Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:49, 3 February 2008

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Halt to activities proposed injuction

Might I suggest that the halt be extended to cover other fictional material such as books and videogames also. Similar tactics are being used on these as found on the episode articles, and the conclusions here may well have an effect on their status. LinaMishima (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that may be a good idea, but from what I've seen, the edit warring related to those is mostly centered around characters that appear in fiction books and videogames (which the proposed injunction already covers). Although I have seen edit warring on books, like the City of Bones article. --Pixelface (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think at present the injunction really should only apply to television series episodes because the editors on those articles are the ones primarily involved in this case. I've added that clarification to the injunction, although of course the other arbitrators who have voted for it may remove that if they wish. If there is a view that the problem is broader than TV series articles, then evidence to that effect should be presented, and editors on those articles should be given some kind of notice of the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole Bulbasaur issue at least shows that there can be "bleed-over". -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I second the opinion that it should not be TV alone. TTN is running out of TV articles to go after. He's headed for video game articles now. Unless he's specifically limited from doing anything of the sort, TTN will just dodge avoid the specific series the wording indicates and go for the things he'll believe he can get without incident. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Question for the arbs (not sure if this is where it goes?) — does this apply to things deleted via AfD? What happens to articles currently at AfD and result in a delete? seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't propose the injunction, but I would imagine that AfD decisions can continue to be implemented, since the aim here is probably to target unilateral and not community consensus decision-making. On the other hand, it might be a good plan not to put contentious articles involved in this dispute up for AfD until the case is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to adjust the wording to provide for already existing AfDs, since the injunction prohibits deletions of any kind. Otherwise we might have AfDs legitimately closed as delete not being fulfilled and piling up due to this injunction. seresin | wasn't he just...? 06:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, else we're asking for trouble. Also, what about uncontroversial merges/redirects, where everyone involved is in agreement on what is to be done and how? I have seen that happen, and I don't think it would be good to discourage actions based on genuine consensus. Seraphimblade 11:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There we're treading along that fine line just before the slippery slope, to butcher a few metaphors. Any language which allowed for such situations would either take several weeks to formulate or would leave enough wiggle room for people to abuse it. There's no reason why the mergers can't wait. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 11:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I understand that a point of contention is that some prior mergers have been unanimous, possibly because they have been done in a way which limited input was given (especially from those who would oppose it). The obvious solution would be "any uninvolved administrator" plus "a significant number of contributors in agreement", but then "uninvolved" and "significant number" are open to varied interpretations. Just my $0.02. Daniel (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

AFDs should also be avoided during the duration of the arbcom hearing. Lets stop all deletion and recreation for at least a while. -- Cat 22:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would grudgingly support restricting new AfD nominations until this case is over, but any already in existence should not be restricted. But since the whole point of the injunction is to prevent unilateral, sans-community editorial actions, I don't see the point in restricting new AfDs, which, by definition, have community input. seresin | wasn't he just...? 03:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, with the provision that mass nominations by parties to the case should be restricted regardless of the starting time; we don't want to see someone who's part of the case attempt to "get a bunch in under the wire" by throwing out a whole bunch of mass-AfDs should it become clear that the injunction will pass. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Until there is consensus over the matter it will be disruptive to go for mass xfding these pages. Furthermore votestacking and etc will occur as a result of mass nominations. "Stop all activity people" is the intention of the temporary injunction I believe. Tricking the system by avoiding the arbitration remedy to continue the exact behavior arbcom tries to halt is the definition of disruption. -- Cat 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Do tags "related to notability" include merge tags? TTN (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

I can't speak for the arbitrators, but I would think that if an editor added a {{merge}} tag to an article because they believed the topic to be non notable, the tag is related to notability and not allowed while the injunction is in effect. --Pixelface (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

TTN (talk · contribs) has recently engaged in behavior which I contend amounts to either a technical violation of the injunction, or, at the very least, a concerted effort to thwart its purpose -- please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#TTN. John254 04:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Halt to activities

I can tell you that I will not follow this request by arbcom. My tagging and work is in no way close to edit waring or controversial, and the fact that the arbcom didn't even consider such things is a great lapse in their judgement. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to hear any response from arbcom first regarding the points I've made before taking any action. -- Ned Scott 08:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what they are saying is just work in other areas for a few months. Every editor should be able to do that if needed. It will be difficult, and if you see others still doing lots of work in this area despite this injunction, and after being warned, bring it to the attention of the committee. Carcharoth (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people seem to dispute the scope of the injunction, believing that it applies to only the parties in the case. What is the correct reading with regards to scope? LinaMishima (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The injunction applies to all editors, regardless of whether they're a party to this particular case. Kirill 23:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)