This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tznkai (talk | contribs) at 16:32, 7 January 2009 (→Request for amendment: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal: closing as rejected). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Active editnotice

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:RfA Review (WP:RREV).

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Current requests

Episodes and characters 3

Note: Was Mass AfDs which in turn was TTN.

Refiled by — Coren  at 17:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Collectonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator of original request)
• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Procedural refiling as a new case; parties are aware having commented during the original request.

Clerks: If this case is accepted, please copy the original request statements to the appropriate pages as though they were submitted here. — Coren  17:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Collectonian

I am requesting that the original restrictions against TTN be extended. Since they have lifted, he has returned to many of the behaviors that caused his initial restrictions, including wholescale merging of character lists to their main articles, characters to character lists, etc. He is doing all of these without any previous discussion and without performing any actual merging just redirects. He is doing no tagging before so issues may be addressed. And he is completely ignoring/disregarding any on-doing merge discussions that may be happening on that page and falsely claiming he has "merged" the content rather than just redirected. While he is generally not edit warring after they are reverted, he has done some. He is doing this silently, and ignoring all requests that he instead start discussions before doing such inappropriate merging as they almost always go against multiple-project consensus and a general overall consensus that fictional series can have a single character list. If his edits are reverted, rather than start proper merge discussions, he takes the articles to AfD. This seems to very much be the same sort of disruptive behavior that caused so much trouble before, and is causing hassles for multiple projects attempting to clean up articles. As such, I think the original restrictions need to be extended until TTN can learn to actually "work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question" rather than just clearing out dozens upon dozens of articles because he personally thinks "there is nothing to merge" despite consensus saying otherwise and thinks there is some deadline for cleaning up articles.

Addition: One of the most recent issues relates to List of D.N.Angel characters. This list already was tagged and had an active discussion to merge all of the character articles to the list. TTN came in, delinked the articles and redirected the individual articles to list, without performing a single actual edit nor really merging a single bit of content (despite his claim that he did by saying so in his edit summary). When this was undone in favor of allowing them to be properly merged, he immediately took all of the articles to AfD. This is NOT following the normal nor proper process for dealing with fictional articles. There was already consensus to merge the articles, an AfD was neither nor appropriate. However, TTN wanted them gone NOW rather than allowing editors to do the merges properly, so he attempted to have them delete. And considering his earlier actions with randomly redirecting character lists to their main articles (wiping out almost all the information, then doing a mediocre "merge" of a few sentences to try to get around it), it seems highly likely he would have revisited this list in another month and wiped it out completely.

I was one of TTNs supporters in earlier actions, but it seems he is getting worse and worse, acting purely on his own views rather than actual established consensus, guidelines, and project efforts. Regardless of the reason why, in the last ArbCom, TTN WAS restricted from this behavior. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by TTN

I try work as collaboratively as possible with people, but there is a point where it is not possible to directly deal with fans or projects that feel the need to take two years to take care of small problems. I use a mix of merge discussions/strait merging, redirects, and AfDs to get things done, and of course some people will have a problem with it. Collectonian acts like I absolutely never deal with people, though I recently asked the video game project for input twice (here and here), and I do start merge discussions, though they are overshadowed by the number of articles that do not need to be merged at all. Other complaints are just issues of personal preference in dealing with bad articles (whether to tag first, only use talk page discussions for these kinds of articles, ect), so this is the kind of thing that belongs in a RFC/U or some other similar forum of discussion.

Statement by ThuranX

I have seen a number of threads on TTN on AN/I in the past years. Now he's conforming to the restrictions placedon him by ArbCom and the community, and still those who won't really improve things can't stop gunning for him. I am constantly frustrated by the number of editors who see Misplaced Pages as a cruft farm, and expand things here based on their love for a character or notion, bloating articles with nonsense about episode 17, season 9, scene 4, line 36 or whatever. When editors who work hard to make more and more articles look comprehensive without looking childish fold things together ,or insist on some rigorous standards of writing, not unlike a term or research paper, too much of this community rebels, screaming bloody murder instead of looking at is as real editing. I support TTN in this, as I do in almost all his efforts, and think this is a colossal waste of ArbCom time. ThuranX (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Confused Statement by SirFozzie

This is a BIG mistake. I understand Coren's desire to start clean (with the sheer amount of people who've, but I will be up front and frank here. ArbCom is about to make a huge mistake here. TTN's behavior is perfectly acceptable by Misplaced Pages standards and policies, and I think there will be hell to pay if ArbCom tries to sanction TTN again. This does not require a full case, it requires ArbCom to have the metaphorical brass cojones to tell the crew who are throwing their toys out of the pram that someone's deleting all their fancruft and you know, actually trying to keep an encyclopedia here, instead of a random collection of "interesting facts". Misplaced Pages relies on policies, TTN's complying with those policies. End. Of. Story. You even have your fellow arbitrators standing up and saying "TTN's behavior doesn't require sanctioning. Why is this here?" and you're ignoring that? I hope ArbCom is mindful of the minefield they're going to be tra-la-la dancing into here. SirFozzie (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(Update: I'm glad to see that this is NOT going to be focused on TTN after all, and there's a lot less heat, at least from my view, if this turns out as it looks like now. SirFozzie (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC))

New statement by Randomran

We need to avoid making this about TTN's viewpoint. I see people saying "I support what TTN does", but that's not justification for his actions any more than "TTN is pissing a lot of people off" is a reason to punish him. Disagreeing with his edits is a reason to revert, not run to ArbCom. Disagreeing with his AFDs is a reason to participate, not go to ArbCom.

The fact remains that nobody has really shown a policy that he's violating. He used to WP:EDITWAR over redirects. Now he's stopped. That's why ArbCom is treating this as a new complaint. Yes, it's the same editor, and the same content, but it's a different behavior. And there is an honest disagreement about whether the behavior is disruptive, even among members of ArbCom.

The fairest complaint I've seen against TTN is that he's nominating stuff for AFD too fast for people to really be able to search for sources, and respond intelligently. I disagree that it's too fast. There's a lot of reasonable people who are debating this (and maybe even a few unreasonable ones on both sides).

There are two main reasons that "TTN files too many AFDs" doesn't belong at ArbCom:

• First off, there is honest disagreement about what that means, and there's very little in our current policies to really support that.
• Second off, we haven't tried to settle this issue ourselves, as a community.
• Finally, we CAN settle this issue ourselves, as a community, without ArbCom... if we discuss what "too many AFDs" means.

That's why I've proposed a change to WP:GAME here. I keep saying this over and over: if we have a clear line that defines unacceptable behavior, I'm confident nobody will cross it, and I'll be the most eager person to enforce it if somebody does. Randomran (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Support for Phil Sandifer

I support Phil Sandifer's bold attempt to shift this away from sanctioning TTN, and more towards clarifying the boundaries of acceptable/unacceptable behavior. I think there is honest disagreement about what's acceptable/unacceptable, and there's no real policy to guide us here. I hope that ArbCom can help clarify this issue so we won't have to come to them until people on all sides of the debate are clear on what the expectation is. Or if they can't clarify the issue themselves, I hope they'll support and suggest ways that we can clarify it ourselves. Randomran (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Phil Sandifer

While I would support a case on the subject of mass AFDing and disruption, I do not support a case on episodes and characters at this time, as it would, I think, unnecessarily add drama to the productive efforts to create a guideline in this area. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Stifle

As I said in the clarification discussion, I don't think this is necessary in any way. TTN is working within community norms, trying to merge, redirect, or delete pages within the normal community procedures, is remaining civil, and is getting on quite well with that. This request, along with the previous one, seems to be an attempt to stop an editor acting in good faith from continuing to deal with non-notable content. I would hope that the ArbCom declines the request and embargoes any further clarifications/new requests on the subject for twelve months. Stifle (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What if...

• ...we set up a central process for requesting merges (call it Misplaced Pages:Articles for merger or whatever)?
• ...we allow merge discussions at AFD?

Either of these could help deal with the perceived problem that TTN is having his mergers and requested mergers whitewashed by entrenched fictioncrufters (wording used ironicly rather than pejoratively) and cannot find any solution other than to AFD them. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by White Cat

Why were all our comments removed? (Seems like this has been addressed) -- Cat 03:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am boldly renaming it as Episode and Character 3. TTN wasn't mass nominating asteroid articles now was he? I do not believe this dispute is independent from the E&C one.

I also feel it would be an oversimplification to limit the case to TTN's conduct. the underlying problem is far too complex and vast than that.

This case should be a separate E&C case. Please accept it as there clearly is a dispute that won't be resolved by other means.

-- Cat 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Tznkai.

I apologize if I caused you or any of the clerks any stress with my bold action. -- Cat 01:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The real issue

It is arbcoms responsibility to review the conduct of TTN and others as a hole. If their conduct isn't banned by policy yet isn't backed by consensus it can still be considered disruptive editing. In fact signs of disruptive editing includes

Above bullet items is a copy paste from a behavioral guideline. TTN and others like him have violated it on a regular basis. Their lack of seeking consensus is the core of the issue. While they make many attempts to gather consensus they do so only to satisfy policy and evade detection. They will however disregard any consensus that does not suit their needs: to aggressively purge fiction related articles from the site by any means necessary. For example if an AFD is closed as KEEP they will not hesitate to either remove the content by other means such as through the disguise of a merge or by renominating the page over and over again after a certain period of time. Such hasn't happened once or twice but has been done in a systematic manner.

The reason why this rfar is different from the past ones is not because the conduct of TTN and others have improved the slightest bit but their methods have evolved to better avoid detection. Some people defending them are oblivious to the fine details of this dispute and its past. Telling that there is no problem makes that evident. This problem even made its way off-wiki mass media already: Deletionism and inclusionism in Misplaced Pages

The aggressive attitude of TTN and others like him has only made "the other side" of the dispute increasingly defensive. I put the other side in quotations because while TTN and people like him work like a team to purge all fiction, they are not confronted by a Unified Inclusionist Front (UIF?). The conduct of TTN and others like him lead to a causality dilemma. People are so worked up in defending their articles they are unable to write any decent articles.

Three arbitrators have recused themselves so far. I believe all of them had made a genuine yet failed effort to resolve the dispute by the regular editorial means. Their lack of success alone should be considered as evidence that the community is incapable of resolving this dispute. This isn't because arbitrators are god but instead because they are (or at least should be) experts in dispute resolution. I cannot talk on behalf of them but I am willing to bet all three of them will agree that all means WP:DR but arbcom has been exhausted already.

I want to question what exactly is their function on the site. If we wanted to indiscriminately delete all short articles on fiction, we would have asked a bot operator. That user conduct exhibited by many users has been a problem since the first E&C rfar. Arbcom is intended to be the last step and this dispute is over three years old and yet at least one arbitrator wants to delegate the matter "back to the community". Why arbitrators refuse to properly address this so far goes beyond logic and reason.

-- Cat 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In conclusion arbcom is

This dispute has became so notable that it had a wide audience in mass media meaning the dispute itself has made fame off-wiki. And yet several arbitrators have the nerve to say that there is no problem whatsoever.

Honestly. Why don't all of you resign? You are incapable of handling disputes. You serve no purpose aside from wasting our times. Its the 5th of January and arbcom already failed miserably. 360 days left for the next batch to take office I suppose...

-- Cat 05:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Are arbitrators even reading our statements? -- Cat 08:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by seresin

Question for the arbitrators. What is this case supposed to resolve? If it's not about TTN, I fail to see what the Arbitrators who have voted to accept want to achieve. If you're wanting to look at the whole notability debate and how AfDs are handled, I can imagine no remedies that you will pass that will be anything other than vapid hand-slapping or policy creation. If you want to look at behavior, then some specific other editors should be added as parties, and this case be made about behavior of participants in the "notability wars". Roger Davies: urely to explore mergers at AfD: which cannot be handled by motions. — policy creation. So what's the purpose of this case?

As a point of order, the case title has zero to do with what you Arbitrators have indicated will be the focus. Perhaps it's better from a continuity standpoint, but it still is not a good description of what the case will cover.

New statement by Flatscan

I see two major AfD topics, which both have active or recent discussions:

• Mass AfD nominations (Misplaced Pages talk:Gaming the system#another game type: volume)
• AfD and redirect/merge discussions (Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 48#Mergers at AfD)

While I welcome clarification of existing policy and current practice, I remain wary of novel interpretation that should be handled by the community. Flatscan (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Masem

I agree with previous comments that if this case is accepted, it should not be about TTN's behavior as, as noted by others, he is acting within the present bounds of editing and certainly not replicating the behavior of the E&C2 case.

I would also avoid making this case an issue about specifically how fiction is handled - as Phil notes above, we are on the verge of putting out a new fiction notability guideline that we need to test for consensus and see how it works in practical cases. While there is potential for ArbCom to address this, I believe this is too early for this, and a side issue of the main problem (below)

If anything, the core isue of this case can be identified by how we deal with a series of connected articles that fail to meet existing standards, but generally are difficult to convince those with the most concern for them that they need to be dealt with in cleanup. (Though TTN is not involved in this, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins 2 deals with a similar situation, where one editor from outside a project is concerned with the quality of the articles in the project). If this basically means identifying that AFD is a proper place for a larger input on merger or article discussion, or any other finding of fact that ensures that article cleanup of the type that TTN does is validated or restricted or outlined in a better fashion to establish a procedure that helps in cleaning up WP, then that is what ArbCom needs to handle.

Regardless of what else is done here, the question of how an editor should approach a large scale cleanup of a series of tightly-related articles needs to be figured out. One-at-a-time AFDs are spammy, one-shot AFDs with several articles are criticized for grouping too many articles at once, and there is no good place to discuss merges that can gain the attention of uninvolved editors for involve like AFD provides. --MASEM 02:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment - Personally, having spent the last 1.5 yrs trying to help get a fiction notability guideline in place, I truly believe we're at a point aspects of the past are coming back to haunt us in the sense the conflict between "Misplaced Pages is not paper", notability guidelines, article size, and several other core policies and guidelines are all built on past consensus, but to truly reflect the nature of going forward, not just for fiction but all fields of articles requires us to dismantle and rebuild the existing p/g, not in a manner that changes the status quo of how we do things, but puts in place the right statements in p/g that justify why we do things. For example, there is an obvious conflict between article size and notability - when an article on a topic grows beyond a reasonable size, we're encouraged to split off lower-level details to subarticles, but notability, at least as taken by some, cannot allow these subarticles to exist without their own notability. If we were paper, there'd be no question of inclusion, but this fails when brought to serving pages over the web. There seems to be obvious solutions, but there are editors (on both sides of the issue) that cannot accept these solutions simply because of the wording of one or two policies and guidelines yet most in the middle agree there's some middle ground here that is needed. By this large scale reassembly of policy, we can probably address issues that all sides have with the current situation of fiction and other topics on WP.

Obviously I don't expect ArbCom to even try to fix this aspect; it is way too big and persistent to resolve by a few crafted resolutions; this rebuilding is something that needs to planned very carefully to make such changes transparent to those editors that care little about the politics of policies, and it won't be something that happens overnight. Either Arbcom, if they address it, should consider this a TTN behavioral issue (which I don't believe it is) or the process issue I describe above. If Arbcom does address this as a process issue, it should be considered as a bandaid or stepping stone towards the dismantling that I describe above - there is the issue of how to deal with a lot of tightly-related topics (mostly in the fiction area) that can be considered, at times, as part of the coverage of the work of fiction they are present in. If a solution is found by ArbCom, this may help to set the basis for how we can reconstruct p/g in handling a topic that readily has many sub-topics that should be included in WP somewhere, though not necessarily their own articles. --MASEM 21:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment to Wizardman's input Don't get me wrong, I think it is the right thing for ArbCom to wait to see what happens if/when the FICT is passed, however, I would caution to point out that in the present case, adherence of articles to FICT (new or old) is not a direct issue, it is how TTN goes about cleanup of such articles which is causing the complaints (eg, attempting a redirect/merge, and if reverted, sending it off to AFD without discussing on the article's talk page; performing large numbers of these). Getting to an accepted FICT may help negotiate how to better handle such cases of large number of articles that need to be merged, but I suspect that we're going to have to have another discussion elsewhere on what are proper ways of doing such. --MASEM 16:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

• Have recused as an arbitrator and am making a statement here solely as an editor. Mostly making my statement here to agree with what Masem said above: "the question of how an editor should approach a large scale cleanup of a series of tightly-related articles needs to figured out" (though the word "WikiProject" might be relevant here, noting that the approaches taken by different fiction-topic WikiProjects varies widely). Ultimately, the community should resolve what the correct approach should be, though the non-recused arbitrators in this case may be able to help guide the expectations for standards of editor conduct during such clean-up processes.
• I would also like to respond to what Phil Sandifer said above (in a statement he later changed): "...that some of the recused arbitrators - whose views I think would be valuable in the underlying issue - come back to the case...". My view here is that recused arbitrators should, if they wish and have time, participate as any other editor would (as I am doing), but remain recused. Am asking here for public confirmation of the propriety of this approach, from the community and my fellow arbitrators. The one thing I am uncertain about here is if I (and other recused arbitrators) do participate heavily in the case as editors, is the following: what standards apply regarding the arbcom mailing list and other such committee discussions to which we would be privy?

Carcharoth (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Jtrainor

User:White Cat has the right of it. Jtrainor (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

diff, if this helps. — CharlotteWebb 15:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sceptre

This is a massive mistake and a matter that doesn't need another soul-sucking arbitration case like E&C2. I urge that both TTN and White Cat try to write articles instead of engaging in meta-debate. Sceptre 01:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Kww

If this really comes before Arbcom again, I request that Kirill Lokshin recuse himself as a result of his behaviour here. His parallel discussion here makes it clear that he has already judged exclusionist editors to be at fault, and he is incapable of being unbiased on the issue.—Kww(talk) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Barberio: I didn't ask that Kirill recuse himself for having rendered a previous judgment. I asked him to recuse himself for expressing the opinion that it didn't matter which side was right, he was going to sanction TTN, and his willingness to lash out at anyone that supported him. That is behaviour unsuitable for an arbitrator, and unacceptable for one rehearing the case.—Kww(talk) 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Barberio

Limiting myself to the above recusal request. This should be rejected per forma. Expressing an opinion during a previous review of a case or similar case should not lead to recusal if a similar, or even functionally the same, case comes up. That would very quickly result in no one being able to take a case at all. --Barberio (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:DGG

This problem is not going to settle itself. Not all those participants are willing to compromise, many people on different sides regard it as too important to abandon, and the divisive effects are increasingly damaging. It affects a large part of Misplaced Pages. This is therefore a matter which must be resolved, and the only way it can be resolved is by arb com. Does the reluctance of some of the committee to do their job indicate that they think there is no possible solution that will be accepted by enough of the community? DGG (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nsk92

The case should be accepted to examine, under existing policies, broad issues of conduct that arise here and that are also relevant to other inclusionist/deletionist disputes beyond the topic of fiction articles. We do have a number of relevant existing policies and guidelines, such as WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BATTLE, WP:Disruptive editing, and probably a few others. While my personal views regarding fiction articles are probably fairly close to those of TTN, I find that much of his conduct and tactics, detailed above by Collectonian and White Cat, to be problematic in relation to these existing policies. For example, I believe that redirecting and merging should almost never be performed without a discussion first. That is certainly true for articles on subjects of broad controversy, such as fiction-related articles are at the moment. TTN's explanation that he is just too tired of arguing with fancraft proponents is not sufficient and is not a valid excuse for shortcutting WP:CONSENSUS. Mass clean-up operations, especially in highly charged areas, also should not be undertaken unilaterally. One should find an appropriate collective forum, such as a wikiproject or a policy discussion page, for reaching consensus on whether suuch mass clean-up operations are needed and if yes, on how they should proceed. The fact that these actions are performed on mass scale, and at the time when the underlying notability issues are being worked out at WP:FICT (which I hope will succeed in becoming a guideline since that is certainly what is badly needed here) makes it worse. It inflames the situation and makes reaching consensus at WP:FICT more difficult. It is, of course, true, that WP:FICT needs to be based on real-life AfD experience. However, the sort of highly contentious AfDs that TTN's scorched earth tactics tend to produce are a poor guide for figuring out a reasonable solution. Mass AfD nominations in the cases where it is clear that a merge is more appropriate can also be problematic. I tend to agree with White Cat that the tactics he describes are rather war-like. The problem is that even fighting against bad articles by war-like methods tends to, in the end, be very counter-productive. It antagonizes many editors, inflames the general situation, makes reaching consensus on the underlying notability issues more difficult and drives a lot of people away from the project. The fact that fiction-related disputes so frequently show up at WP:RFAR is a testament to the disruptive effect of such tactics. There are plenty of issues of conduct for ArbCom to look at here. Nsk92 (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Peregrine Fisher

I don't know what arbcom should do. My guess is another fait accomplie ruling, or TTN gets the go ahead, or something outside the box that I can't guess at. I would prefer that magical third option, but otherwise a firm affirmation of one of the first two. The fourth option is that the wiki way doesn't really work, and the community needs to figure out how to make it work. This is the easiest, and most easily defensible position, but I ask that you really try for one of the first three options. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk (talk)

Reject this case. I can see no reasonable outcome that arbcom could come to on this issue that wouldn't just be an anodyne restatement of fact and best practices and I frankly don't want to have another vague arbcom ruling on fiction hanging around my neck. The community IS making progress on the content issue as a whole. Interference on that front (either through some misguided statement that AfD's may not be used for mergers or through some attempt to legislate a solution from the bench otherwise) is unwelcome and will be used tactically by those who seek to treat wikipedia as a battleground.

Statement by CharlotteWebb

Coolcat's description is too kind. Repeating the same behavior which led to a six-month topic ban is a textbook example of "exhausting the community's patience". I urge the committee to accept this case and consider a remedy of greater duration and scope. — CharlotteWebb 15:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I mentioned this before, and I still fail to see why it wouldn't be productive. Create a page Misplaced Pages:Requests for merging, analogous to Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. Instead of having multiple AfDs for E&C's that are likely to end up with merge or merge/redirect outcomes, editors simply follow the existing procedure for merging pages, and add the request to this page. Centralised discussion could then take place at this page in a similar manner to that which Requested Moves does now.

This would circumvent the reasons why the current merging procedure is inadequate for these tasks - (1) that the articles involved are obscure and unwatched, thus leading to minimal (or more often, nil) discussion after placing of the {{mergeto}} tag; and (2) that a current merge target (i.e. List of characters in Foo) does not exist. I suggest that this would, if not eliminate, certainly reduce the number of contentious AfDs that are currently being created, and thus a good proporation of the issues that have led us to WP:RFAR again. This is clearly not a panacea for the problems here, but I believe it would be a useful start. Black Kite 22:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

This case is a refiling by User:Coren following developments in a previous request to amend the Episodes and Characters _2 case, specifically the restrictions against TTN. The last version of that request, along with statements and arbiter voting on a failed motion can be found here.--Tznkai (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

We need explicit direction from the committee on what the scope (and appropriate title) of this case would be if accepted. Current title is Episodes and characters 3 - but this should be considered a placeholder pending clarification from the committee as a whole.--Tznkai (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

E&C 3 will do. — Coren  01:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be advised, it is currently mathematically impossible for this request to achieve the 4 vote threshold for acceptance. Barring voting activity this request is due to be archived as rejected after a suitable waiting period (in the vicinity of 24-48 hours). --Tznkai (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) I would advise for this to be listed the full duration. - Penwhale | 19:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/6/4/1)

• Accept; it appears the case is too complex to handle through motion work on a clarification request. — Coren  17:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  For the record, and because my feeling on the matter appears to have been less clear than I have presumed, I am not proposing to open the case to sanction TTN, but to examine the wider dispute around the handling of AfD like those TTN has opened. The name TTN is based strictly on the original request and should not be indicative of the expected focus. — Coren  20:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Accept; I was thinking of filing this myself as the attempt at handling by motion(s) wasn't working. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  To clarify, the wider dispute is the issue here, not user conduct. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Accept purely to explore behaviour in mergers/mass nominations at AfD, which cannot be handled by motions. As I have said elsewhere, I do not see santionable conduct here. --ROGER DAVIES  20:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Reject - The scope of the case has shifted significantly over the last twenty-four hours and the reason for my interest in hearing it has largely evaporated. --ROGER DAVIES  04:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse as stated previously. If a case is accepted, could the statements from the original clarification request that Coren has linked to please be placed on an appropriate page (either in the possible new case, or in the appropriate place on the previous case page), and not just linked to in the edit history. If no case is accepted, could the new threads, this one and the clarification one that Coren has linked to, be archived in the appropriate places. Just trying to make sure nothing gets lost here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse, per previous motion. Vassyana (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Reject if the case is going to be about TTN's conduct. As I said in my earlier comment, I do not see any significant user conduct problem that would warrant a sanction so I do not think a case is needed. If the Committee wants to open a case to look at the problem surrounding merger discussions at Afd or the Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) proposal, I will reconsider my vote. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Continue to reject. I liked the ideas in several of Coren's proposed motions, so it is tempting to take the case. Although I agree that the topics of Afd, Notability guideline, and merger discussions could benefit from some consensus building discussions, I do not think that we should tackle the case unless there is clear evidence going in that we will be able to add something of value to the discussion that the Community can not do on its own. I think that user conduct issues should continue to be our main focus and unless we are going to address that problem at some level, then I do not think we should get involved. So unless someone can convince me that TTN or someone else has engaged in a violation of policy that would cause them to be sanctioned, I don't want to open the case. If the Committee looks at this broadly, instead of picking a side to support by deeming some types of edits to be violations of policy, I do not think we are going to satisfy anyone. I don't think a general caution or warning to the people involved in these areas will be fruitful. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse per previous motion. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Accept as Episodes and characters 3, which will allow for tweaking of the previous findings if we need to. (Facetious comment - The new committee in 2008 had to go through Episodes and characters again, so I don't see why the 2009 intake should escape this chore) Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Reject, pace FloNight, unless the scope of the case is TTN. The motion was to seek relief from TTN, and I agree that there is merit to the calls to review his methods and conduct, so I would only accept a case to review that. If the committee accepted such a case, and decided that there is no user conduct problems, that would be a good thing; in effect it would clear TTNs name.
  The community is busy working on E&C, and doesnt appear to need the committee at this time. John Vandenberg 07:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Reject - based on our prior discussions, there is no reasonable grounds to believe that sanction of any user is warranted. We have been provided with information that applicable "ground rules" are in development. There is no evidence provided of policy violations. The foreseeable end result is the committee supporting an effort to determine notability criteria in the subject area, and weeks of editor time and energy displaced from the very activity that the committee would encourage, in a high-tension arena. There is little to be gained, and more to lose. Risker (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse. Kirill 05:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Reject. Per FloNight. This seems likely to inflame drama for a very small payoff (probably a generalized warning). Cool Hand Luke 22:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, this has been a serious issue for far longer than it needs to be, and it needs to be taken care of. On the other hand, if a new fiction notability guideline is being accepted and about to be official, then having an arbcom case doesn't make sense, as I would like to see how it works before accepting a case. If problems were to persist I'd accept in the future (I no longer care about anything fiction-related so i wouldn't see a need for future recusal). It comes down to this though. If this is about merges at AfDs, then that's a community-first matter. Wizardman 16:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline but with caveats. It was initially my idea to accept this as a separate case (rather than proceed via the motions offered by Coren) because it appeared a bit too complex for motions. While I respect the substantial improvements in TTN's behavior since the prior case, I still find some cause for concern especially regarding the timing/pacing issues. However, I take seriously the suggestion by Phil Sandifer and others that there is productive discussion taking place on related notability policy pages, which could potentially be derailed by accepting a case at this time. My vote is therefore to decline, but without prejudice to a renewed request for arbitration if problems continue after a few weeks from now, and with the strong request to TTN that he moderate the pace of his activity pending the discussions referred to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications and other requests

• WP:RFAC
• WP:RCAM

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

• Misplaced Pages arbitration