Revision as of 09:42, 26 January 2008

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Truce

1) The involved parties must cease all AFD nominations as well as all redirecting of televison episode articles and character articles while the arbitration case is ongoing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Pixelface (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

PF - aside from this arbitration, if you concentrate on getting third party refs as requested by TTN etc. this will be most productive. Then, if deletions continue despite sourcing this can be taken further. If you have already done this let me know - I saw the one Peewee episode. Did you want to resurrect that now? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that finding third-party references would be productive. Perhaps parties redirecting articles should be doing that as well. --Pixelface (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Certainly people need to be more flexible and relaxed about these issues, since there's so much heat right now, but we don't need to come to a total halt. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, extremely one-sided "truce" and some of that redirecting/merging is being done on already reached consensus among projects and editors in the articles. Collectonian (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Pretty one sided truce ... can we delete all episode articles created while this arbitration is being processed?Kww (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse, once the dispute is on-going, the validity and reliability of in-questioned guideline must be taken into consideration and the excessive application of this problematic guideline like now is intolerable. @pple complain 17:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse as continuing doing so will only raise tensions as we discuss the matter. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse I'm all in favour of calling a halt and discussing properly. We need consensus before continuing. Astronaut (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Absurd — One might be tempted to counter with:

• All episode articles are summarily deleted and may only be recreated in a solidly notability-establishing state.

--Jack Merridew 11:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- excessively broad and one-sided. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse for reasons pointed out by others. --Maniwar (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Truce

1.1) All involved parties must cease editing episode articles as well as character articles while the arbitration case is ongoing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Less one-sided version of 1). --Pixelface (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - while it is a good idea, I'm too involved in the Doctor Who WikiProject that it would effectively stop my editing entirely - in fact, just before this case was opened, I've been collaborating with another editor to get a set of episode articles to GA. Also support a wording that doesn't cut off the valid creation of Torchwood, Lost, or Simpsons episodes. Will 02:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - just try sourcing what is still around and work from there. They want sourcing so let's get some cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose obviously. -- Ned Scott 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose just as one-sided and even worse for those of us in the TV and Anime/Manga project whose primary work is with such content. Collectonian (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, sorry, but I agree with Casliber. I think this is a good time for us to improve and source some articles as examples of what they can be. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose per Sceptre. -- Scorpion 02:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps another route could be something like "all parties work to reference, improve" episode and character articles instead? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that's a good idea. Astronaut (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, by the way. per Tim Q Wells. Astronaut (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per... well, just about everyone in the "involved" section, really. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Temporary Halt to Activities

2) Involved editors will avoid performing the actions under contention of this RfA (tagging for notability, merge proposals, redirection for merging, undoing such actions, and nominating articles for deletion) for television-related articles during this process; though they may continue to participate in any other acceptable form of editing and involvement. Involved parties are discouraged from creating new television-related articles during this process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. --Pixelface (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support, though the only creations I can possibly see right now due to the the WGA strike are actually Torchwood, Lost, and The Simpsons (and all three are covered by non-parties) Will 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to accuse or expect this from anyone, but this is to prevent one of those involved from creating more episode articles to deal with after this is over while there's a moratorium on deleting or merging them. --MASEM 02:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

True. I'd expect none of the three shows to have problem articles, though. Will 02:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem is - that hasn't stopped nominations before for shows of similar status, so I wouldn't take that as a given. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose It's the forcing of the issue that needs to be cooled down, not a total stop. -- Ned Scott 03:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I realize that ArbCom is looking at behavior and likely not content, I agree to some extent, but it seems fair to me that until this matter, which is running adjacent to the notability of episodes RFC, that the parties hold off on these questionable changes until behavior issues are addressed as well (if any) content ones. --MASEM 06:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The behavior in question is the act of redirecting. There wouldn't be any need to restrict tagging or even sending things to AfD. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, it is part of the work I do as a member of the two related projects, particularly tagging and suggesting merges. The parties calling this RfC claim the "deletionists" claim their issue is with people NOT tagging and discussion merges, so now they are saying not to even do that? Collectonian (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed to balance out 1, non-restrict general editing per 1.1. --MASEM 02:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the enforcement measure if someone were to violate this, may I ask? Wizardman 03:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Maybe a block would be preventative actions if somebody blatantly violates this. @pple complain 17:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should focus on this discussion for now, rather than starting new, potentially contentious AfDs. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree TTN has been redirecting 20-100 articles per day while this RfArb was being considered. He's refused to make a response, and is not engaging people to discuss. If his redirects get reverted, he simply repeats it the next day. This is disruptive. The non-response to the considerations of an ArbCom issue where he is the most discussed party shows contempt for Misplaced Pages as a process. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Oppose Though I concur with User:SchmuckyTheCat's view, it should be noted that the proposal includes "tagging for notability, merge proposals, redirection for merging, undoing such actions, and nominating articles for deletion" (emphasis added). If one party persists on tagging or merging, there is no sense in expecting the other party not to undo such actions. - PeaceNT (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose like PeaceNT, I agree with SchmuckyTheCat's view, but a halt to all activities would not give us the chance to undo TTN's disruptive edits should he continue to ignore this RfA. Astronaut (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This is not the right direction. Nothing to prevent others from stepping-in (from either camp). --Jack Merridew 12:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak Support -- Not the ideal solution, but considering that BOTH sides of this dispute are continuing to fight it out even as the case is going on, something's gotta be done. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree as pointed out by others. --Maniwar (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Jack Merridew as an involved party

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Pixelface (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Having an opinion on the matter does not automatically make one a party in this dispute. The Bhaal examples of reverts are unrelated, and completely appear to be vandalism reverting with an anon who keeps removing cleanup tags. The Earl example is pretty weak as well. This seems to be retaliation for Jack's comment to Pixel on List of Scrubs episodes. -- Ned Scott 00:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And yes, Pixel was inflaming the situation with his constant suggestions of going after Simpsons articles (such as the one made on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes). -- Ned Scott 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Further comment, Pixel leaves out that other editors were reverting the same anon, and that the article was semi-protected to stop that anon from removing the tags. -- Ned Scott 00:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Jack Merridew, in addition to this evidence, you've already claimed to be "semi-involved." Do you want to retract that statement? --Pixelface (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with my statements; some of yours, however, are of concern and are part of why I choose to participate here. --Jack Merridew 07:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Conditional Support - if the crux of the debate is TV episode notability, then yes, if it is behaviour that is identified as a single purpose account like I outlined elsewhere then yes as TTN shouldn't be singled out for it, if it is for extreme rapidity of reversions and lack of conversation then probably not. All depends on what Arbcom define as the limits of this issue really. Personally I don't think it will go anywhere unless the scope is enlarged. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thing I would like to point out, arbcom is taken as a last resort in a dispute. No attempt has been made with Jack Merridew directly to resolve his role in any dispute, let alone be established that he's done anything wrong. As such I don't think it's fair to make him subject to arbcom's rulings on this matter. If Jack wants to add himself as a party, he can, but that is his decision. If any of you feel differently, start taking other steps in the dispute resolution process, and if that fails, then you might be on to something. With this in mind, there are other users currently listed as parties that I believe could be fairly re-evaluated and removed from the case, if anyone desires, with this same line of logic. -- Ned Scott 07:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support per this edit and this discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

re that second link, please note that I was undoing very pointy redirects of two lists of tv stuff. The discussion there endorses this view and the redirects were not ever performed again. --Jack Merridew 06:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. I am not sure why he was not listed in the first place. He is certainly actively involved in this dispute before the ArbCom. Ursasapien (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support -- Merridew has been one of the more strident voices in the many ANI threads about this issue, and appears to have a similar editing pattern to TTN, Eusebeus, et. al. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support, sorta -- I will agree that he is involved, but I wouldn't go so far as to single him out as one of the worst offenders. Unlike TTN and a few others Jack doesn't have the same habit of "brute enforcing" his edits, which is where much of the outcry and outrage from other editors comes from. Still, he's a vocal proponent of TTN's actions and a distinct figure in this dispute. His inclusion should be a no-brainer. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 20:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support, this user is a hard-working voluntary spokesman for TTN for a while. His recent increasing involvement supports this inclusion. @pple complain 15:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So my offense is one of speech? --Jack Merridew 16:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are similar to Yukichigai. If some of the people listed are considered involved that I've hardly seen anywhere, then Jack's certainly an involved party. Note that this doesn't mean he's at fault for anything, despite what he says; he's merely an involved person in the dispute, which seems pretty obvious to me. Wizardman 03:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Jack Merridew:

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

Addition of Ursasapien as an involved party

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

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

proposed by Collectonian diff

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

I am fine with being added to the arbitration case. However, I strongly object to Collectonian's spurious accusations. She has continued to state that I was wrong and disruptive. She has assumed the worst faith in me from our first contact. She filed a vindictive ANI on me that was promptly ignored/dismissed. She has harrassed me and now is using this motion as a pretext to once again slime me. I tend to be easy-going and am loathe to report any but the most egregious editor conduct but I am nearing my limit. If Collectonian has the moral courage to file an RfC on my behaviour, let her. I am willing to be transparent and demonstrate my good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia. However, she should refrain from making any further scurrilous indictments of my character. Ursasapien (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose as premature -- This issue is thus far being dealt with adequately on WT:EPISODE and its subpages. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- There's nothing in Ursasapien's edits or the evidence cited that indicates anything more than a good-faith assumption of established consensus (mostly due to apathy from the "opposing side") and an editor having the balls to ask the hard questions that nobody else has stepped forward to ask. Like it or not there is question as to whether or not there's consensus for WP:EPISODE currently, and all I'm seeing after the initial redirects and reverts is an editor putting in incredible effort to gauge consensus as thoroughly as possible. If everyone involved in this dispute had put in as much due diligence as Ursa we wouldn't be at Arbcom hashing it out. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 21:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed temporary injunctions

Proposed injunction

1)

• No party to this case shall contentiously delete, rename, merge, or redirect, an article covering a TV series, an episode of a TV series, or a significant character in a television series, nor apply a contentious tag or process to such an article aimed at these actions or related to notability issues.
• If a party to this case wishes to perform any of these actions prior to the close of the case, then it may only be performed following consensus on the talk page or some other appropriate venue.
• Until the case closes, any uninvolved administrator who is not a party to the case and is uninvolved in TV episode related disputes, may revert any such change that modifies these pages contentiously and block for up to a week any party who breaches this injunction, and such an action should not be repeated until consensus is obtained.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed recognizing that no wording will suit all parties. We are talking about a brief period of a week to 2 weeks, at a guess, and during that time it is less harmful to allow content creation (and later remove if decided) than content destruction. That said, if a genuine consensus exists and has been sought (one of the main themes of the case is removal without consensus seeking) then there should be no problem. This injunction would therefore affect removal of content without consensus only, and only for a limited period. I am aware it would create a "green light" for some residual undesirable content addition and/or tagging, however if abused then consensus should not be hard to obtain to genuinely list it for AFD, or genuinely tag it, or seek uninvolved help to decide the matter. If some form of "truce" is sought, this may be a way that's readily possible. FT2  13:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This (or something like it) is being considered by the Committee. This post at /Workshop is mostly for parties to consider improvements that might be made in its wording before listing, and consider and let Arbcom know what other issues they feel need to be considered before a temporary injunction is proposed. FT2  13:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose Again, if you want to restrict something, restrict the reverting, not the cleanup that the project desperately needs. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee Ned can we drop the urgency? No-one finds these articles accidentally, they don't clutter anywhere. Gosh, shock, horror, maybe folks can go and improve sourcing on some health- or politics-related articles in the meantime? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee, it has nothing to do with urgency, it has to do with not restricting things that are not a problem in this case. -- Ned Scott 01:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks sounds fine to me. --Pixelface (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What if parties, or others, should take this as a green light to undo some large number of redirects and restore episode articles that are in violation of various policies and guidelines? I am concerned that this is one-sided and would prefer something that constrained editors in a more balanced fashion. --Jack Merridew 13:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Would adding "...nor contentiously revert actions of these kinds" do it? FT2  13:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It would, providing that it does not include reverting contentious deletion/redirection. - PeaceNT (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be ok with that tweak. As long as all sides know they all have to chill or else, this can work. --Jack Merridew 13:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: might be a good idea to include semi-involved editors (such as myself); i.e. anyone who has been involved in a significant way. --Jack Merridew 14:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. This RfAr exists as a consequence of TTN's disregard for the first RFAR decisions, as well as the fact that his/her continually contentious actions have provoked considerable controversy and objection from the community. Thus, it is perfectly justifiable to request that TTN and other editors cease deleting articles when this case is still active and perhaps take some time to comment on relevant issues here instead (especially TTN, who apparently has been notified of this case, but mysteriously has not found the need to comment). At any rate, deletion/redirection which is based on consensus will not be prevented if this injunction is granted; they shouldn't be concerned. - PeaceNT (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. per Jack Merridew. I think this should help calm passions during this RfAr and may even lead to more commentary here. Comment to Ned Scott. There is no urgency. Clean up is no more desperately needed than the creation of a thousand more episode/character articles. What is desperately needed is careful thought, civil discussion, and consensus. Ursasapien (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - I am already trying to steer clear of it until we get some direction here. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Support per Jack Merridew, PeaceNT. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - per the various reasons pointed out. --Maniwar (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. per above. @pple complain 15:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Second question - opinion sought

Do people (parties and others) feel the case should proceed in parallel with discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability and Misplaced Pages talk:Television episodes? Or should the case pause a bit to see what happens there? Quick comments sought? FT2  13:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

Comments by others:

The discussions listed should be the decision on content, and generally they seem to be working well despite some strong disagreement. ArbCom is needed more for a few points of policy and mostly for civility and conduct discussion, from what I can tell. As such, these can proceed in parallel, and indeed ArbCom's rulings may help speed up the discussions. LinaMishima (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest keeping things going in parallel. I'm glad the other discussions are being held, and followed by the AC. I personally find the half-meg on that talk page unreadable and hence unfollowable. Of course, if this workshop pages expands as the last case's did, we may have the same issue here. (nb: I dropped 'talk' from your first link as I moved the RFC to its main page a few days ago) --Jack Merridew 14:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I meant this page: Misplaced Pages:Television episodes/Proposed Objective Criteria. --Jack Merridew 14:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The parallel approach seems to be working; there are some aspects here, but I think we are figuring out the content side pretty well without intervention (though we may need someone uninvolved to determine the right consensus, if needed). --MASEM 18:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

1/ Noted, and 2/ build that into your decision-making process early. If need be or if there is doubt, a simple neutral formula is "the decisions of any polls (if not obvious) shall be agreed by means of a request to ANI/RFC/wherever for final uninvolved views..." or some such. FT2  03:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

TTN stop removing content during the duration of the rfar

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Initiator: If what TTN is doing is right explaining himself here would help arbitrators understand his perspective better. At a minimum "working together" requires some level of discussion right? -- Cat 13:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. Unfortunately, even the AfDs he is participating in are turning into intense debates: , , , , etc., where AfD is becoming something of a battleground, rather than just having a focused discussion here in this Workshop. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

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

Proposed final decision

Proposals by John254

Proposed Principles

Extreme edit warring

1) Massive edit warring over a large number of articles is highly disruptive, and may result in an extended site ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. John254 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. --Pixelface (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Basically true, but totally unnessesary threat of a site ban. TTN follows our guidelines and policy, and if arbcom actually passes something like #Fait accompli, I have no doubt he'll listen. The reason we are here a second time is because in the first case failed to give any kind of clear advice or direction. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, also, I don't see how not having this would weaken the credibility of the decision in this case. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support both this and 1.1. - PeaceNT (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. @pple complain 17:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support as well. Wizardman 18:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Support" generally isn't added by anyone other than arbitrators, because you're not voting or anything, the comments are just there to say that you think something shoudl be adjusted or whatever, or you don't think the arbs should agree to it, so it's not adding anything.--Phoenix-wiki 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support This seems like common sense to me. Ursasapien (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - common sense. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support -- This is the entire basis of WP:AIV and other anti-vandalism measures; failure to reiterate this would only weaken the credibility of the decision in this case. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support --Maniwar (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

TTN

1) TTN has engaged in massive edit warring over a large number of articles. John254 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per my evidence. John254 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. While I have not seen TTN violate the three-revert rule, I do believe this line from WP: EW fits: "Edit warring occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert content edits to a page or subject area." --Pixelface (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Tim Q. Wells (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Definitely. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Appears to be true per the evidence. Wizardman 02:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsure, isn't edit-warring defined by breaking the 3RR rule? AnteaterZot (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - It's one of the ways it can be defined, but there are numerous other things which are indicative of an edit war. WP: EDITWAR covers this in detail. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 05:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - This is like having a finding of fact called "The sky is blue". -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 05:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Takes multiple parties to war, and TTN should not be singled out as the sole transgressor.Kww (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - it takes two to tango. Will 15:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To the two above, I don't think anyone's saying he's the sole responsible party with the above FoF. It's pretty obvious that he one of the said transgressors though. Wizardman 15:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Nothing about this FoF precludes other editors from being identified as participants in edit warring. (Hell, the next FoF does just that) If it "takes two to tango" as you suggest, then identify the other person(s). Just because someone else is edit warring doesn't make it okay for TTN to do so. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 22:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - when the obvious needs to be spelled out. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2:008 (UTC)

Support, it's not difficult to find a bulk of evidence backing-up this naked truth. @pple complain 17:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Ursasapien (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support It may take two to tango but it appears that TTN's dance card is the full one (Translation: TTN seems to be the common denominator in all of these edit wars). spryde | talk 21:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Because he's one of the few willing to deal with these situations. Don't be fooled by numbers, they mean very little on Misplaced Pages. -- Ned Scott 04:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I have been keeping up with the TTN situation, but I am not sure if the ends justify the means. You can be perfectly in the right when it comes to policy but if you use up all your goodwill in the mean time, you really are not getting the point of a collaborative project. You have to work with others, not steamroll them. Beating people over the head repeatedly with policy is never a good strategy. spryde | talk 12:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I strongly encourage TTN to find better ways of dealing with these situations that don't leave him looking like the "bad guy". Using force, even if you're right, can come back and bite you in the butt later on (which it has). I just don't think that him being the common denominator is the real issue. -- Ned Scott 01:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support -- Whether or not you support TTN's activities, he's been exceedingly aggressive in merging/"soft-deleting"/redirecting articles, and even more aggressive in "defending" his redirects by keeping them watchlisted so he can immediately reinstate them should they be reverted, even months later (and I wish I could remember what page it was where that happened so I could put it in evidence). He also has, as shown in Yukichigai's evidence, demonstrated a desire to intimidate editors who disagree with him into submission with threats of edit wars and a refusal to even consider opposing points of view, inducing a siege mentality in those opposing him. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Solution ignores edit warring and refusal to follow policy by those who oppose the mergers as well. Again, singling TTN out for punishment or bad behavior is wrong. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you feel there are other users who are edit warring, identify them and they can be sanctioned too. And, also again, other people edit warring doesn't excuse TTN edit warring. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't change the simple logical truism that, since an edit war involves two or more editors repeatedly reverting one another, someone else must be participating if it is asserted that one person is edit warring. Surely, we are not to believe that TTN is edit warring with himself? Seraphimblade 04:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It is simple. One editor goes around boldly redirecting every episode article s/he encounters, without proper explanation and discussion, let alone consensus. Then it turns out (not surprisingly) that s/he is reverted everywhere and faces increasing objection from a large number of editors in the community. Yet, instead of realizing it was about time to discuss, s/he kept on engaging "in massive edit warring over a large number of articles" with multiple users. I hope I describe the situation well, for as far as I am concerned, no other editors have performed as much controversial reversion as this particular user has on Misplaced Pages (note that vandal-fighters are left out, for their work is entirely non-controversial) So yes, s/he is not editwarring with self, or another specific user, but actually many other editors, hence the grave concerns. - PeaceNT (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't such a truism. Consider the case where Alice makes a change, Bob reverts, Alice restores, Charlotte reverts, Alice restores, David reverts, Alice restores, Emily reverts, Alice restores, and so on through the rest of the alphabet; Alice is clearly edit warring, but there is not a "someone else" she is warring with. Whether or not that applies to TTN in general or in any particular skirmish is not something I will comment upon.

Even if there is another editor involved in any particular skirmish, that does not absolve TTN of responsibility for his own behavior. Instead of trying to excuse TTN, bring appropriate criticism on that other editor as well. Anomie⚔ 05:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Anomie said it better than I could. it is a fact that the user in question has been involved in massive edit wars. Period. Evidence is needed for accusation against other editors, though I find it rather offending that you would suspect for even a fraction of a second that "someone else must be participating" is the same amount of contentious edit war as this particular user has. - PeaceNT (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as Anomie illustrated, it is possible for TTN to engage in a one-sided editwar. Even when the weight of wider opinion is against him, TTN ploughs on regardless. Astronaut (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick question: "someone else must be participating if it is asserted that one person is edit warring." How exactly does this statement excuse the behavior of the first person? The short answer is simple: it doesn't. This is the Misplaced Pages equivalent of "well he started it!" The order in which the parties did things doesn't matter compared to what the parties did. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 08:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support - evidence is clear, precise and there. --Maniwar (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface

2) Pixelface has engaged in massive edit warring over a large number of articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. This is false, as I've explained in my statement. And I'm not sure, but this proposal should probably go in a Proposals by Wizardman section (although I've never seen this format at arbitration before). --Pixelface (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

One notable aspect of Ned Scott's evidence with regard to Pixelface is that all of the reversions he cites appear to have occurred on the same day. The evidence certainly doesn't establish sustained edit warring, as my evidence with respect to TTN does. While the actual number of diffs is identical, I believe that TTN has engaged in a greater total quantity of reversions, based on his edits between 22:42, 9 January 2008 and 19:09, 14 January 2008, a period of time for which I cannot personally provide evidence due to the limitation of 100 diffs per user. I would encourage other editors, however, to submit additional evidence of TTN's edit warring. John254 05:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I only just started my evidence section a few hours ago. I plan to go through Pixel's edit history with a fine comb. Also, not every revert is an "edit war" or else we'd call reverting vandals or disruptive users "edit warring" when such reverts are normally encouraged. -- Ned Scott 06:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's conceded that "not every revert is an 'edit war' " -- however, hundreds of reversions in an active content dispute between good-faith users in a single month certainly rises to the level of edit warring. John254 06:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "good faith user". We assume good faith, but that does not mean the end result is always acceptable. Some users, while acting in good faith, become disruptive, or have arguments that are flawed. Having good intentions is not a free pass to over-riding strong, logical arguments, that are backed by policy and guidelines. In the last month I've probably reverted 20 edits where a user or IP will come along and say "X character has a crush on Y character". I don't even talk about it with them, I just revert it. Yes, there is something to be said about the scale that this is happening on, and not all of the arguments are flawed, but, it is very important to remember that for the vast majority of the time TTN has to deal with users just like the ones who add shipping to the articles I watch. Being a "good faith" user doesn't change that. -- Ned Scott 07:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. As far as episodes and characters go, Pixel has only done a single mass revert to the Scrubs episodes. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, not nearly enough evidence. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. These two seem to be among the worst offenders. Wizardman 02:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a precis of diffs to have this easily quantified before making comment. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. With the diffs so far, I oppose my own proposal. Wizardman 16:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose until I see more evidence. Ursasapien (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - no evidence for the claim, and the proposer appears to have withdrawn his comment. - PeaceNT (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - insufficient grounds for this; Pixelface may be a visible voice (nice mixed metaphor there...) in this debate, and may have made some ill-thought-out moves in it, but I've not seen evidence of his conducting "massive" edit wars related to this issue. Adopting this would basically require the ArbCom to adopt a similar FoF regarding every single editor that TTN has edit warred with, for consistancy. Keep things simple and down to those who've been EWing on multiple fronts, as it were. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - seems to be a vendetta or retaliation post. 15:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - proofless. @pple complain 15:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

TTN Banned

1) TTN is banned from editing Misplaced Pages for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per the extreme edit warring principle and the TTN finding. John254 00:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - one-sided. Will 00:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This proposed remedy does not preclude the issuance of remedies against other users involved in the edit warring. However, as TTN appears to have edit warred far more extensively than any other user involved in this case, a severe sanction is justified. John254 00:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface has done a lot worse. Will 00:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence to that effect, though you are welcome to present some. TTN's edit warring has been so extensive that I'm probably going to use all of my 100 diffs in describing it. John254 00:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

John, I'm going to make a prediction, and it's going to come true. TTN will not be banned from Misplaced Pages at this point. The reason we're at arbcom is because it can't be established that what he's doing is even disruptive. I want TTN to use better methods, but that doesn't mean he's actually done anything wrong. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN is the only editor who has been established, based on the current evidence, to have engaged in massive, sustained edit warring. Ned Scott's evidence against Pixelface and Tim Q. Wells shows only that these editors each engaged in a single set of reversions on a single day. While one incident of such edit warring over a large number of articles would have constituted grounds for blocking at the time, when considered at least several days later, it warrants little more than an admonishment not to do it again. Ned Scott's evidence regarding Geni currently shows only 10 reversions, which, while clearly not acceptable, fails to rise to the level of the sort of massive edit warring that would justify an extended site ban. TTN's extreme edit warring is clearly disruptive, and is not excused by assertion that edit warring furthers the enforcement of the notability guideline. John254 15:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We are here because the community at large does not agree that he's actually done anything outrightly wrong. I myself can only think of a few times, the minority of TTN's edits, where he should have backed down and not forced the issue, and in general I would welcome a tactic that is less harsh. We need adjustment here, not blood. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Major over kill. TTN hasn't even done anything that bad, but we just need to make sure that everyone knows that there are some situations we have to slow down on. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose A ban will only encourage people who want to keep non-notable episode articles. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I think a one-year ban would be too harsh, especially in light of the current wording of WP: N — I just think the wording of WP: N lags behind the practice it describes. I would however probably support some other editing restrictions in light of the edits TTN made after the committee's previous remedy. --Pixelface (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, insanely harsh, and seems very biased and one-sided. There are far worse editors out there who are far more disruptive who have never gotten more than a month ban. TTN may have aggrevated people with some the redirect/merging, but he also has done a lot of good work and despite the frustration felt by some editors, his actions also resulted in some of the related parties getting off their virtual tushes to deal with issues they've let slide for far too long. Collectonian (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sitting on fence momemtarily - what I see is someone who has not made a mainspace edit for over a year except in the purpose of pruning or redirecting, and who appears unable to negotiate with others except those who agree with his aims. Other contact very quickly becomes adversarial. Between complete exoneration and a ban I can't see any middle ground. TTN is absolutely convinced he is correct in his actions, and has not changed practice in over a year. For mine, the inability to negotiate or accept outcomes different to what he feels are the favourable ones indicates an incompatibility with a collaborative project. However, I would like to be proven wrong on this. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per Pixelface. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't agree necessarily with TTN's actions, but a complete ban is overkill. Wizardman 02:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Might be better to leave off proposals until all the evidence is in folks. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Absurd — TTN has done a lot of good work. --Jack Merridew 09:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Absurd.Kww (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what the best solution is, but we do need to do something to stop the unconstructive edits that have resulted in potentially good articles on notable episodes and characters being destroyed. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware this was a straw poll... Anthøny 22:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak Support Given TTN past refusal to engage in reasoned discussion or to slow his "project", I think it unlikely he/she will abide by the results of this RfA. Frankly, TTN is destroying parts of this encyclopedia in some mad rush to impose his opinion on everyone else. That's usually called vandalism and repeat offenders are usually banned. With around 20,000 edits of this type, I think TTN more than qualifies as a repeat offender. The ONLY mitigating factor - something I'm pretty amazed at - is that this user has received no cease and desist warning as yet. Astronaut (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak Oppose I would prefer blocks of increasing length for continued edit warring. Ursasapien (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose While a block may be warranted for TTN's alleged edit warring, a one year ban is far too harsh. A short term block of two weeks to a month should be used first. --Farix (Talk) 15:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per Farix. -- Scorpion 15:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per Farix. TTN may seemingly need to be hit with a brick to get his attention, but a block of a month or less would be adequate for that. Note that I wouldn't be opposed to a possible one-year topic ban, but such a long overall ban is excessive and punitive. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by Kirill Lokshin

Proposed Principles

Fait accompli

1) Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Our failure to pass this the last time around has apparently resulted in an unclear message. Kirill 03:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I would like to hear from users who have transgressed this principle in the past as to how their actions fit with a collegiate attempt to write a better encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. --Pixelface (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support and personally, I believe this is all that needed to resolve this case. I'm a bit surprised that the arbcom didn't opt to just re-vote on Fait accompli instead of a whole new case. -- Ned Scott 03:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support findings in this need to be unequivocal with as little room for interpretation as possible to avoid this carrying on further. I am also concerned that TTN promised more discussion (as per this opinion) after the last hearing though his behaviour since is not consistent with this. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe TTN is going to discuss more, but honestly feels this is a situation where consensus was established and people are trying to wiggle out of that. I actually agree with him in that, but acknowledge that the dispute, the anger this is causing, is more of a problem than the episode articles at this point. It's one of those situations where we need to discuss more than normal, because so many people are not aware of the existing guidelines and policy, because it's a large scale change to a very active group of articles. There is a difference between improvement when working with other users, and always working the way you want someone to. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again - - surely AfD would be a place to generate discussion? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A horrible example that doesn't show what you assert. There is a difference between undoing an undiscussed change when there was previous discussion and consensus support for a merge/redirect vs using reverting to establish the consensus itself. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that TTN is edit warring with so many different people is fairly clear evidence that he doesn't have consensus for what he is doing. *** Crotalus *** 07:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

For some situations I agree, which is why I'm supporting this proposal in the first place, and why I added myself as a party to this arbcom case. However, the example article The Man Who Killed Batman is not a case where other people are going to discussion or giving reasons other than "I like it" to revert. It is not an example that backs up the assertion, but I do acknowledge that the situation does exist, and that TTN does need to cool it on some discussions (whether he's right or wrong). -- Ned Scott 05:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, while I agree in theory, this is, again, one-sided as Kww has pointed out. Needs to be more balanced to address both sides, particularly when, despite complaints, the reasons behind the merges/redirects/etc support guidelines and policies while those guarding "their" articles are just claiming they like it. Collectonian (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Tim Q. Wells (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes - Not only should this principle pass, it should be incorporated into Misplaced Pages: Disruptive editing and probably deserves its own shortcut. (WP: FAIT) -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 05:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't support with this intention - Fait accompli is indeed a bad thing. But isn't this what the episode article creators have used? Tens of thousands of plot summaries, created over the course of years, that need to get scrubbed out. I could support with a balanced phrasing that recognizes that the episode article creators are at least as guilty.Kww (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - You can't have a principle condemning the good-faith creation of articles that happen to be out-of-policy because we don't bite the newbies here. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 22:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that many of the worst articles are created by newbies, by no means are episode articles restricted to newbies. Also, by the time someone has created multiple tens of articles, are they still a newbie?Kww (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Experience (or a lack thereof) isn't determined by the sheer number of edits a user possesses. And as far as the creation of obviously out-of-policy articles by users who know better, "this applies to many editors making a few edits each" covers them just fine; article creation is a type of edit. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 23:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Newbies creating 10 episode articles over a couple of days is not fait accompli. Re-directing then in one minute is fait accompli. Astronaut (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support, and TTN should read this. I've observed many episodes-characters-related debates (ANI, RFC etc) and seldom seen TTN add his or her voice. (My best guess is that s/he is too busy deleting/redirecting articles and has no time left for discussions?) - PeaceNT (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support, pathetically, I doubt if TTN bothers to read this. @pple complain 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That is very uncalled for. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support per above. -- Scorpion 19:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support as well, seems to make sense of the situation. Wizardman 05:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support If too much is done too quickly, people become disinclined to argue. Therefore Fait accompli is bad for the integrity of the encyclopedia, but it needs a definition such as "number of edits to a topic per hour made by someone". Astronaut (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support I actually believe this applies to both sides. The present message is that sheer obstinance and force of will determine consensus. Ursasapien (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Full support Discussion is key. Stating X and ignoring questions and trying to battle through siege mentality, attrition and other methods is not how a collaborative encyclopedia is supposed to work. spryde | talk 21:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support per Kirill, Casliber, Ned Scott, Tukichigai, PeaceNT, Astronaut, Ursasapien, and spryde (phew!). Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Great in theory, but... I agree with this in spirit, but I'm afraid it might be applied to one side only. What happens when someone is notified "Creation of episode articles is controversial, please discuss the appropriateness and sourceability of a particular article before creating any more", and continues to create dozens of them? (Or "many editors making a few edits" continue to do so?) Does the same principle apply to them? In principle, I agree with "discussion not force", but it must apply to both sides. If a freeze or slowdown is to be suggested or mandated, it must be applied to creation along with anything else. Seraphimblade 01:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Does the same principle apply to them?" Quite simply, yes, it does. Article creation would count as a type of edit here. Certainly a situation like you described (with some exceptions for new users, since as I said before we don't bite the newbies here) would go against the spirit of this proposal, and thus it would count. If there's another wording you think would make it more even, though, by all means suggest it. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 20:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - Support. --Maniwar (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by uninvolved User: Masem

Proposed Principles

Notability describes what topics should be covered on Misplaced Pages

1) While Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information, and its notability guidelines should be used to judge whether a topic should be covered in depth — that is, having its own article. While notability is a subjective value for any topic and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, using verifiable, reliable third-party sources to demonstrate why a topic is notable, sets a minimum, objective standard for all topics on Misplaced Pages while upholding its core policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree that the presence of reliable third-party sources suggests a topic is notable. However, if an article currently lacks reliable third-party sources, that doesn't mean the topic is not notable. Perfection is not required when editors create articles. --Pixelface (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is basically true, and I'd support saying this in this case simply for all those who think this arbcom case will bring back past articles. Not core to the issue, but it would be beneficial to say. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. While notability is a guideline purposely, it should be taken that, particularly in its presently language, it represents the common consensus of inclusion across all of Misplaced Pages; no class of articles should be allows to be singled out as requiring less notable demonstration than any other article. However, notability still is a subjective measure, and while requiring "significant coverage in secondary sources" sets a baseline, it is still a "presumption" of notability. --MASEM 16:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Notability itself is not quantifiable. At best, some of the child guidelines detail the concept of awards or news coverage, however not all awards or news agencies are made equal. Verifiable, reliable, third-party sources are in my opinion what describes what should be covered by wikipedia. This is a more explicit quality that something either has or does not have, and does not call into debate arbitrary lines (such as sales figures). Additionally, your wording of the proposal implies content on wikipedia, whereas your proposal explanation deals with articles, and these two categories typically use slightly different definitions of notability (namely content notability is within the context of the article). LinaMishima (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my explaination should be consider to be "topic" based - in that articles and possible sub-articles (by Summary style) are what consistitute the coverage of a topic. Note, however, I'm not trying to spell out exactly what sources are to be used, only that at minimum, they are reliable third-party sources. It is up to more specific guidelines to outline appropriate sources for that form of medium, though not to disclude any that would be allow for other articles. --MASEM 00:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support — We have a winner. This is fundamental to being encyclopaedic. --Jack Merridew 10:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support with the caveat that more should also be done to make the appropriate policy pages and their discussions known to the Wikipublic in general; before the first time I bumped into TTN, I'd never even heard of WP:FICT or WP:EPISODE. Even with the Policy Pump and Proposal Pump watchlisted, I rarely hear that a policy or guideline is being examined for modification; the only reason I found out about what's happening on WT:EPISODE and its subpages is that it was mentioned in an ANI thread. We can't build consensus on policies and guidelines in a vacuum, and so long as these discussions occur on obscure talkpages without any notification to the community at large, we're going to keep facing these sorts of disagreements over policies/guidelines that few have heard of, and even fewer knew were being changed. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong bloody oppose. This is outside arb-com's remit and contradicts policy. Policies and consensus and the board on rare occasions decide what gets included, not guidance. Guidance can help us solve arguments, but it isn't the solution. We are. We use discussion to decide what is suitable for inclusion. Given the fact that notability is flagrantly ignored by half of wikipedians and disputed in may instances, I don't see how arb-com could even find in favour of this even if it was in their remit. 16:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Hiding T

Editors should notify others of articles that fail to meet policy and guidelines

2) An editor should provide notification to editors of an article if he feels that the article may fail one or more of WP's core policies or guidelines, and lacks the knowledge or ability to correct the problem himself. At bare minimum, this notification is done through cleanup templates on the article, but it is highly recommended to include a talk page message on the article to describe the deficiencies, or to contact a parent article or related Wikiproject at large about the subject.

In the case of obvious and egregious violations of policies, such as those dealing with biographies of living persons, an editor should boldly remove that content without notification, but leave appropriate edit summaries and possibly talk page messages to describe why the content was removed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment, most, I think, are doing this, but at what point is it considered enough? If the article being tagged is unnoticed by editors, its unlikely an article talk page message would be. For notifying a WikiProject, I think this would be better handled if the various cleanup categories could be broken down by topic. Most of the projects have people who watch for articles with issues, but due to the lack of categorization, find it easy to miss any. Now the Anime and Manga project has a section specifically listing articles with various issues, so could the editor add the article to the appropriate sections(s) and be considered as having notified the project? Collectonian (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This suggests that it may be used to seek out a solution whereby if an article is tagged, and it is associated with a WP, we can get a bot to place that article into a special category for the project(s) of interest, in addition to the usual "cleanup category" templates. We have the ability to make automated tools and this seems like a useful purpose to put them to use. Mind you, I feel that just tagging en masse and not really trying to explain why you tagged them is still a problem, but for one-offs, this isn't a bad idea. Also, I've an idea to create the reverse approach of a watchpage, a list of users interested in a page, such when any significant cleanup or other change in the WP handling of the article is made, those uses are notified via a bot on their talk page. --MASEM 20:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Notification doesn't seem to be a real issue here. *shrug* -- Ned Scott 04:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Obvious yet core to case; the question is, do we want to expand or require more for cases of large mass merges? --MASEM 16:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support — True, this is core to this case. For large batches, talk post/discussion should be on a centralized talk page such as that of the LOE (as WP:TV-REVIEW did). I'm intrigued by the bot suggestion as it would address a number of complaints from both camps. Bot would presumably key off articles appearing in some class of categories. Perhaps we could have a mode where the trigger was an article's removal from a category to aid in dealing with mass-tag-removal. --Jack Merridew 10:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support per Jack Merridew. I'd also recommend some sort of limit on the frequency with which individual editors can tag articles in this manner, to prevent the seemingly blind mass-merges TTN is notorious for. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good faith efforts should be made, and should be given time, for improvement

3) As part of the editing process, when editors of an article are notified through either cleanup templates or through talk pages that the article fails to meet core policies, they should make good faith efforts to improve the article in the area in question, and be given time for such efforts to occur. While there is no deadline to perfect any article, an editor may be bold and make the necessary corrections if no good faith efforts for improvement, or further discussion of the specific cleanup area, are made no less than a month after the page editors have been notified.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sounds reasonable. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. This is the key distinction between TTN and TV articles and the parallel situations with Jack Merridew/Gavin Collins and rpg material WRT time,tags, use of AFD and acceptance of 3rd party sources. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. We should give the benefit of doubt for cleanup up of articles, and particularly for established articles, allow editors time to establish what is needed (in the specific case of notability). However, if no such work is done on an article, or editors continue to work on the article but do not address the specific issues raised by the tagging/notifying editor, that editor should be free to correct it himself. The month period is the bare minimum to be allowed, given that WP is voluntary, people take vacations, paper resources are not as fast or easy to collect as web ones, and so forth. --MASEM 16:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support — All very reasonable. I would suggest adding an admonishment about removing clean-up tags with out addressing the issue. --Jack Merridew 11:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support I tried to propose this in the previous case, but my phrasing was (apparently) not as good and drew ire from certain parties. Anomie⚔ 06:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support per proposal. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support - as pointed out. --Maniwar (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus may not always reflect the majority viewpoint

4) Consensus building is a key part of policy creation and settling disputes on Misplaced Pages. Consensus is a discussion forum to propose acceptable solutions, and is not a voting process, and thus may not always reflect the majority viewpoint. Agreements and decisions reached by consensus must still fall within Misplaced Pages's mission and its core policies and established guidelines; if, within a consensus, the majority appear to support one resolution that violates policy or guidelines, that resolution is not an acceptable solution, though editors are encouraged to consider if previous consensus for that policy or guideline no longer holds true in addition to seeking middle-ground solutions that are acceptable within current policy. Editors should seek uninvolved, third-party editors to determine consensus after appropriate discussion is made, and follow appropriate dispute resolution channels if no decision can be made. Decisions reached through consensus cannot be required to satisfy all parties involved, but should strive to satisfy as many as possible.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Again, not really the core of the issue, but related, and would be a very good thing to say for many of the editors watching this case. -- Ned Scott 04:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. This may be obvious, but a lot of what is involved with this debate is pitting "what readers want" vs "what editors want", and in many cases what readers want is (as I see it) incompatible with current policy and guidelines. Somebody is going to be disappointed by whatever results between here and the RFC. However, save for Foundation edicts, nothing in WP is written in stone, and if there is consensus to change core policy, it should be investigated. (Here, specifically, is WP:IINFO and WP:PLOT.) --MASEM 16:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

support: This has been something I have been discussing as part of the wider debate. Namely, the nature of wikipedia culture, even at its best, is not something that all users (readers) of wikipedia wish to be involved with. Those readers, however, generally support WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and to some extent WP:NOT, as these are all core aspects of what brings them to wikipedia - core aspects of an encyclopaedia. LinaMishima (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support — but am concerned that reasonable adjudication of consensus has proven elusive; interpretations vary widely. --Jack Merridew 11:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak support -- This may need to also examine the issue of "local consensus" versus "larger consensus," as I have seen that used to try and trump "Keep" or "No Consensus" closures on merge debates before, with people arguing that WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE represent a "larger consensus" than that reached at the merge discussion. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Of course this does not mean we ignore any view we disagree with. -- Cat 06:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors should not create "edit wars"

5) Editors are free to boldly make changes to any article on Misplaced Pages. However, if an editor's change is reverted, that editor should not simply re-revert the change without question but instead should seek guidance, offer suggestions, and obtain consensus on the appropriate talk page (aka the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle). Editors that instead engage in "edit wars" by reverting and re-reverting repeatedly should be reprimanded appropriately.

This does not apply to edits and reverts that egregiously violate core policies and guidelines (including vandalism, libel and slander, and other harmful statements)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose, obvious. I don't see how this would help at all. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Comment by others:

Proposed - Obvious statement, but a core issue to this. --MASEM 16:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support, though WP:BRD is not a policy, WP:3RR is one. Being bold is not an excuse for reverting continually, though it may often be used as such. - PeaceNT (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Surprised this is not already a policy. Although elements of it are spread through many other policies, a new policy here would be a good idea. Astronaut (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support — and would like to assert that simply removing reasonable clean-up tagging amounts to vandalism and restoring them is not edit warring, it an appropriate response to such out of the box thinking. --Jack Merridew 11:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support and would recommend that WP:BRD be brought up for consideration as policy, with emphasis on the importance of the good-faith discussion portion of the cycle, in hopes of preventing future flare-ups. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Great in general. However, this is incomplete without a principle requiring those who are asked to defend their revert to make a good-faith effort to communicate and demonstrate why they are in the right. In the case of a challenge for lack of sources (which editors are permitted to challenge for, see verifiability), a good-faith explanation for a revert is to actually present one's sources. (Not just to assert they're out there.) If one cannot, one is obliged to find them before reinserting the material lacking sources. Without that, a challenge for a lack of sources is meaningless—I challenge material and remove it, you revert it without any meaningful attempt at discussion (perhaps "It's notable, what do you know?"), and am then prohibited from any further reverts for fear of "edit warring". I've made a proposal as a necessary complement to this, below. Seraphimblade 01:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree Ursasapien (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly support, certainly better than my wording of BRD, which needs to be brought up in the final decision. Wizardman 19:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Support --Maniwar (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not demonstrated by only existence of articles

6) Consensus is not built by simply demonstrating that one or more articles exist to support that consensus without any further discussion. Consensus can only be gained when there is discussion on whether those articles represent the consensus, how they fit into current policy, and resolution on those issues. Even with that, case-by-case considerations should always be made for any article in question.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strongly support, the existence of other articles is not consensus, otherwise consensus would be "vandalistic, hoax, and personal articles are all great and welcome at Misplaced Pages!" Collectonian (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism, the creation of hoax articles, and the creation of personal articles is common practice. But it is also common practice that such edits are considered unacceptable. --Pixelface (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that consensus is not demonstrated by only existence of articles. But I think there is a difference between consensus among editors on the wording of guideline pages (such as WP:N, WP:EPISODE, WP:FICT) and consensus reached as a natural product of the editing process on hundreds or thousands of articles. There are editors who edit articles and have never even looked at the talk pages of those guidelines. If a guideline does not document common practice, but only reflects the opinions of a small group of editors who participate on a guideline talk page, the guideline may not have actual consensus. To determine what practices are common, you must look at other articles. To determine what is considered acceptable among editors, you must examine the state of articles that have existed for a long time. For example, it appears to me that WP:N became a guideline because it described a common practice seen in AFDs — people were arguing to delete because they felt a topic was not notable. Common practice among editors who participate in AFDs and common practice among editors who edit articles and have never participated in AFDs are two separate things. --Pixelface (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The point to this is that while there may be a large number of articles that support a certain consensus, that automatically doesn't create it - guidelines and policies are written by taking what appears to be standard practice and codifying it, presenting it to the community at large, and then seeing if there truly is consensus through discussion and other talking points. --MASEM 20:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Phirazo, that assumes the articles I linked to in my evidence are considered "bad." --Pixelface (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Phirazo, it's ridiculous to say an article created January 2003 violates some guideline created September 23, 2006. Nobody has challenged the article in over five years and now it "fails" some page that was made a guideline in 16 days? You don't think those articles would make it through AFD? So why not nominate them, like I suggest in this remedy?

In response to Jack Merridew's comment, speeding and cheating on taxes might be common practice, but it's also common practice to fine those people. If speeding and cheating on taxes is common practice on Misplaced Pages, go ahead and write it up in a guideline. And editors are not creating episode articles for every episode ever shown. That's absurd. --Pixelface (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is absurd, and there are editors who want that. --Jack Merridew 07:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Another point not core to the issue of behavior, but would be very beneficial to say in the case. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed - This is an assertion of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which, while an essay on deletion arguments, is quite applicable to the case at hand since it involves episode article notability, which determines if articles should remain or be deleted. --MASEM 18:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support This is something WP:AfD deals with all the time - the mere existence of bad articles does not imply that all articles of that type are OK. This is a wiki, and anyone may create an article. Sometimes well-meaning contributors mistake "encyclopedia" for "pop-culture guide", and the feedback loop of "well, there is already an article on X means there should be an article on Y" needs to be broken sometimes. --Phirazo 01:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

By bad, I mean "fails policy and guidelines". I doubt many of those articles Pixelface gave in evidence would make it through AfD. --Phirazo 04:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support and specifically oppose Pixelface's interpretation. Common practice is often at odds with established consensus. Examples, speeding, cheating on taxes, creating episode articles for every one ever shown. --Jack Merridew 11:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, a loophole through which fiction deletionists can slip their favourite fiction, and a restatement of the deeply flawed essay WP:OTHERSTUFF.--Nydas 22:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

While I note that things like your Pokemon examples were flawed because of the improvement made to them, that doesn't mean that I believe that road of improvement has ended, and agree that there are still issues. I was thinking about this the other day, and I'm not sure if that point was made very clear when we responded to your concerns. -- Ned Scott 05:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak support only as a corollary or extension of #Fait accompli; emphasizing this too much will only result in further teeth-gnashing as people change from fighting over WP:EPISODE to fighting over how to define consensus. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose in it's current form. It should say "Consensus is not built by simply demonstrating that one or more articles exist to support that consensus without any further discussion. However, consensus is not built by simply demonstrating that one or more disputed guidelines exist to support that consensus without any further discussion." or perhaps just consensus can change. Ursasapien (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak support - as per Rdfox 76. --Maniwar (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors are not required to participate in specific tasks

7) Misplaced Pages is a voluntary project, which anyone can participate in. As long as one's actions are not disruptive or inappropriate under policy and guidelines, an editor is free to participate in any form they see fit to improve Misplaced Pages. There are no requirements on what editing activities an editor must participate in, or on what requirements they must have before they edit certain articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree with this wording, but it certainly doesn't apply to TTN. "As long as one's actions are not disruptive" immediately disqualifies him. --Pixelface (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Comment by others:

Proposed - Several people have stated that TTN should also try to help improve these articles and point to the fact his main namespace edits of the past year are almost all redirection/merge related, and that he should be required to know the work or to help find notability should he want to continue. Now, there is the issue that his edits are considered disruptive, and that aspect must be acknowledged, but in generally, we cannot control how anyone interacts with Misplaced Pages, nor should we be trying to. --MASEM 12:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak support: On its own, this finding is entirely correct, yet may be used dangerously (such as the redirection and wikilink removal of hundreds of articles, leading to a situation that is hard to fix). Full support is dependant upon an appropriate civility finding to go hand in hand with this to address the potential misuse. LinaMishima (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

At least myself, I'd qualify that under "disruptive", since changing a hundred articles affects several editors' time. --MASEM 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Obvious Support — unless we're going to have a work-assignments committee. --Jack Merridew 14:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat on the fence here as we probably should not tell people that you need to do "x" to participate on Misplaced Pages, but it would be much easier to view editors as serious contributors if their contributions were not overwhelmingly just to destroy other editors' work. Every editor really should also make some effort to reference and build articles as well. Doing so would show the community at large that editors who nominate the occasional article for deletion or do a redirect, but also spend time helping improve articles, are indeed here trying to build an encyclopedia and not just here to tear it down to the point of its uniqueness and usefulness being woefully compromised. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose as I think this is, in general, not a significant issue, and is adequately covered by WP:SPA anyway. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak support --Maniwar (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirection is not the same as deletion

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - I think this point needs to be stated. Several editors are saying that TTN's actions are "deleting" things off WP, which is exaggerating what is actually happening (though by no means should this validate his approach to doing what he does). --MASEM 23:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Consensus building for Episode and Character articles

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support -- Ned Scott 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Most of those involved are already participating, but this just to be clear that these efforts are occurring and that they should be aware (ideally participating) in them. --MASEM 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. It sounds nice on paper, but this is similar to what was decided on in the first case, and that did not work, and will not work this time around. Wizardman 20:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

To say that it hasn't worked isn't actually true. More people have gotten involved in the guideline discussions, and those discussions are very active these days. Does this solve every problem in this situation? No, but it's not trying to solve those problems, it's just encouraging all parties to continue discussion. Rome wasn't built in a day. -- Ned Scott 00:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I oppose because this makes it seem like WP:Fict and WP:Episode have community consensus or that they are guidelines; which is not the case. --Maniwar (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But they are guidelines, and they do have community consensus, at least the spirit and many general concepts do. However, I don't think that's the point Masem's trying to make. This sounds more like an invitation to other editors to go to those pages to help create a consensus, which I would think you would be in favor of if you don't believe they currently have consensus. -- Ned Scott 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Following consensus for Episode and Character articles

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. We are not asking ArbCom to determine consensus here, but that once this is defined, it should be expected that they will follow it. Of course, this is expected of every editor from the start. --MASEM 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Block of involved parties that fail to follow consensus

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose this wording. We'll have reports about people redirecting articles where discussion was started, but no one commented, thus someone will say "omg, no consensus". Reverting, or when there is reasonable objection or some kind of repeated action, should play a part in this. -- Ned Scott 08:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Y|yukichigai

Proposed principles

Deletion by redirect

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose per WP:BURO and WP:BOLD. Also, very often deletion is not desired. AfD is petty clear that it should only be used when full deleted is desired. -- Ned Scott 07:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If deletion isn't desired, then why remove the content? It's very simple: if you want to remove all of the content, you want to delete the article. Any GFDL concerns are administrative and don't factor into it. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 21:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced or weak material is often removed from physical view in the article namespace, but not completely removed, for the sake of retaining that information for later on. That could be to work on the article, or it could be to move the contents of that article to another wiki. For the second reason, while we are not required to do such things, there is strong consensus support for preserving things that editors have worked hard on, and giving them a proper home. This gives a reasonable outlet for that content and is far less insulting to our own editors than outright deletion. Even without that, the first point remains. Deletion does nothing more than hide the edit history and the contents of the article. It does not save hard drive space, it just makes retrieving the information later on harder. -- Ned Scott 00:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly. The difference between removing all the content by redirect and moving all the content by deletion is merely what steps are required to get the info back. If that's the only distinction, then such removals should ALWAYS be done through AfD. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 02:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed - This proposal names no names and is not meant to single anybody out. I think we can all agree that this type of behavior is bad. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 07:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Support, but at the same time we need to be sure that AfD is not needlessly flooded either. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Amended - Made it clear I'm only talking about wiping an article out completely, not just trimming it down. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 23:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

TTN's redirecting limited

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would support some kind of remedy like this, although I don't know if 5 redirects per day is the best limit. If a remedy like this passed, TTN could just nominate the articles for deletion instead. I think thousands of redirects is still preferable to thousands of AFDs. --Pixelface (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply - True, but if he starts AFDing articles too fast the provisions of AFD will get him banned very quickly. Since AFD is admin-patrolled it's easy to spot abuse of the system. Besides, AFD is hardly biased towards deletion, barring votestacking which is also easy to spot. (and be banned for) I contend it's one of the most pure forms of establishing consensus on Misplaced Pages currently. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 07:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The bulk of the edits is not the issue here. It is why we've had so much focus on the issue, but the issue would be the same for one article or 100. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed - I suggested this last time, but despite receiving only minimal opposition it wasn't adopted. (Probably because the arbs felt it was too early, or not warranted... whatever) Things have changed since then though, so I feel this may be an appropriate remedy. TTN shouldn't be discouraged from participating in Misplaced Pages, he should just be discouraged from inadvertently burning it to the ground in an effort to improve it.

I went to great lengths to explain my reasoning behind this proposal last time, and my reasoning still stands. Therefore, I'll just re-post the explanation below, rather than having to type out something new which says the same damn thing (bleh):

First off, I'm not trying to dissuade TTN from editing Misplaced Pages. While he has been (let's call a spade a spade here) a douche about episode articles, he's shown that he can contribute constructively to Misplaced Pages. (Particularly on Dragonball Z related stuff) The last thing I want to do is stop any sort of constructive editing to the project, constructive being the key word here. That brings me to my second point.

The fact that TTN spends so much time redirecting articles is not only disruptive to Misplaced Pages, it's destructive to him as well. I think if you look at some of his early talk posts from when he first started "cleaning" article space and then compare those posts to some of his more recent interactions, you'll notice a very, very significant change. Spending almost all of his time on Misplaced Pages merging, blanking, and/or redirecting articles has taken him from a relatively level-headed editor and turned him into some raving, near-rabid embodiment of cruft-hate who is willing to do just about anything to accomplish his goals. It's frightening and, frankly, I think it's something that's feeding itself. The more he "cleans", the worse he gets. He needs a vacation from it, and I suspect an enforced break from it is the only way he'll slow down.

Finally, I'd like to ask everyone this: when did we get to the point where any one editor must redirect more than 5 articles a day on a regular basis? I don't think I've redirected 5 existing articles in my entire time on Misplaced Pages, much less in a day. Now I'll admit that there may be a problem with an excess of fiction articles that need to be trimmed, but if consensus is clearly in favor of doing so (and it very well may be) then there should be dozens of editors willing to take up the slack. There's a very good chance they'll be a lot more nice about it too, and really that's what this is about: TTN has had his shot at being on the "front lines", and I think he's shown he isn't suited for it. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 05:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I know what you are trying to get at, but this is the wrong approach. What if TTN finds a legitimate set of articles (say, a 26-episode series) that can be merged, that no one is consenting against but also not helping to merge? Forcing him to 5 a day means the job's going to take 6 days to complete, which might result in a rather sloppy or incomplete task. My suggestion, if at all, that TTN may not revert any reverted redirections of an article unless 1) it is truly vandalism or a necessary part of the editing process or 2) the issue is discussed on the talk page of the article in question or another appropriate forum.

Also consider that there is no requirement of where people feel they can help on WP. If someone wants to be on merge/redirection of non-notable article patrol, that's their choice. --MASEM 06:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is a consensus to merge such a set of articles then there should be plenty of other editors who can (and probably will) do it, and if all else fails he can ask someone else to get involved. Normally, no, we don't restrict where and how WP editors are allowed to participate in the project, but I think it's very clear that it is TTN's involvement in merging episodes (unilaterally in many cases) that has in no small part led to this entire debacle. In situations where an editor's involvement is overwhelmingly disruptive to a certain area of Misplaced Pages then it is perfectly acceptable to prevent them from participating in that area.

I will contend that there should be an exception for situations of blatant vandalism, but as I've said, if there is consensus for a merge then there will be editors other than TTN who are willing to participate. If nobody else will participate it's likely there isn't consensus. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 07:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think this is not the most apt solution because it is addressing the wrong part of the problem; it is not how fast he does it, but how aggressively he goes for merges that he's been accused of (with examples cited as not waiting long enough or doing it against consensus of the editors). Any remedy towards TTN or other editors should be along the lines that he may not merge articles until he's given parties X days to address the issue, and even then, making sure there is consensus to do so, with enforcement being that if he does break this, he then is temporarily blocked from editing. It's a very subtle difference, but I think it's important that the remedy is addressing the core issue that is accussed, that is, TTN's aggressive merging behavior, as opposed to his speed. --MASEM 16:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically, TTN's already under an existing restriction (imposed by WP:CONSENSUS) to wait for consensus before redirecting an article. We've all seen how well that works. Any restriction placed on him needs to be clear and unmistakable; otherwise we'll go right back into this asinine pattern of "well I clearly had consensus to merge those articles, you can't prove me wrong." -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 22:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Amended - Now takes into account possible instances of vandalism. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 07:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

5 redirects a day sounds rather high given the raw scope of his actions. Maybe limit it to three? We need to make it so that he can't do it single-handedly, but if he can get consensus then it's okay. Wizardman 15:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN certainly needs to get that consensus before redirecting, otherwise, 0 page per day is a reasonable limit. - PeaceNT (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose — TTN's doing work that needs doing. Focus on the approach Masem is suggesting above. --Jack Merridew 11:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's debatable, and even if it's true (which is possible) it is not true that the work he's doing needs to be done right now, especially in light of the last RFArb. Try to understand: it isn't the merit of what he's doing, it's how he's been doing it. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 21:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Really, I do believe I understand most of what's going on here. TTN is going too fast at the business of cleaning-up non-conformant articles from the perspective of users who desire WP:IS#PLOT. They're going to pass a temporary injunction, so for a few weeks: pause and sort issue. But 6 months is a long time and, as Pixelface has pointed out, there are many yet to deal with. --Jack Merridew 07:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per Masem's and Jack Merridew's comments (note I do not agree with Merridew's initial oppose reason); six WEEKS would be a more reasonable length of time for the moment. Would not object to a six-month probation period following that in case he waits out the restriction, then falls straight back into the same pattern as before, however. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN's redirecting limited

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

Proposed - Per Rdfox 76's comments, I'd like to see if people support the idea of the restriction but not my suggested length of its enforcement. If it's a matter of duration I think a compromise can be easily achieved. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 20:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support per my comments above; I'd be willing to accept any duration the community and ArbCom feel is appropriate. Rdfox 76 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support to allow us a chance to work things out. Ursasapien (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Support if AfD nominations are also limited. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused by this. AfDs involve a consensus building discussion, and even if some missed the discussion, the issue can be re-evaluated via DRV. In other words, if TTN is pushing things that don't have support, AfD would be a good place to go to establish that, rather than him making the discussion on his own (not that I believe that, but I believe that is what is being asserted). -- Ned Scott 06:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the concern is that if TTN (or anyone for that matter) were to nominate the 100+ articles involved in a TV show episode collection at once, many of those AfDs would succeed for no reason other than because most editors would not have time to respond to every single nomination. Of course, at that point I'm fairly certain TTN (or whoever) would get blocked for a while for excessive AfD. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 07:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Making 100 different AfDs at once to get some deleted by bulk numbers? No admin would let that happen here, at least not one that wouldn't be instantly challenged on it. -- Ned Scott 08:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - per the good reasons already given. --Maniwar (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak support. I like the idea in principle, but 6 weeks is kinda wimpy; three months perhaps? Wizardman 03:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by Wizardman

Proposed principles

Extreme edit warring

1.1) Massive edit warring over a large number of articles, with limited or no discussion, is highly disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not this wording. I agree with the statement, but the way it's worded almost makes it seem like single article edit warring is somehow okay. Or that edit warring with discussion is okay. I doubt that was intended, but it could be how some people take it. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Less harsh version of 1 by John254 above. Wizardman 02:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support both this and 1.. - PeaceNT (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support, however, this proposal is a truism that can be applied to any cases. @pple complain 17:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose as too broad and simple. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support If only more policies and guidelines were broad and simple. Astronaut (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support - the reason for this case is in and of itself proof of this. --Maniwar (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose While this is true, this is completely irrelevant, as there is no disagreement about this concept as worded. There may be disagreement about the details and interpretation, but such details are not defined by WP:5P. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

Support It does seem that some editors have lost sight of this simple fact in their rush to impose half thought-out guidelines. Astronaut (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You should be able to first make a convincing argument that they have "lost sight" before asserting something like that. You also miss the point that these guidelines do not encourage mass deletion or forcing issues. If you don't believe me, read them. -- Ned Scott 00:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

1) The Bold, revert, discuss cycle, although not an official policy, has been largely ignored during this conflict.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Wizardman 16:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak support -- greatly prefer Masem's wording above. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Proposals by Pixelface

Proposed Principles

Guidelines are descriptive

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. It's a fact. --Pixelface (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this to the Proposed Principles section per Masem. --Pixelface (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I see this as an attempt to get the arbcom to say something that can be used to attack valid guidelines that do have current community consensus. -- Ned Scott 08:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

Support, especially because the guidelines themselves are edited constantly, which shows that even they don't necessarily have consensus. Plus, we have Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect warring is harmful

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

The prevalence of episode/character articles can no longer be avoided

1) As long as episode/character articles that do not cite reliable, third-party sources exist (like the ones mentioned in Pixelface's evidence), editors will see them and continue to create episode/character articles that do not cite reliable, third-party sources. It is common for editors to think that X show has an article for every episode, so why not Y show? The episode articles mentioned in Pixelface's evidence can no longer be avoided. Their existence influences editors to create similar articles, which lead to edit wars over notability.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Pixelface (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support, per Pixelface's evidence. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose this attempt to sneak a form of OTHERCRAPEXISTS into the arbcom case. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed Ned, but citing OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an example of OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I see no reason why any editor should ever bother to read that essay. --Pixelface (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, citing OCE is not an example of OCE. When someone cites a page, be it guideline or policy or essay, that normally means they are saying "my views can be summed up here" In this case: "The nature of Misplaced Pages means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. (This may be an argument that this article is not bad enough to be speedily deleted; but that does not mean it should be kept.) While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."

No one is ignoring the vast number of articles that need to be evaluated. We know there is a great amount of clean up to be done, we admit this, and we even cite this as a reason for why editors make similar articles. All you are saying is that there is a problem that we already know about, but you are trying to make it sound like it's acceptable because these problems can be common. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Phirazo, this isn't about ArbCom making a content decision. This is a finding of fact. The ArbCom made a finding of fact and referred to List of South Park episodes in the previous case. --Pixelface (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed in that a clear statement on notability, appropriate content for such articles, and such must be established better than presently given. This is presently part of the WP:FICT/WP:WAF rewrite but also should be considered as part of WP:EPISODE. --MASEM 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose ArbCom doesn't make content decisions. --Phirazo 04:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment — I just looked that list of shows over and saw none that I feel should get a free-pass on being required to cite reliable third party sources that firmly establish notably for any episode (or character) article. All such articles should have significant independent commentary cited. The idea that some articles are getting a free pass is a strawman. I'm all for culling the Simpsons and Star Trek articles. --Jack Merridew 10:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose What to do with episode and character articles is entirely an editorial decision. ArbCom does not get involved with the editorial process. See also my proposed principle down below. --Farix (Talk) 15:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We should work to improve these articles. As we do not have consensus on the episode guidelines, we might as well work to do what a paperless, sum of human knowledge encyclopedia that everyone can edit can accomplish. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- content decision; deal with this at the WP:FICT/WP:WAF/WP:EPISODE rewrites instead. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Agree, as Pixelface put it, "this isn't about ArbCom making a content decision. This is a finding of fact." Sad as it is, this is what is happening on Misplaced Pages now; new editors come along, look at existing articles and start writing new ones. They do not deliberately violate our guidelines, just are not aware of them. We should treat them with patience and extend the assumption of good faith by expecting that they will improve what they have written. No rush is needed; Misplaced Pages has no deadline, and we are not facing WP:BLP problems here. Haste makes waste, rushing to delete articles without properly giving them explanation or sufficient time only makes matters worse, and unfortunately leads to the vicious redirect-revert-redirect-revert cycle. - PeaceNT (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per valid points already mentioned. --Maniwar (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Television episode articles that do not cite reliable third-party sources are common

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