Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:33, 14 December 2007

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.

Do not underestimate 'fait accompli' principle

This is an important principle. Is it from an earlier case? It actually cuts pretty sharply to the way in which at least a number of changes have been 'implemented' in the past. Someone goes and does a whole bunch of stuff, and then rustles up a couple of people to say "oh well, it's done now, see if the Wiki collapses or not". I would give as examples (controversially, perhaps), the switch-off of anon page creation, the initial steps of the userbox wars, the spoiler template debates and to an extent the template redesign at WP:AT. Thus you are writing a very insightful, and very powerful principle. Be sure you understand just exactly what use it is likely to be put to if you pass it, bearing in mind especially the magnifying effect of declarations from the committee once they find their ways into the hands of certain types of editor/admin. Splash - tk 13:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's a new principle (which is to say, I didn't have anything concrete from a former case in mind when I wrote it); it's possible that something of this sort has been adopted in the distant past, but I'm not aware of such. Kirill 13:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I will be pleased if it passes. I also suspect before ever so long, you'll find it quoted on an evidence page. Splash - tk 14:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The nearest related principle I can find off the top of my head is at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jguk#Sincere disputes are unlikely to be resolved by forcing the issue. Hiding T 17:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ruling by content via the back door?

I thought the idea was that you wouldn't look at the content, but merely at the conduct. If that was supposed to be the case, doesn't language like in 3.2.2. skirt awfully close to steering through language used? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not intended to be a content ruling by any means; I was merely trying to note that many respected editors believe that TTN was correct in his underlying point. If you think "arguably correct" is a bad way of putting that, please feel free to propose an alternative wording that would be better. Kirill 13:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

To me, saying that something "arguably correct" suggests that a reasonable argument can be made on either side of the issue, which seems consistent with the arbitrators' not making a decision on the content dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As someone who uses the phrase "arguably correct" frequently, I can tell you that's both how I use it and how people usually interpret it. If it's really a sticking point for some people though I would recommend changing it from "is arguably correct" to "may or may not be correct". -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 20:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved observer, "may or may not be correct" sounds a lot less biased in favor of one side of the argument. _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 07:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree here. "arguably correct" can be interpreted as "others might argue its not correct, but we believe otherwise". "may or may not be correct" is far better. CharonX/talk 03:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fact 2.1

"2.1) TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has made disputed changes on a massive scale and in an excessively aggressive manner, causing needless escalation of the dispute (, )." I think this gives an incorrect view. TTN has made disputed changes on a massive scale, obviously, but only "sometimes" in an excessively agressive manner", while most of the times his changes were made in a perfectly normal, civil, though perhaps at times a bit robotic manner (not accusing him of using a robot at all, just that at times he should look better at the individual articles). I would urge the members of arbcom to rewrite this finding of fact to make it clear that the "excessively aggresive manner" was not present in all or most of his edits in this dispute, but only in a limited number. Fram (talk) 09:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

TTN edit warred if someone attempted to disagree with him. If no one reverted, then he didn't edit war. It's part of that fait acompli or whatever we're calling it. If you make thousands of controversial edits, and hundreds a day, you're bound to wear people out. If I believed in edit warring on every edit of his I disagreed with, then I'd have 25,000 edits as well, since I've never seen a consensus driven edit that he has carried out. That's the problem with this arcbom we're doing right now. It looks like it will say he shouldn't have done what he did, then ignore the fact that 25,000 edits of his should be reverted. What they deal with is apparently only a small part of what's happened, and the hundreds or thousands of editors that TTN has driven off don't seem to matter. wWatever, I guess. We'll pick up the thousand editors somewhere else, or who cares about them, seems to be the current thinking. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, "fans" edit-warred if someone (TTN) brought information in line with existing policies and guidelines after a started merge discussion brought no results. Note that WP:V says, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. It's clear who added or restored material by reverting, and so by reverting the revert, TTN is just applying WP:V, while the others ignore it. If TTN has driven of editors, then that's unfortunate, but if these editors have found a new home where they can build a fansite to their taste instead of what wikipedia aims to be, an encyclopedia with at least some standard, then this is better for both parties. (Note that I'm a fan of fiction, but I am here first and foremost to build a great encyclopedia, as I think should everyone else.) – sgeureka 12:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't found evidence of TTN "edit-warring" at all. He has applied policy vigorously, consistently, and thoroughly. I think it's a real shame that the fan-boy contingent will be able to wave this decision as if opposing them was doing something wrong. It wasn't, and it's a shame that an editor that is objectively applying policy is being undermined. What is lacking in Peregrine Fisher's argument is a recognition that TTN's edits are consensus driven. That's what policy is for ... to encode consensus so that a single editor can apply it without constantly calling for votes.Kww (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, TTN has been edit warring. More specifically, he's been revert warring. You can see that with his edits on these history pages here and especially here where he violates 3RR at least twice. I'm planning to add it into evidence once I figure out how to do that. - Superlex (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Workshop, anyone?

It seems to me that the workshop page has been bypassed on this case. I've seen only one edit there by an arbiter and a number of items have appeared directly on the Proposed decision page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The use of the workshop page is optional. The key page is the evidence page. Most of the proposals we use are from past cases modified for the present case. As an Arbitrator I read all the case pages, but like most Committee members I do not make comments on all of them. FloNight (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I can understand the arbiters not wanting to get too deeply involved in the lengthy discussions on Workshop pages. I made my above comment before realizing that this case has had a change of clerks. I would like to see the proposals made on the Proposed decision page posted on the Workshop page where they can be commented on for your reading pleasure. Best, Jack Merridew 15:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No clerk involvement is needed. The workshop page can be edited by any user so you can add them if you think it would be helpful. The proposed decision page can only be edited by arbitrators and clerks because that is where we make our official votes. Hope that helps. FloNight (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like an invitation to be bold - which I shall be. --Jack Merridew 16:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am the new clerk on this case. Sorry I couldn't get to this earlier, but I was at work and can't do much wiki stuff there. Yes, FloNight, naturally, is totally correct here, you can edit the workshop page but not the proposed decisions page. Thank you for your interest. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

undone edit by Maniwar

diff an 'oppose' to Editorial guidelines (5.1)

Per all Krill, Bauder, FloNight, and Jdforrester. Valid points --Maniwar (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

noted by Jack Merridew 16:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder's "principle"

Re. "Articles regarding trivial subjects which Misplaced Pages users have a practice of creating do little harm and are not properly the subject of serious campaigns": Completely wrong. These pop-culture trivia pages are among the worst sources of mass policy violations we have. Overlong plot "summaries" (which almost never are real summaries, but re-narrations) are copyright infringements and, if not used as a basis for encyclopedic analysis (which they almost never are), they are breaches of our non-free content policies. The mass abuse of fictional topic plot renarrations is every bit as bad for Misplaced Pages as the mass abuse of non-free images, and it is high time we cracked down on it as hard as we did on those. We are talking about enforcement of Foundation policy here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)