 2 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oaken defender‎ (Adding to list of Game-related deletions)
 * 10:12, 2 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spirit of the Land‎ (Adding to list of Game-related deletions)
 * 10:12, 2 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wood woad‎ (Adding to list of Game-related deletions)
 * 10:12, 2 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jermlaine‎ (Adding to list of Game-related deletions)
 * 10:12, 2 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean Strider‎ (Adding to list of Game-related deletions)
 * 10:12, 2 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirine‎ (Adding to list of Game-related deletions)
 * 10:12, 2 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boobrie (Dungeons & Dragons)‎ (Adding to list of Game-related deletions)
 * 10:12, 2 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahuizotl (Dungeons & Dragons)‎ (Adding to list of Game-related deletions)
 * 10:12, 2 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corpse Gatherer‎ (Adding to list of Game-related deletions)
 * 10:12, 2 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pech (Dungeons & Dragons)‎ (Adding to list of Game-related deletions)
 * 10:12, 2 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kopru‎ (Adding to list of Game-related deletions)
 * 10:12, 2 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gelf Darkhearth‎ (Adding to list of Game-related deletions)
 * 10:11, 2 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loxo‎ (Adding to list of Game-related deletions)
 * 10:11, 2 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alkilith‎ (Adding to list of Game-related deletions)
 * 10:11, 2 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feytouched‎ (Adding to list of Game-related deletions)
 * 10:11, 2 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhek‎ (Adding to list of Game-related deletions)
 * 10:07, 2 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrmyxicus‎ (Adding to list of Game-related deletions)
 * 10:05, 2 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark tree‎ (Adding to list of Game-related deletions)
 * Seriously, 14 nominations in one minute (10:12) and 5 nominations in the minute before (10:11)?! These mass nominations need to stop already and I doubt anyone can legitimately have evaluated and did a source search for that many articles in under a minute!  Meanwhile, these editors gloat and self-congratulate at their efforts to destroy other good faith editors' work, especially when these articles are consistent with a specizalized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are not AfD nominations, those are deletion sorting edits to AfDs that were already open. -- Ned Scott 20:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. It was apparently someone else who made the bulk D&D noms.  By the way, in an e-mail ad for a new computer game, the ad read "GameSpy Delves Heafirst Into Dung" when it was supposed to say "Dungeons".  According to the entry for 7 March 2008 on a Page-A-Day Calendar.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, Cassandra, deep breath. That appears to be a spring clean amongst members of the DD project (which I assume you are not part of) which explains the near unanimous delete votes on most of them. So Pumpkin, I suggest you calm down. The world's not ending and your presumptive fearmongering is not necessarily productive. I know you are going to disagree and throw spunky specialised-encyclopedia-five-pillars babble at me, but the fact is that WP Projects do this kind of thing. Eusebeus (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are more contributors to this site than just members of projects who may have opinions and edit-history concerning such articles and I really hope/wish you could make more in the way of constructive contributions to this project, i.e. instead of these edits. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here J Milburn admits that Jack Merridew came up with the whole "March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month" Jack Merridew has been edit-warring over notability tags on D&D characters articles for quite some time, as I noted in my evidence (evidence that this case does not just concern articles about television characters). I suspect Jack Merridew (Senang Hati) is bitter that the Allison Sudradjat article was deleted, since Jack noted that the Allison Sudradjat article got deleted but "meanwhile endless articles on popular culture are extant". --Pixelface (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I used that term in about a half dozen AfD discussions that were already open, so I don't see how I could have started this. I do, however, support it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any bad behavior or activity from Jack here. Jack correctly tagged several articles, and while edit warring is always bad, etc etc, that has nothing to do with him being "bitter" or AfDs. And even if the AfDs were Jack's idea, they are good ideas, and several other editors with good rationales (aka, consensus) feel that way as well. So I must ask, Pixel, what are you trying to assert here? -- Ned Scott 21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that this case is not just about television characters, but also D&D characters and some parties may have axes to grind. The arbitrators have proposed that the parties "are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute." (beyond television characters I presume), but the dispute already goes beyond television characters. I was going to say I think the dispute will spread (or rather, continue) at articles for videogame characters, but TTN has not many any edits since February 25. If TTN has left the building, a restriction placed solely on him will not really accomplish much in my opinion. In the first case the parties were urged to work collaboratively, but the committee should ask themselves if wishful thinking could be why they have a repeat case before them now. The place to move forward is certainly not Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. --Pixelface (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as policies and guidelines say that non-notable plotty originally researched fiction articles without reliable sources should not exist as such, it doesn't matter what kind of fiction articles the final arbcom ruling will be about. If TTN really gets restricted in enforcing these policies and guidelines (whose general basis seems to have been affirmed by wikiwide consensus in the past few weeks/months), it is just reasonable that other volunteers will step in to do the workload. Collaboration means "be nice to each other while improving the encyclopedia". But it seems the sole attempt to cleanup per generally normal wikiprocedure (tagging, waiting, discussing) already inflames the situation, making me doubt that some editors really understand the word "collaboration". It surely doesn't mean that any fiction article (television, video games, D&D) gets a free pass. – sgeureka t•c 10:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For a good look at collaboration, look at the WP:FICT talk page. There is spirited debate between editors from both poles, but I believe we are getting very close to a compromise position that I would call consensus.  Some don't seem to have the stomach for this work, but I think this is what truly needs to happen.  Ursasapien (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, and now re-reading my previous comment, my point doesn't seem to come across as well as I intended. I'd label the discussions at WP:FICT as a very good example of collaboration despite the differences in wikiphilosphies. But some (yet clearly not all) of the merge and deletion debates where WP:FICT comes up among less experienced editors, paint a different picture. It's there that the friction occurs, and it's not always caused by the "incivility" of the editors supporting the mergers. (I'll shut up now to allow arbcom to make the final decisions.) – sgeureka t•c 11:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * They should, however, be given plenty of time for such sources to be found and not AfDed the same week the article is created or when sources are found dismissed. TTN "enforces" his own personal interpretation of these policies and guidelines, an interpretation lacking consensus (hence, this case).  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (To Pixelface) The main issue of this case isn't the general dispute about fictional notability, but rather an excessive degree of force that was used on a very large spread of articles. The AfDs on D&D are not evidence of the force that TTN and some others were using, far from it. This is far more about revert wars over redirects than AfDs anyways. -- Ned Scott 18:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional characters. How many AFDs constitute a flood? How many AFD nominations a day present a fait accompli? --Pixelface (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's pretty normal, and none of it is evidence of disruptive behavior. It's hard to deal with a lot of AfDs, yes, but that's simply a part of Wikipedia having a lot of articles and a lot of editors. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Pixelface, how is this not a bad-faith AfD?? Not limited to television, indeed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you call it a bad faith nomination? --Pixelface (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Quack, quack, quack. —Jack Merridew 08:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about reporting
Could a committee member (or two) please clarify something for me? Where are incidents of violations to be reported? I ask because I would prefer not to have to argue on talk pages and on AfD discussions about whether or not a particular pattern of behavior is in violation of the committee's decision. Such accusations may be abused to swing a debate to one side's or the other's favor, and would not promote Decorum. Blast Ulna (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My pledge because two arbcom members are still encouraging comments before moving to close
I probably feel as strongly as Ned and Eusebeus about what seems to be the final arbcom decision, but I have been thinking about how to formulate my final pledge for a few days (I will shut up after this). My major concern is that arbcom doesn't explain what TTN is getting "punished" for. I am sure it is not for enforcing policy and guidelines (in fact, this would set a very bad precedent). If it is about his "disruption", I'd like arbcom to consider how often and strong cleanup is fought by local editors. I am generally only editing abandoned fiction (including much merging and redirecting) and have so far rarely encountered opposition, but as soon as still-popular fiction articles (i.e. abandoned-to-be fiction articles) are discussed for cleanup (like what TTN often initiates), cleanup-minded editors all too often face ignorance of WP:BURDEN and the expression of WP:ILIKEIT that in turn prevents the cleanup progress for sometimes many months. See the merge attempts of nn 24 characters which have been going on since late November with heavy resistance but only little progress, the cleanup attempts of Firefly characters since late November with only slightly better "progress", and the deletion attempts of Command Carrier that has no notability established whatsoever since October (to compare, non-notable garage bands are speedied). If, as arbcom says, "the purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia, in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors", I (and I am only speaking for myself) consider this kind of non-productive cleanup-stalling much more disruptive than anything TTN has ever done. I am not trying to excuse TTN's occasional incivility, but I strongly support Ned's proposal to help TTN relearn how to not be deaf to ILIKEITs and GIVEITMORETIMEs anymore, and give TTN the chance to prove that he can contribute to wikipedia's high-quality in less controversial ways. – sgeureka t•c 01:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing is that so many of these "clean up" efforts would be unnecesary if more editors helped in the referencing and improvement process. The other thing is that some of the editors (as indicated by the evidence) don't focus on the popular culture material because it has problems, but because it is popular culture material and we end up with a lot of   WP:IDONTLIKEIT nominations, usually by editors who admittedly know nothing about the topic and who are not only unwilling to improve the article through sourcing, but dismiss other editors' efforts to do so, because ultimately it is not for these handful of users about the article's quality, but the article's topic to begin with.  Because Wikipedia does not operate on a deadline, we're better off keeping non-hoax, non-personal attack articles around so that when someone who does have sources comes along, they are in a much better position to add them to a stub article.  Whereas Ned and Sgeureka have proven reasonable, TTN and certain others have not.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Despite ominous warnings to the contrary, I think the injunction and this subsequent ruling has done its job. As a community, we are working harder, better, and in a more unified way.  My pledge is to continue in this new spirit of cooperation and compromise to balance the goals of comprehensive coverage and high quality articles.  I think Arb Com's intervention has placed the proper emphasis on, not just civil, collegial, and cooperative editing, but on methodical, reasoned, non-rushed approach to change.  Ursasapien (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I for one will not be adding material to TV articles unless I can reference it now, and I think others will think twice about it too. Life's too short to wallow in AfD debates. Fact is, it took an 2 arbcom debates and a specific ruling to stop TTN 'laying down the law' with vigorous reverts etc. to all and sundry, resulting in alot of acrimony in the past 12 months. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

failure to deal with the issues
I think Arb com is once again about to to make a ruling that will avoid dealing with the underlying issue. It puts restrictions on one particularly difficult edit warrior and ignores the multiple evidence of some others who have done just the same, though to a somewhat lesser extent, and ought to be similarly sanctioned. it discusses only episodes and characters, not the multiple other types of articles which the same people treat similarly. It recommends consensus, but gives us no weapons against those who boldly ignore it. Except, they threaten to look unfavorably on those who would extend the dispute. That's essentially what they said last time. It didn't help then and it never has. If they want to look unfavorably on people who have ignored any attempt to determine consensus as long as they believe in their own minds that they are right, now is the time for it. the old rule still applies--to win a content dispute, act just a little less outrageously than the other guy, and be prepared that if he really is outrageous, after 2 or 3 arb coms, he will eventually be restricted him for a short while. The previous arb com was taken as a license to continue, and so will this be. DGG (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe the arbcom could say "anyone who acts like TTN, to be interpreted broadly, is subject to the same sanctions." I don't know because I haven't seen others doing the same thing personally, but it sounds like others have.  "To be interpreted broadly" was a smart way of putting it, but does it apply to all fiction articles, and does it apply to all editors? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think, DGG, you are not assuming good faith. My take was that because the last Arbitration resulted in no sanctions, TTN and others interpreted that as "I am absolutely in the right and I do not know why the Arb Com did not punish those on the other side."  Now, TTN and all other editors of the same opinion have to take a step back and review their assumptions.  My fear is that inclusionist will take this as carte blanche vindication.  Please do not forget that "Editors from all sides of the dispute have at times engaged in inappropriate behavior, including incivility, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and edit-warring." (FoF #3)  Remember, "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia, in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. While disagreements among editors are inevitable, all editors are expected to work calmly and reasonably towards resolving them, to collaborate in good faith, and to compromise where appropriate—even if they believe that their viewpoint is the only correct one." (Principle 2, "Struggle")  You also missed the first half of the remedy you quoted, "The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. "  Ursasapien (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought avoiding edit wars and working collaborative was already one of the basic rules. I suppose it is good to have the committee repeat it, but I would think they would want to go a little beyond saying that everyone must obey the rules here. I certainly will join in hoping you are right with your predictions of improved behavior. DGG (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to accept that the core issue here was never going to be adressed by ArbCom in the way some editors (including to some degree myself) may have hoped. Could a dozen users really make any kind of definitive, over reaching desicion about what should and should not be included in the encyclopaedia in the face of hundreds of pages of discussion involving hundreds of editors that has thus far failed to yield any kind of consensus. Guest9999 (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

DGG is absolutely right. The underlying issues in this case were quite clear, and Arbcom has sidestepped them. Although the standard that prescriptive policymaking must enjoy a broad consensus and reflect community practice was clear and undisputed, Arbcom has done nothing to discourage the editwarring of policy pages to force minority views down the community's throat. Most users are here because they want to contribute to an encyclopedia, not to turn an encyclopedia into an unhappy cross bhetween a wargame and Jarndycian litigation. Although users are supposedly required to assume good faith, Arbcom has done nothign to deter the Wikijihadist deletionists who continue to deny that there's a real, reasonably argued, good faith case that their position is incorrect. Arbcom has done nothing to deter the harassment, incivility, dishonesty, and stalking by certain of the principal players on one side of this case, choosing instead a faux-evenhandedness by pretending that the minor sins of one side somehow balance the torrent of abuse on the other. How likely is it that Arbcom has resolved the issue? Not a chance in hell, given that more than one unchastened abuser has simply moved on to slightly different modes of edit warring (in one case, ironically enough, insisting that the article size guideline shouldn't be applied to his choices). It would be nice if arbcom showed as much solicitude to real, positive contributors who've been abused for months as it does toward certain Wikipedians' girlfriends. VivianDarkbloom (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The ad hominem reference at the end is unhelpful and not relevant.
 * More substantively, I have held up the closing of this case in order to read through various comments and objections to the decision as posted by several editors. I understand completely the concern that the main remedy is a "go forth and reach consensus" admonition, delivered to a group of editors that after two attempts has already failed to reach consensus. However, the general expectation of the community is that the Arbitration Committee will not make content disputes. "This series of articles should be kept" or "this series of articles should be deleted," I am afraid, would fall into that category.
 * I've just looked again at all the various remedies that different editors have proposed on the Workshop. All of them were offered in good faith, but many of them either come down to "these editors need to do their best to work together," on the one hand, or "the policy on keeping/redirecting/deleting episode & character articles shall be thus-and-so." I don't think that the popular culture editing community really wants the 15 of us to be making those decisions.
 * My personal view, for what it is worth, is that where a series has attained a reasonable degree of popularity and notability, articles on the main characters are appropriate, and that as the popularity and notability increase, the reasonableness of including articles on less major characters and on individual episodes increases as well. There can never really be a uniform policy, because on the one hand we will not have articles on every episode of a half-forgotten show that came and gone after a few episodes, and on the other hand we will always have Star Trek related articles on every episode and every character and every tribble. So it's going to have to be dealt with case-by-case, and series-by-series, and unfortunately that means that these issues are going to keep coming up.
 * For what it's worth, outside the realm of BLP and privacy issues, I wear my inclusionist heart very much on my sleeve. So my personal opinion is that many of the articles in dispute should be kept. But that's my judgment as a reader and an editor, not as an administrator and certainly not as an arbitrator. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it be too much to ask for the arbitrators that are interested in the content issue but obviously tied by the arbcom process to review the efforts that we've tried to make at WP:FICT and WT:EPISODE not as arbitrators but as editors and comment there? At least with WP:FICT, which had been undergoing a lot of rereviewing prior to the first ArbCom case, we have a point where the current version seems stable or at least not highly disputed and involves contributions from several of the people that have commented on this case.  WP:EPISODE hasn't been updated but the current Arbcom led to a discussion on the talk page for a path forward also based on the decisions and various concerns from this case and also included a number that have participated in this case.  (At least, we've already attempted to address the approach to a rationale way to go forward as per one of the proposed resolutions).  --M ASEM  00:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * While I don't think the proposed decisions are the best, and I have been rather critical of arbcom regarding some things in this case, arbcom does have the right idea about what areas to comment on, and what to leave up to the community. Newyorkbrad sums it up pretty well. I still understand the concerns that DGG has, though I do hope that the events in this second case are enough to urge others to use less force when following our guidelines and policies (and while still being mindful of filibustering and other such things). -- Ned Scott 06:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I should note that VivianDarkbloom has been blocked indefinitely, for reasons I'm unsure of (although somewhat related to the above comments), at the request of the one of the involved parties in this case, Black Kite. The AN/I thread is here. (oldid here in case the thread is archived on 130 most likely). --Pixelface (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been quiet here, but I'd like to make one comment before the end. I was one of the few people who complained about the deletion of spoiler warnings, which followed along a similar line. The biggest similarity is that machine assistance was used to remove tens of thousands of spoiler warnings, beyond the ability of anyone to individually challenge. And it was successful because nobody could challenge it or reverse it; adding text is much harder than deleting, especially when there was a convenient template to search for when deleting.

Other similarities included editing of longstanding guideline pages, refusing to make a significant attempt at consensus (though there was a lot of arguing about whether 99% or 99.99% of the warnings should be deleted) and doing removals in steps (first editing the template so it was useless, then removing the now-useless template from pages, then removing the template itself.)

It just didn't step on the right people's toes, it seems.

I'd also point to webcomic deletion. Less subject to automation because there aren't as many, but it was clearly an attempt at mass deletion. (I agree that many of the webcomics deleted really weren't notable, but any indiscriminate deletion is going to get some deserving targets as well as undeserving ones.)

I wonder if anyone's learned a lesson from this, but I doubt it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, Vivian's account was unblocked on the 8t, on the basis that the changes of sockpuppetry had not been adequately proven. DGG (talk)

Possible discussion that falls in the injunction category
Wouldn't Articles for deletion/List of fictional spoiled brats (2nd nomination) fall under the injunction as it concerns some fictional characters who appear on television? Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't think so. It's a list about spoiled characters, not a list about a specific series. It's not actually fiction. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I notice that the list includes characters from The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius, Atomic Betty, Bratz (TV series), etc. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but again, not about the series as it is about the genre. categorization, etc. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What did you mean by, "It's not actually fiction"? The article is made up entirely of fictional characters.  Irregardless, this case should wrap up within the week and I think the deletion discussion can continue.  Ursasapien (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Deletion would not be related to the notability of the topics/articles that lists mentions. It's a list of other fictional content, but is not the actual content itself, which is on other articles. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What are we even debating here? It is a list of fictional characters that illustrate a certain archetypal meme in fiction.  The AfD involves whether identifying these characters in a list is original research.  The AfD began on March 2nd.  The injunction will likely be lifted before any admin will think about closing the discussion.  I clearly looks like it is headed for deletion, but if it survives it will not be the end of the world.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ursasapien (talk • contribs) 07:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, I'm just sayin's is all. -- Ned Scott 07:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

HOUSECLEANING - Time to lift the injunction
Can the arbitrators now officially lift the injunction? I grow weary of seeing Fictwarn pastered over every fictional topic at AfD (because of what appears to be an overlooked matter of housecleaning. Eusebeus (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep the injunction for now as the case does not yet seem to have been closed and to prevent a flood of pointed AfDs. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All of us have survived the past four weeks, and we'll survive the last few days as well without being pushy to arbcom. :-) – sgeureka t•c 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't mean to be pushy. But an injunction of this sort is highly unusual and should be lifted in a timely fashion. Eusebeus (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is unusual. But saying you'll act like a proxy for TTN when it appears he's going to be restricted is also unusual. --Pixelface (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If arbcom wishes to impose an injunction against me specifically for my importunate suggestion - that's one thing. Allowing this injunction to persist so fictwarns can be splattered around in a desperate bid to prevent normal AfD procedures from following their course is another matter altogether. Eusebeus (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sure they'll take care of it soon enough. Gotta make sure all those random-article hunters don't stumble across those articles which put WP in a bad light. Can always clean up some health or politics articles in the meantime eh? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The injunction persists because the case is still open. If you think the injunction exists so FICTWARNs can be splattered around, I suspect you have no clue why it the injunction was issued in the first place. I know you're chomping at the bit to redirect all the Scrubs episode articles again, but you'll have plenty of time after the case is over. --Pixelface (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The injunction is active "for the duration of this case"; ie. until the case is formerly closed by a clerk following a motion to close. It could of course be repealed by another motion, but that seems unlikely at this 11th hour. Daniel (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Question
What happens to the articles TTN redirected/successfully deleted? Would they still be redirected/deleted? I'm planning to improve the Gossip Girl articles so I'd like to know if I'll be violating anything related to this case or not. And don't worry, I'll use real life sources... and as a matter of fact, reading the old versions of the episode articles, it seems they were copied verbatim from Gossip Girl herself, LOL. -- Howard  the   Duck  06:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd wait until the injunction is lifted and then make sure you had 3rd party independent sources...good to hear. Don't worry, it'll be lifted soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing is, I couldn't find a model article with suitable refs (I tried looking at a random Heroes episode article but it doesn't have refs); as a non-American I dunno where to start so I'm stuck with redirects. -- Howard  the   Duck  08:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are many good model articles for episodes at WP:GA and WP:FA, maybe they can help you. DVD commentaries, companion guides, news.google.com, books.google.com, and scholar.google.com will help a lot to get you started. I'd still wait with the unredirecting until this case is over, and some new sources should be added right away then to avoid new editorial conflicts. – sgeureka t•c 10:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm not really planning it on an FA or GA on a specific episode article (my plan is for an FL for the List of Gossip Girl episodes). I've read A Streetcar Named Marge and it was pretty extensive; Gossip Girl doesn't get as much coverage as that. And I won't be doing anything until like a week after this case is over, to be safe. Thanks for the inputs. -- Howard  the   Duck  10:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

One last plea for a lesser restriction on TTN
He's stopped editing since Feb 25th. I don't know if that means he's never coming back or if he's just going to wait the six months out, but I don't think he'll learn much form not being active at all. This is one of the concerns I had which lead to my proposal that TTN should be restricted when challenged, since it would encourage him to keep active in the project during those six months, thus placing him in the situations that would help him learn what areas need improvement for his methods.

It's his decision to edit or not, so no one can be blamed if he decides to do so (for all I know it could be unrelated to this arbcom case, and is something in his personal life, or whatever), but I still think it's a more than reasonable request given that the main aim of the restriction is to help TTN.

People can comment on this if they want, but I don't mean to start another thread on this (wouldn't do much good as a general discussion topic at this point anyways). This is just one last "please consider" message before the case is closed. Take it for what you will. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hopefully he can find a constructive way to participate within this restriction. If he's moved on or whatever, I stand in awe at the amount he has been able to mold wikipedia to his own vision.  I don't think any other user has had quite as much impact on WP as TTN. I didn't like what he did, but he did a heck of a job.  He probably removed a hundred thousand hours of editing, all by himself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Parties instructed and warned
I have a question about the "Parties instructed and warned" remedy. It appears to me that the parties are choosing to duke it out in AFDs. Is that a violation of this remedy or is participation in AFDs encouraged? --Pixelface (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Where do we draw the line between say "spirited discussion and/or debate" and "disruption"? Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What would a mass nomination of television episode and televison character articles be? --Pixelface (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would call mass nominations of anything disruptive, including what we have seen with the D&D articles. Anytime AfD is flooded and especially if it's because it's an effort to go after a type of article rather than the article based on its individual merits, there's a problem.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing in the injunction says "absolutely no AfDs" nor does it forbid anyone from participating in those AfDs. Can't speak for the Smallville one, but the other two (which I nominated) were created after the injunction by a known Xenophilic sockpuppet and, by my understanding, because they were created after the injunction, they do not fall under it. Collectonian (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'm just wondering if AFD is the proper place in general to "develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question." I'm also wondering if massive AFD nominations (and I'm not referring to anyone in particular) could be seen as "spreading or inflaming this dispute." --Pixelface (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say massive AfD nominations do indeed spread and inflame the dispute and I am deeply concerned based on some of the comments we've seen that once the injunction is lifted, the episode and character AfD floodgates will be opened. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

While there are shortcomings in AfD, and while it is somewhat related to this ArbCom case, for the most part I consider it a separate issue. Lets explore and talk about these issues even after this case is closed. It will probably make for an easier discussion to be able to focus on the AfD things anyways, and will give us a clean start for discussion (though people are welcome to refer to the case and discussion here, since a lot of you built up evidence that would be related). -- Ned Scott 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)