Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:07, 26 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)

I agree as a number of AfDs concerning editors involved in these discussions have become quite contentious and may turn off other editors not inolved in this case. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

Halt to activities

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

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

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

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

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

I thought as much. Thank you! LinaMishima (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So, is someone going to go through and leave that same injunction message on the talk page of every last editor? Because otherwise, how is every editor supposed to know that all of a sudden no one is supposed to do a damn thing, even though several projects are actively working on cleaning up episodes and character articles? Or will all the individual episode and character articles be protected? Otherwise, this seems like an overly broad injunection that will just cause even more issues because people will get punished for doing something they now don't even know is wrong. Collectonian (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The injunction requires warnings before any blocks are imposed; any editors that get blocked here will certainly be aware of the matter beforehand. Kirill 00:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't comment on the informing process, but I do strongly suspect that it will be applied sensibly and with assumptions of good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary. The injunction also does not prevent the merging of content into another article, only the redirection, deletion or removal of content after this has been completed. LinaMishima (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't comment on the informing process? What does that mean? It says right there in the injunction: "...after being warned of this injunction". It is quite clear that no-one should block without first warning the user in question. And to pre-empt any wikilawyering - it is quite possible to carry on editing after a warning has been left, and to only see the message that has been left for you a few minutes later. Anyone enforcing this - please consider whether specific editors have seen the warning. ie. Don't block someone if they carry out a revert or redirection 5 seconds after you leave a warning telling them not to do this - it is likely they won't have seen the warning yet. Carcharoth (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I cannot comment of the quality of the informing process because I am just a normal editor, and I personally am not sure what to comment with regards to this matter. You are free of course to suggest that this implied policy (of knowing of injunctions) is reviewed. Again, I would have thought that an assumption of good faith would mean that people would generally understand that warnings take time, and allow for one or maybe two edits before assuming the worst. Even then, I doubt that unless there was serious problems that anyone would be blocked with but a single warning. LinaMishima (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to post a notice of the injunction on WT:TV and WT:EPISODE? I can think of several editors off the top of my head that should also probably be notified on their talk pages. --Pixelface (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that is a good idea. LinaMishima (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added this to {{Fiction notice}} that appears on all these pages, but likely should be a new section entry too. --MASEM 02:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree and think it would be a good idea for you notify anyone whom you deem it appropriate to inform. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no way. Arbcom does not have this authority, they cannot demand that all editors stop working on such things. Members of arbcom need to get their freaking heads checked. -- Ned Scott 04:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC) My apologies for the rude comments. -- Ned Scott 02:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this kind of 'freeze' sets a bad precedent, and a lot more detail is needed, but maybe suggest alternatives and show how the current situation can be managed? Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedias arbitration committee is the ultimate authority traditionally hand picked by Jimmy Wales, the founder of wikipedia. They are the only group of people who can levy any kind of restriction to prevent disruption and assist in dispute resolution. Disregarding arbcoms rulings is probably not the best of all ideas. This is intended to be friendly advice and should be treated as such. You are actually free to disregard arbitration committees decision but you would risk facing the consequences. -- Cat 23:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification regarding the injunction

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

Is the following correct?

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

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

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

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

Editors may still:

1. Nominate television episode articles/television character articles for deletion
2. Trim content from television episode articles/television character articles
3. Remove content from television episode articles/television character articles and merge it into List articles

Is that correct? --Pixelface (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Pixelface, I think you missed out that people can still add summaries to lists (ie. carry out that stage of a merge process), as long as they leave out the final stage (carrying out the redirect). The episode article could then be put in Category:Episode articles that have been merged and may need redirecting after the Arbcom injunction has been lifted. In other words, I don't think expanding list articles is in any way forbidden - that is, after all, a constructive activity. I now see that this is sort of covered in your point 3, but I disagree that "removing material" is OK. That is in effect allowing people to stub articles, and requiring others to check whether any material has ended up in the list articles. Carcharoth (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing significant amounts of material would likely break the injunction, especially since it has been recommended to be enforced with a broad interpretation (or words to that effect). However performing the merge into a list in indeed most certainly allowed and maybe even encouraged (since other acts relating to notability and major rearrangement of content are prohibited at the moment, leaving only that). LinaMishima (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest everyone to just STOP whatever they are doing or thinking of doing involving the content of fiction related topics. People ought to get consensus first. Otherwise they may be wasting energy as if the consensus turns out to be against what you are doing, your edits will be promptly reverted eventually. This should not be remotely difficult to do unless people are here with a combative mentality. Such combative mentality is frowned up on and on occasions such people have been blocked indefinitely for pushing the communities patience to their limits. This post is not directed at either side of the discussion but instead to both sides. -- Cat 23:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I ask in part because of this thread Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#TTN, where editors discussed TTN, who was removing much content from List of videogame character articles, and since TTN also asked whether merge tags are tags related to notability. From what I've seen, edit-warring has occurred on articles about all fictional characters, not just fictional characters from television. --Pixelface (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"FT2 (Talk | email) 02:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Support adding tags which are a concern on the matter too. A few loopholes (consensus decisions? new topics? contentious processes?) but this will catch the main ones. Favoring a broad interpretation by administrators, geared to the spirit of this, which is to quell the disputed actions whilst the case is in progress."

I think arbitrators are pretty clear. -- Cat 02:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Injunction revisited

1) For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.

What's to be said about de-populating and deleting categories which relate specifically to episodes and characters? , , , , , , , , etc., etc. While not the letter, I believe this would violate the spirit of the moratorium imposed. — CharlotteWebb 22:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Do you have any examples of articles which were in these (now deleted) categories? The "empty category" CSD requires the category be empty for four days before speedy deletion (this is to prevent rapid fire depopulation and deletion without discussion). However, if the categories were never populated, then their deletion is not a problem. If one the involved parties has been depopulating in order to achieve a speedy deletion without any discussion, then that is something ArbCom should put an end to. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not evidence per se, but at least in two cases, (Gen Hospital and Dexter's Lab) the category was populated, then when the episoded were merged (just prior to this decision). Of course, once the episodes were merged, the category automatically depopulated, and thus likely lead to the deletion of it. However, the Death Note merge seems to have happened after the injunction (this edit is dated on the 7th, but it is not by an involved party (User:HadesDragon). --MASEM 14:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

AFD limbo

A template (Template:FICTWARN) was created to post in AFDs such as those in Deletion sorting/Fictional characters and Deletion sorting/Television, and I'm wondering about it's wording. I assume that AFDs may still take place and they may end in five days, but the articles may not be redirected or deleted while the injunction is in effect, correct? Some editors are saying speedy keep while the injunction is in effect, but should editors in AFDs just ignore the injunction, argue as usual, with the closing admin waiting to enact any result until this case is closed? The template says the AFDs should continue to be relisted (and I suppose the discussion would go on for as long as this case is open), but if the discussion does not result in a keep, should the AFDs just be closed and perhaps relisted after this case is closed? --Pixelface (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion that led to the template being created can be seen at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/My Bad Too. Davewild (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the template. I just don't know if the AFDs should be continually relisted while this case is open. The AFDs could be continually relisted, they could be relisted after the case is over, any consensus to delete/redirect could be enacted after this case is over, they could be speedy kept, etc. Maybe non-admins could even close them, I don't know. --Pixelface (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The template should probably be added to these AfDs concerning characters that appear on TV shows: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Strongarm (Masters of the Universe) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shane Casey. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added the template to those AFDs. Davewild (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I urge the arbitrators to either allow AfDs to run their course or close them all. --Phirazo 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And it is being carried to ridiculous lengths. Editor Jerry tagged Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of fictional barefoot characters with {{FICTWARN}}, merely because the list included links to characters which might fall under the injunction. Jerry said it was best to "cast a wide net" without better guidance from ARBcom. This is just plain silly. Under this reasoning, all articles in AfD which link to a character in question would have to have their outcomes delayed. Please stop the insanity! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. That AfD has no bearing on the notability of the articles it lists. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe just closing all non-hoax, non-copy vio, and non-personal ones would be a good idea for the time being, as many of these unnecessary AfDs are just increasing tensions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I messed up.

I'd just like to hold my hands up and say that I tagged all the character articles of characters from Degrassi: The Next Generation with the notable tag, not knowing about this place, and not realising I wasn't supposed to. Now I read that they can't be removed either. Sorry -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem plenty of users are not going to realise there is an injunction; as the injunction says that 'Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight' I will remove the notability tags you added myself. Davewild (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Prodding

Should admins remove {{prod}} templates from television character articles such as this one while the injunction is in effect? --Pixelface (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding such templates now is probably a bad idea. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Scope

Is this injunction really applying to all TV articles, Misplaced Pages-wide? It seemed to make sense when it was just "involved parties", but now a lot more editors are getting dragged in, who weren't really involved in any kind of contentious cleanup. So the injunction seems to be causing more disruption than it was designed to forestall. Can we perhaps narrow the scope a bit? --Elonka 04:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never thought it was a good idea in the first place, especially since it doesn't correspondingly provide for speedy deletion of any new TV episode articles created after it passed. I agree that the injunction needs to be modified to be less excessive in scope. Seraphimblade 06:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it theoretically applies to all character+episode articles and is hindering current cleanups, but I can live with it (with gritted teeth) as it's just temporary. Editors are already backlogging all the things that need to be done, so I predict there will be a huge flood of AfDs and performed mergers after this injunction gets lifted, there will be a huge outcry, and everything will be back on track within a couple of days. – sgeureka 09:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, do you have any examples? I appreciate the attention this injunction has brought to this important discussion. Some editors have continued with business as usual, but this injunction has slowed others enough to bring them here for discussion and reasoned debate. Ursasapien (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The first that I heard of this injunction was when I saw a notice, placed by Pixelface at the talkpage of the Soap Operas WikiProject. A similar notice was also placed at the Anime/manga WikiProject. I can't speak for other areas, but I know that in the realm of soap operas, we are constantly doing cleanup to prevent the creation of articles on very minor soap characters. To suddenly tie our hands on this, meaning that articles can be created by anyone, but we're not allowed to continue with our normal cleanup because of this injunction, has ruffled some feathers. --Elonka 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It would have made a LOT more sense to have restricted a group of users instead of a group of articles. -- Ned Scott 03:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The injunction applies to television character articles and television episode articles (although I think the edit-warring has not been limited to television). I was also surprised to see the injunction applied to all editors, although it makes sense if some editors were not initially listed as involved parties. Adding parties to the case seems to be a very long process. I don't think the injunction is causing disruption — it's meant to put a stop to massive edit-warring. Some editors consider blanking articles and turning them into redirects as "cleanup — and that's a contentious issue. I would certainly like more clarification from the arbitration committee on how the injunction applies to the AFD process.

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

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

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

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

Query regarding temporary injunction and AfD

I would like some official clarification from the committee on how admins should take this injunction into consideration in light of various ordinary WP:AFD debates on TV episode/character articles. Specifically, I see three ways of interpreting things:

1. AfDs closure should proceed as normal, and administrators implementing the result of an AfD closure may consider themselves exempt from the injunction.
2. AfD closure should proceed as normal, but administrators are not excepted from the injunction and thus should not implement the result of any such closure.
3. AfD debates should not be closed in a way that would require deletion, merging, or redirection, until the injunction is lifted.

Personally, I think the first makes the most sense, but the second also seems like a plausible solution. The third seems less than ideal to me; I only mention it because it is the initial interpretation some admins have taken; see Template:FICTWARN and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shane Casey for instance, among others. I would also like to add that it may be reasonable to interpret the injunction as discouraging even nominations for AfD on this type of article, but it isn't clear on that point. Mangojuice 18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Moving on?

This case will have its four-week "anniversary" very soon, but there has been no proposal from arbcom so far, so this case is still far from the voting phase and consequently from closure. In comparison, the first Episodes&Characters case had its first proposal after two weeks, and was closed after five weeks. If it wasn't for the injunction, I probably wouldn't say anything, but it is becoming increasingly hard to do even the most non-controversial kind of basic cleanup because no-one wants to violate the vaguely-worded injunction. The workshop discussions seem to have run their course, and the recently rewritten WP:FICT is also on its way to be widely accepted (as far as it can). Is it the time to lift the injunction or at least to resume the decision-making? (I apologize a thousand times for coming across as pushy, but I thought that the first case paved the way so that this case would find a resolution much quicker.) – sgeureka 19:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

unless there is some guidance about how to proceed after the injunction is lifted, I predict an immediate return to chaotic edit-warring. Indeed, while the injunction was pending, the merges continued until the very last minute--and even afterwards, there have been drastic contents cuts in articles. DGG (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the injunction was helpful in reducing the edit-warring, but I am concerned that the injunction has switched from being a temporary solution to a semi-permanent decision that has de-facto disabled core cleanup. If only the edit-warring is of concern, the injunction could be rewritten into a 1RR deal. If the injunction is however intended to allow arbcom to review all editors's actions in depth, I'd like to know how more time they need so that I can plan my wiki-time accordingly. I like working in a pipeline type of way, but I can't even finish my merge proposals back from December, and I can't start tagging what will be my wiki-work in March/April. – sgeureka 16:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No, users are actively adding their input to discussion on workshop page,it is not a good idea to rush things here. This arbcom case need not take so little time as the previous one (which is considered by many a failure in that the same problem continues to exist like no arbcom decision was ever made); the arbitrators are wise and they will know when this case is mature enough to be closed. --PeaceNT (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The workshop discussion had 290kb (50% of the current whole discussion) in its first week, 205kB (35%) in the second week, 48kB (10%) in the third week, and 25kB discussion (5%) in the last/fourth week. There is nothing really new now, and all major parties have said what they had to say. The rewritten WP:FICT has been moved to main space two weeks ago and has had several polishes/copyedits, with only insignificant changes in meaning. A basis for work is clearly there. It's not my intention at all to initiate a rush, but to urge arbcom to make progress in some way, even if it is just a "give us ten more days for reviewing". For all I know, the injunction could be in place for two more months and nothing else from arbcom (which is their right), but that is really not desirable in any way. – sgeureka 17:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Injunction causing chaos

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

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

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

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

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

{{afd}} ?

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

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

Ok, thanks -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin's proposals

Re: Kirill Lokshin's proposals from today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I encouraged the arbitration committee to say something stronger one way or the other last time, but I have to agree that fluff to brick wall is overkill. Kirill's solution also punishes the wrong side of this endeavour. If you need to go to a brick wall, then establish sanctions against any editor that reverts a redirect of an article that isn't composed primarily of material sourced by third-party sources. Directly in line with established policy, gets to the real root of the problem. If you feel the urge to do both, fine. But not a one-sided sanction against a good editor. It's not like the discussion problem is one-sided ... any of these situations I've been involved in has made me want to scream, reading one hundred variations of "I like it" without a single editor being willing to engage on any point of debate.Kww (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• There is no "wrong side" to be punished in this endeavour. That said, I think if TTN is the only one who walks away from this case with any sort of admonishment then there are serious issues. I've shown one party who has serially reverted against TTN, there must be more. The proposed admonishment against TTN is extremely harsh and appears more so through lack of balancing. Whilst believing that TTN's actions have played a large part in leading us here and that he does need some sort of admonishment and restriction, I cannot in my heart under any circumstances accept that he not be allowed to even tag an article for a proposed merger. TTN should be allowed to edit the same as anyone else in the first instance. In the second instance he should be restricted, namely in the reverting. If TTN finds the right solution, others will support him. That is the wiki way, and that is the behaviour which should be allowed through restrictions. And the same goes for the other parties. We are here to work together. We should not drive good faith editors away through our actions, whether we are editors or arbitrators. Hiding T 12:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I suspect TTN's refusal to respond to either of these two arbitrations except in the most perfunctory manner and his attempts to continue the same editing habits in the arena of video games have been noted. It is indicative of TTN lacking a hinterland. Catchpole (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I suspect they have too. The question is, do the arbitration committee want to rehabilitate TTN or not? Hiding T 21:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If anything is "wrong" here, it's WP:N. It may reflect common arguments in deletion debates (a sort of "arguments to use in deletion discussions"), but it simply does not describe common practice when it comes to actual articles. The article Baldrick, about a fictional character from the television series Blackadder has existed for over 6 1/3 years. The article Moaning Lisa, about an episode of the television series The Simpsons, has existed for over 4 1/2 years. Coverage does not mean notability and WP:N is violating the policy on original research in saying so. Coverage means coverage. That's it. WP:N is not policy and should not be enforced like it is policy. There should probably be an RFC started on it.

Material does not have to be sourced to third-party sources. That is not "established" policy. By policy, it only has to be verifiable. One user proposed adding the part about third-party sources to WP:V and that same user proposed adding WP:PLOT to WP:NOT. The whole policy argument in relation to these articles rests on the proposals of one editor. I think those suggestions are good when treated with common sense and not taken to the extreme. But those big changes to policy are part of why this case exists. Policies should describe common practice — not what a small group of editors think common practice ought to be. This arbitration case shows the dangers of changing the "rules" after something has been done a certain way for years. Some editors will edit-war to enforce the new "rules" and other editors will edit-war due to what has been considered acceptable in the past (and apparently even now). --Pixelface (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest that you consult WP:V more closely, specifically the section WP:SELFPUB, where it states that articles cannot be based primarily on self-published sources. The requirement for third-party sourcing is policy, from WP:V, not a guideline.Kww (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Unless a television episode is on a public access television channel, they are not self-published. And the "requirement" for third-party sources is a relatively recent addition to policy. --Pixelface (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• You're seriously opening the door for every letter writer published in a magazine, newspaper or other publication to have an article? Heck, even my comics were printed by someone other than me. I qualify! Hiding T 21:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, I'm saying that television episodes are not "self-published" in any sense of the word. --Pixelface (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's right. And letters to the editor are not "self-published" in any sense of the word either. So you are seriously opening the door for letter writers to have articles then? Also, I'd be interested in testing this television episode theory. How does a television show get on television? Hiding T 09:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, I'm not opening the door for letter writers to have articles. I don't know of anyone that was pushing to have an article because they wrote a letter to the editor before WP:V insisted on third-party sources. Articles about people are still covered by WP:BLP and WP:BIO anyway. This statement by Shirahadaha indicates that television networks can be considered third-party sources. And the article Television pilot has some information on how a television show gets on television. --Pixelface (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedian policy has called for third party sourcing since day one, pretty much, in the form of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view which as early as 2002 was stating that A solution is that we accept, for purposes of working on Misplaced Pages, that "human knowledge" includes all different (significant, published) theories on all different topics. So we're committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense. Note that it asked that we summarise previously published theories on all topics. I'd be interested to hear how a television episode is a theory. A critique is, but the thing itself isn't. And if you are declaring that WP:BLP be followed, which is newer than WP:V, why are you insisting we can ignore that? Is it because it suits your purpose? the statement by Shirahadaha is based on a flawed understanding of Misplaced Pages, since it makes no mention of WP:NPOV or WP:NOT, so misses fundamental points, as well as ignoring fundamental points in WP:V and WP:NOR. And the article Television pilot makes it quite clear television episodes are self-published, so I am unclear how exactly your argument stacks up. Perhaps you could state it so that I can better understand it. Thanks, Hiding T 19:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I could make an equally good argument that requiring articles to meet WP:N is common practice. The guideline itself says editors are strongly encouraged to follow it, and implies that exceptions should be rare. Check just about any AfD debate (especially in non-fictional subjects) where notability is questioned -- the majority of editors commenting will hold that the article needs to demonstrate that it meets WP:N, and the majority of admins will agree with that argument in closing the debate.

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

It's common practice for editors to !vote delete in AFDs because they think a topic is not notable. WP:N became a guideline (on September 23, 2006) because it described a practice seen in AFDs — people were arguing to delete because they felt a topic was not notable. To turn the subjective notion of "notability" into a guideline was a bad idea — and editors enforcing it like it's policy is an even worse idea. Common practice among editors who participate in AFDs and common practice among editors who edit articles and have never participated in AFDs are two separate things. The Baldrick article has not been nominated for deletion in over six years, which indicates that editors don't consider articles like that a "problem." --Pixelface (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Just want to comment on the age of WP:NOTE. On 7 september 2006, the previous version of WP:NOTE was moved to Misplaced Pages:Notability/Historical/Arguments. This previous version was created on 19 May 2005. Before that, we had Misplaced Pages:Notability/Historical/Importance, created 26 August 2004. So to claim that it was created relatively recently, or that it became a guideline in 16 days, is incorrect: it was created 3 and a half years ago, and took some two years of discussion and polishing to become an almost generally accepted guideline. As for policiers and guidelines being applied retroactively: that's only normal. Old BLP violations are (or should be) treated the same way as new BLP violations, old FA's are defeatured because they fail the current standards, old fair use images which are not updated to comply with the new policies are deleted, and so on. We should never blame an editor for creating an article that no longer complies with the guidelines or policies, but we should not treat articles differently just because they are older. Fram (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the old version treated notability as the Misplaced Pages construct it was, and rightly conveyed that many editors viewed the entire concept as a re-writing of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We now have new editors treating notability as law that must be obeyed and whose first instinct is to delete something as "non-notable" rather than by starting the normal clean-up process. You also get editors who go through categories of articles that have been tagged for needing improvement in various ways and just dump them all in articles for deletion. This is not to mention the frequent mixing-up of the criteria for speedy deletion A7 and notability. If you've ever looked at the English Misplaced Pages mailing list you will get the sense of the contempt many long-term contributors hold for WP:Notability. Catchpole (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never looked at the mailing list (or IRC or other off-Misplaced Pages places), but on Misplaced Pages, I have the impression that the vast majority of regular editors agree with WP:NOTE as at least a minimum standard. That editors bring things to AfD before at least checking if something is obviously notable is not the fault of AfD or notability, but of these editors.12:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)

Those engaging in edit-warring and incivil behavior (regardless of the "side" should be prevented from disrupting the project further. If the evidence supports and the arbitrators believe that TTN engaged in such behavior, then they should also acknowledge that the evidence suggests his handful of enablers have added to that wikidrama and thus focusing solely on TTN may not be enough in that regard. We need a decisive decision to stave off these repeated ANI threads, Requests for Comment, unproductive if not vicious AfD discussions, etc. How many sprung up even during the ArbCom? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

People should not be sanctioned for voicing an opinion. -- Ned Scott 17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. Both sides need to keep it civil. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

TTN was given clear guidance. I can not think of anyway he can qualify his editing behavior meets the following from the previous case.

• The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.
• Like many editing guidelines, Misplaced Pages:Television episodes is applied inconsistently. For an example, see List of South Park episodes and note that there is an article for each episode. An ideal response to such situations would be broader discussion of the guideline among editors with varying editing interest, with consensus achieved prior to widespread changes.

I, personally, think the sanction on TTN is completely justified. My one reservation is that every effort should be made to rehabilitate his behavior. However, I think it is perfectly reasonable for him to come back to the ArbCom and petition for a lifting of the restriction after he has demonstrated an ability to engage in discussion and work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community. Ursasapien (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Even if you feel the proposed sanction is justified, this doesn't help us when this will happen with another user. Believe me, it will. This isn't a solution, it's a band-aid, and a poor one at that. -- Ned Scott 17:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If TTN thinks the proposals are too harsh or if TTN feels he has consensus on his side, he's free to comment anywhere on these case pages (like he did 17 days ago). --Pixelface (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

TTN isn't required to do anything, he's an unpaid volunteer, just like you and me. That doesn't mean we don't give proper consideration to what's being discussed here. -- Ned Scott 03:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

we will only see what the overall consensus of WPedians is about these articles when we openly discuss it in a general context, not in discussions of multiple individual talk pages monopolized by a few editors attacking hundreds of articles simultaneously with their own private view about it. Such attempts to pretend at general consensus is what this arbcom is about. Fabrictramp, yes there IS general consensus about the sort you mentioned. Not about the ones at the focus of this case, though. DGG (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Working group

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

I am starting to warm to this idea myself. Hiding T 20:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

TTN restricted

Maybe this is just my own feeling, but if TTN is restricted from editing television episode/television character articles, I suspect he'll just move on to videogame character articles (based on this evidence and TTN's edits since the injunction was enacted). TTN also contacted Seresin one day after Seresin became an admin and asked him to revert several television/videogame character articles back to redirects. Here TTN asks Seresin, "video game articles are free game, right?" --Pixelface (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this case and the editors involved really go beyond just television episodes and characters; it is more about editing on popular culture of fictional articles, especially video games as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not too concerned with this. If TTN continues his past edit behaviour by simply working around arbcom remedies he will be blocked for good if past decisions of the community and arbcom on such persistent behaviour is any indication. Of course I would welcome modification of the remedy to prevent this. -- Cat 13:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Another reason why this is a poor proposal. As much as some of you might want blood, I think you'd agree that a proposal that limits force, rather than focuses on who and where, is less likely to be gamed. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

anything can be gamed. Even a ban of TTN from WP would still leave the possibility of meatpuppetry -- as in this apparent attempt at it. DGG (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if TTN decides to game the system by refocusing his current editing tendencies and style from Episodes to Video Games... We have a policy against this kind of behavior. And seeing as that he would be showing that he is either unable or unwilling to change, I'd think that the third time round he would be shown the door - permanently. CharonX/talk 11:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It still needs to be proven that his current editing "tendencies" are against any kind of policies and guidelines, no matter whether it is about episodes or video games. The only thing he is guilty of is edit-warring, but then again it takes two to edit-war, so both sides should be restricted or neither one. – sgeureka 12:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There's edit warring, and then there's edit warring. TTN's behavior has extended beyond the scope of normal edit warring into a category that warrants action specifically against him, especially because he is a constant in 90% of the related edit wars. No other editor on any side meets that qualification. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 13:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There is reverting to article versions that are inline with policies and guidelines, and there is reverting to article versions that fail a handful of policies and guidelines. TNN does not belong in the second group, and getting him banned is clearly the wrong message if it is our goal to produce a high-quality encyclopedia. Find a solution to stop the edit-warring while still allowing the necessary cleanup. "Getting rid" of TTN will just give you more editors doing exactly the same thing as him (although admittedly slower, but with the same effects). TTN was yesterday; Eusebeus, Jack Merridew and Gavin are today; and I predict I'll be the new scapegoat for tommorow because AfDing a nn-tagged article after four months "is not enough time for improvement". – sgeureka 13:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Torquemada's death did nothing to stop the Spanish Inquisition; the Inquisition had institutional support and the law on its side. Others will step in to pick up the slack, and since purging Misplaced Pages of excessive plot summary isn't as bad as burning people alive, the excessive plot summary will be purged eventually. Blast Ulna (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying the plot summary stuff shouldn't go, nor am I saying that having other editors pick up the slack would be bad. What I am saying is that TTN performs these tasks with no tact and without really caring what other editors say. He decides what is going to happen to any article he edits before starting a discussion on the relevant talk page, and frequently ignores clear-cut evidence that his assumptions about the notability of an article are wrong. I'm legitimately surprised that any of you (well, maybe not Kww and Euseubeus) are defending him because, quite honestly, he gives you all a bad name; I have little doubt that more than half the resistance you're going to encounter in further cleanup drives will be directly caused by TTN's charming editing habits. This isn't like taking out Torquemada, it's more like locking up William Calley. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 15:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I cannot agree with that. TTN's manner of editing is a direct consequence of so many editors wilfully ignoring our consensus injunction against lengthy plot summaries, in-universe continuity, trivia and the other guff that he is cleaning up. The claims that five or so people making objections on some local tv series page can outweigh our overall policies is tedious to the extreme and we need a clear decision from arbcom to which these people can be directed in order for them to understand that such disruptive tendencies will result in blocks or other sanctions. TTN is not the problem: the proliferation of unencyclopedic content backed up by small groups of committed defenders who consistently ignore our policies and guidelines and game the system through false appeals to consensus building and AGF is the problem. Eusebeus (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

See? Inclusionists take note, the material will be removed eventually. If it will be removed eventually, then why waste time fighting? The deletionists will not go away, and they have been content to allow TTN and others to be their attack dogs. Kill their attack dog, and others will increase their efforts. Blast Ulna (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

All those editors who create those articles on television episodes and fictional characters demonstrate that the actual consensus is for such articles to exist and that there is widespread opinion that such articles do not fail any policies. We our the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We are not a paper encyclopedia. We are a combination of encyclopeedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. We are providing the sum total of all human knowledge. I whole-heartedly agree that excessive in-universe plot summaries can be problematic, but the solution is balancing that out with more reviews and interviews to building up reception and production sections. Just getting rid of the information altogether and limiting our ability to catalog human knowledge does not make much sense and only alienates our contributors and readers. What human beings find important varies from person to person and imagine how many sources could have been found or articles rewritten instead of all the time spent attempting to exclude people and their contributions to our project! The problem is indeed not just TTN, but the handful of "committed defenders" that he has that are vastly outnumbered by others who spend much more time attempting to improve these kinds of articles. And I have had enough interactions with some of these editors to see that while some are indeed operating in good faith and willing to engage in polite if spirited discussion (and sometimes even willing to be open-minded), an incredibly small but prolific minority of others by contrast do not merely edit-war, but also violate our no incivility and no personal attack polcies. This case is not so much about content, but about behavior and the behaviorial problem is that the minority of editors bent on limiting Misplaced Pages's scope typically make unilateral redirects, mass/disruptive nominations for deletions, and insult article writers in some holier than thou "everything you create is 'cruft'" and "only what I think is important matters" tone. None of those attitudes are conducive to bettering our project or providing for a cooperative environment. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"providing the sum total of all human knowledge", huh? Sounds like a compendium, not an encyclopedia. As for the argument that it is a minority of editors who act to remove material, that is true; but only if you count the mass of newbie editors who (in good faith) add detail to their favorite subjects. Once you get up to the level of editors who actually participate in policy debates, it's about even. Blast Ulna (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales, Slashdot Interview (28 July 2004) And as our Five pillars state, we are not just an encyclopedia, but also a specialized encyclopedia and almanac, as well as not a paper encyclopedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the First Pillar speaks for itself. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree; Misplaced Pages is "written for the benefit of its readers. It includes elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." It is therefore not written for a minority of editors and is therefore more than a traditional encyclopedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, you are cherry-picking. It continues, "All articles must follow our no original research policy, and editors must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Misplaced Pages is not the place to insert personal opinions, arguments or experiences. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory." 23:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blast Ulna (talk • contribs)

What is great is that articles on episodes and fictional chracters are hardly "soapboxes" and hardly indiscriminate and hardly personal opinions or experiences. Moreover, they are easily verfied with primary and secondary evidence and because they don't offer a thesis are not original research. In other words, they fulfill the entire letter of what you and I both cited and so if editors spent more time helping in the quest for references rather than just attempting to remove stuff, we would better meet these policies. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Easily verified, but not so easily found in the secondary or tertiary literature. I have been unable to find sources for characters on my favorite show, and I'm really pissed that I can't, but until sources are found, I'll survive with the list page. Blast Ulna (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, what is your favourite show then? You'd be surprised at what is out there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

SpongeBob SquarePants. Blast Ulna (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, though, because Misplaced Pages is a work in progress and the early copies of the Enlightenment era encyclopedias had articles based entirely on primary sources. So long as there is no thesis expressed in the article, then we make do with the sources we have. It's much easier to have a stub or article based on primary sources as a place-holder until the secondary sources can be added. What frustrates me are all the AfDs where editors claim no sources can be found and then I find sources with astonishing ease and the AfD rightfully ends in a keep, but it should have never happened in the first place as an honest search for sources by the nominator would have found the same sources I and others found to cause the artilce to be kept. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 14:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break. You created the Symphony No. 59 (Haydn) article (and it doesn't contain "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject") and I don't see you complaining about "symphonycruft." Go apply your notability standards to the articles you've created. TTN is clearly on a mission to enforce his POV. He "can't stand laugh tracks", finds sitcoms "annoying", and favors certain shows over others: "Only in the case of a show like the Simpsons do the episodes as a whole receive enough individual coverage to actually matter." The only way TTN has policy on his side are two statements (in WP:V and WP:NOT) both introduced by one user, Hiding. Don't try and say that television character articles are "unencyclopedic" when articles like Baldrick have existed for over six years. --Pixelface (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you like me to prove you wrong about the lack of sources for Symphony No. 59? Would you like me to BURY you in sources? Would you like me to make you eat your words, right here and now? Please say yes. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and add them to the article. Or shall I pull a TTN and redirect it to List of symphonies by Joseph Haydn? Maybe I could add merge tags to all of them! Providing sources won't make me eat my words. I realize that WP:N is a guideline, not a policy. I still don't see Eusebeus complaining about "symphonycruft." --Pixelface (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it's obvious that those sources exist, but haven't been added yet. The same cannot always be said for other articles relating to episodes or characters. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Ned...maybe I should cut all those redlinks off List of symphonies by Joseph Haydn. We wouldn't want new contributors thinking that they should create articles and clog up Misplaced Pages with impossible-to-manage symphonycruft. --Pixelface (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We are way off topic at this point, but Ned what rationale do you have for this statement, "it's obvious that those sources exist, but haven't been added yet. The same cannot always be said for other articles relating to episodes or characters"? This is blatant bias. Ursasapien (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And take a look at AfD and see if your "zomg over six year" comment means anything. You'll be laughed off the discussion page. Misplaced Pages not notice something for six years? Are you new here? Do you have any idea how common that is, how many freaking articles we have, and how impossible it is to manage all of them? How many times do we have to prove you wrong, Pixelface? How many times do you continue to make absurd assertions, only to be proven wrong again and again? -- Ned Scott 06:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

(outdent)..and is there nothing that TTN (and others such as KWW, Jack Merridew etc.) hold as important as to find sources themselves? Over a year? The issue is that many have not done any of this. They are either unwilling or unable to be scrutinized by others, or to perform any tasks the nature of their editing forces on others. It's all one way traffic and is insulting at best. It is a volunteer project which is dependent on a good atmosphere and the turbulence caused by all this is bad for morale. Tagging and nominating for AfD is obviously essential but inherent within it is a direction for others to clean up. Why is it that some of these editors will never find refs, even for something else they may value then? (sound of falling off computer chair as I noticed Eusebeus adding refs to music). I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong as appear to have been with Judgesurreal's recent work. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I add plenty of refs to stuff; I also clean-up refs often, i.e. take a raw url and use cite web which involves reviewing the site linked. And I remove bogus refs when I find them. The burden is not on editors interested in clean-up to find sources; the onus is on those who wish material to exist here. FWIF, I don't have a favorite tv show; I don't watch tv, don't even own one. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

....and have never played RPGs either? In which case if your knowledge of certain areas is so meagre, then how can you decree so authoritatively on their notability or the reliability of sources? Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have played quite a few such games (not in some time). I have also watched too much television in the past. Live and learn. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this calls for a new process, Articles for Redirecting, where the time frame is less then Deletion (due to its less serious consequence) and it can be closed by any editor (who isn't involved in the discussion) after that time frame, that way users such as TTN arn't redirecting en mass, but the development required is decided by the community at large (at least those whom are interests). ☯Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 21:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Injunction applied to categories?

Does the injunction apply to categories? More specifically, user categories? See Misplaced Pages:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians who liked The Waltons. I would guess no, but just want to make sure. VegaDark (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

This is a user category, so no mainspace articles should be included. The injuction doesn't apply. --Phirazo 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How about for regular categories? VegaDark (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's unrelated to the notability of those articles then it doesn't apply. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You'd be surprised... Will 09:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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