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

Proposals by User:XYZ
Is this a new format for arbitration cases? In past workshops I've seen, proposals have not been segregated by which user proposed them. --Pixelface (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is, at the request of the arbitrators. New cases recently have been using this. Daniel (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Daniel. --Pixelface (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

New format
I'd like to comment that this new format for the workshop pages is proving rather unwieldy. There are many sections that are basically about the same issue, but amount to too many slight variations by different proposers. This spreads the commentary by participants out over too much space. I've not really been able to keep-up with the proliferation of sections. This page is already beyond a quarter MB and will likely double before the day is done.

I'm not advocating changing in mid-stream, but the format could be worked on for future cases. --Jack Merridew 09:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I somewhat agree with Jack here as there are times where I feel like I'm really looping around looking through this page. If nothing else, I propose we edit the first sentence on the page to be less wordy, passive, etc. It currently reads, "This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions." Better grammar would be: "This page is for working on Arbitration decisions." The current version is needlessly verbose. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I quite agree, listing proposals by proposer rather than topic leads to alot of duplication and difficulty finding specific proposals. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally haven't had too much trouble following the various discussions, possibly because I use the diffs extensively to find new comments. (On that note, BTW, someone keeps going through the whole page to add a space after every "::" even though this doesn't seem to affect the page display at all; I haven't bothered to determine who it is, but it clutters the diff with non-changes and I wish that person would stop.) Whether the old format would be more conducive to building on existing proposals instead of re-proposing them, I don't know. Anomie⚔ 18:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah... that explains why the diffs are all screwed up with whole paragraphs appearing to have moved. Astronaut (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree, but this isn't the place to request a change. According to Daniel, the arbs have requested the new format. One should probably ask him or another clerk where this was asked, and where to register complaint. seresin | wasn't he just...? 06:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jack. Hobit (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines
Since this is the most active page right now for this case, and a lot of people are watching it, I thought this would be a good place to note this. -- Ned Scott 22:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICT has been revised
WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)
There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think such general discussion during an RFAR is not productive. -- Cat chi? 19:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom is not expected to make a statement on content issues, which these discussions are to determine consensus. ArbCom may provide some guidance on these, and their findings can be included in discussion, but it makes complete sense to be describing these issues now to resolve both the behavioral problems (described here) and the content problems (in the guidelines) as soon as possible. --M ASEM  20:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said in the text, my reason for posting the message was mostly to inform the interested editors who are watching this case. Although, at the same time it is a very good idea to let the arbcom know what the community's progress is on these guidelines, as they are so core to the issue. So, White Cat, I'd have to pretty much disagree with your statement that my message was unproductive. It's anything but that. -- Ned Scott 06:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Temporary injunction about unencyclopaedic content
4) For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or suggest the deletion of any currently existing article regarding an unencylopaedic subject; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to unsuitability to an encyclopaedia to such an article. Administrators are authorized to wheel-war endlessly over the meaning of this injunction, and to block each other after being warned of their misunderstanding of this injunction.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:




 * Comment by others:


 *  Mockery Humour --Jack Merridew 11:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Mebbe humour better expresses my intent — which was to lampoon this process that seems endless and ineffective. Yon Workshop page is now beyond a half meg and I've given up on even trying to read it. It would seem that dispute resolution is really about exhausting editors through endless discussion. I have no problem with avoiding tv shite for now. --Jack Merridew 11:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, mockery of ArbCom. That is a great idea! Ursasapien (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And more to the point, I'm saddened to see it. The arbitrators are volunteers who are valued members of the community, and for no reward at all, wade smack into the middle of the worst situations we see happen around here, and more often than not, help to contain them. That certainly does not mean one cannot disagree with them (and I disagree with them on that injunction myself), but I think disagreement can be kept civil. There's not a need for this. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While I still think Jack and myself have a right to be frustrated about this, you bring up a very good point. I was certainly uncivil, but I'm more concerned that I have undue weight to how I feel about those four arbs. I have a great deal of respect for each of them, and over all I welcome their valuable input. I disagreed, while very strongly, with this one decision, it's not something that I would hold a grudge about, or judge them over-all with. So while I disagree about the injunction, I am very thankful that they are here for the case. -- Ned Scott 06:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a great proposal Jack. But I think it belongs on /Workshop, not the talk page. --Pixelface (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're free to propose it yourself; I released all rights to it when I hit save. --Jack Merridew 10:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Scope of this case
Looking over the evidence and diffs cited in the workshop, when it comes to the characters aspect of the case, the questionable reverts, mass AfDs, etc. seem to concern BOTH television characters and video game characters (for example, see this evidence), or rather just fictional characters in general, i.e. that the case is about 1. television episodes and 2. fictional characters. There seems to be some disagreement about that, however, in ongoing AfDs and I was hoping we can clarify what the scope of this case is. Again, in the evidence and on the workshop we have not been limited to television characters, but to fictional characters in general and indeed many of those involved in the dispute have also intensely disagreed over non-television fictional characters. So, am I correct that this case is about not just television charcters, but fictional characters in general? Moreover, would the injunction therefore apply to video game and film character articles, which again, are also typically in dispute by the same involved parties and participants in this case? Thanks! Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad Le Grand Roi has brought this question here, though I'd like to add another aspect to the scope of this case, and in particular of the Temporary Injunction. Is this case primarily about the deletion of the articles under consideration, the behavior of various editors involved in deletion actions, or both? Regarding the Temporary Injunction in particular, does it apply to AfD nominations brought before the injunction was issued, in cases where involved parties are not participating, or are participating civilly and without the sorts of actions which prompted this case? (I ask this, because the issue has come up in a particular AfD in which Le Grand Roi and I have become involved.) Argyriou (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is no problem, and everyone is being civil and things are relatively non-controversial, I wouldn't worry about it. Let the AfD run, but arbcom probably wants you to avoid opening any new ones up. -- Ned Scott 02:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * While it is not expected the ArbCom to rule on content disputes but behavior, I would hope that by extrapolation, this case includes, effectively, any elements of a fictional work where notability can be in question and how to deal with such articles. Not just TV episodes, not just TV or video game characters, but any other aspect that could fall under this general umbrella of topics dealing with fictional works.  --M ASEM  21:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This again illustrates why the injunction was badly thought out. Instead of placing an injunction on the editors, arbcom placed one on the articles. If they had placed it on the editors then it wouldn't matter what area of articles we were talking about. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Split?
I don't usually edit in this area and am quite unfamiliar with the general format but might it not be a good idea to split up this page somehow (maybe into proposals, remedies, etc or by different user suggestions). As it is the ~600K of continuous discussion is a bit hard to follow/navigate effectively. Guest9999 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)