Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:06, 4 February 2008

Statement by Firsfron

Sesshomaru states above that he should not be a party to this case because he only did one revert, but what he actually did was one revert on each article, and all he was doing was reverting what the last editor did, in its entirety, in reverse order (there are no articles in that run that were not reverted to the version by TTN). There is no way that Sesshomaru was checking what he was doing. He was just going down the list and undoing each and every edit without discussion, with an edit summary of "See WP:EPISODE, an afd is not required for cases like these". Firsfron of Ronchester 04:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Yukichigai

I wish I could say I'm surprised this has come up in arbitration again, but I'm not. Not at all.

I've already expressed my opinion on this matter when I started the previous RFArb, but to quickly summarize over 200 page redirects in 12 hours is way too fast and too numerous to be considered acceptable. I also think Kirill summed it up best when he proposed the Fait accompli principle in the last RFArb.

What we have here is a new kind of edit war, with one side attempting to overpower the other by virtue of the sheer volume of edits and little else. I had hoped the tactic would die off in the wake of the previous RFArb, but it appears that is not the case; almost all the "chief offenders" have gone back to their old ways. TTN holds a new record, having been a significant component in (if not the focus of) numerous WP:AN/I threads for the past 12 days straight, and a number of other editors on both sides are working on similar "accomplishments" as well. There is no way in hell this is going to stop on its own. Barring some Jimbo Ex Machina I predict that RFArb is going to be treated to a regular posting of requests to resolve this dispute.

If the Arbitration Committee does accept this case (again) let me say this: a final decision with no consequences for anybody, or at least no clear-cut determination of (to be blunt) who's being a dick, isn't going to solve anything. The community needs a clear, unmistakable determination of what behavior is acceptable and what isn't for this dispute to even slow down, much less stop. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 05:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

The two sides are both claiming they're in the right, and are incessantly edit-warring over and over and over again. No one person violates 3 Reverts, but there's a heck of a lot of Disruptive Editing going on. This likely will not stop until made to stop, so on that terms, I urge the Arbitration Committee to accept this case.

However, I note with dismay that one side scrupulously notes the policies that un-referenced episodes of dubious quality violate, and the other side seems to point that because more of the same has existed, that by god, they should IAR, because it's UNFAIR to delete an unreferenced, questionably notable episode on "trivial pop culture show A", if there's an unreferenced, questionably notable episode on "trivial pop culture show B". I have even seen someone claim that because there's been an article on Bart the General for four and a half years, that there is no way it could violate policy on notability, verifiability and other encyclopedic rules. .

If it wasn't for the fact that it would be POINTy, I would redirect this myself (and I've not been involved in any of this until the most recent flare up on ANI). It is unduly long, has one reference to notability (that it was used in a humor study of the brain), and is filled to the brim with unencyclopedic, useless trivia. It is a wonderful article, for a Simpsons-pedia. For an EN-Cyclopedia, it is the equivalent of using a nuclear bomb to swat a rogue electron. Overkill. ArbCom does not make policy, it just reigns in those who violate policy. And there's a lot of that going on that needs to be reigned in. SirFozzie (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::Er, no, SirFozzie, as I said above, I suggested the ones I was involved with go through AfD to gain a wider consensus.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(please move your comment to your own statement, ArbStatements are not supposed to be threaded conversations, but I will reply). Consensus is wonderful. Consensus is great. I've been accused of even being a consensus wonk at times. Consensus makes the world go round. However, Consensus can not say "X is Right!" when Policy says "X is wrong!" Consensus cannot make up for a fundamental lack of proof of Notability, of Reliable Sources, and Verifiability. As I said, some of the articles are wonderfully detailed. They should be moved to another -pedia that deals with the shows in question (or even a TV-pedia). However, according to the policies about what an article should be, they fail on just about every tick there is. They're like kudzu, eternally growing.. but it never goes anywhere. SirFozzie (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to just applaud the WP:SIMPSONS project. The article I mentioned above was brought up there, and they went, and trimmed it, and fixed the issues that there were with the article. Which just shows that the policies are a good thing, and instead of having constant wars about them and atttempts to change or ignore existing policy, I'm not trying to be dismissive, but this is a case of SOFIXIT. SirFozzie (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

We are talking not just about enforcing consensus here, we are talking about enforcing fundamental policy. Episode articles that consist only of plot renarration (note: plot "summary" would be a euphemism in most cases) infringe on copyrights. Plot summaries must be subordinate to encyclopedic analysis. Where that is not the case, they must be ruthlessly removed just like unjustified non-free images. Same legal situation, same policy. I've personally given block warnings to people who reinstate them. If that makes me a party to this case, so be it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Crotalus horridus

I disagree with Future Perfect's analysis. There is no evidence that any of these plot summaries in any way violate copyright. A complete (or nearly complete) transcript would probably do so, but these don't come close to that. Furthermore, most episode articles do not consist only of plot summaries; they often contain lists of trivia (which are unencyclopedic, but do improve the case for fair use) or other commentary. Even if an episode article did consist entirely of a plot summary, it would have to be taken in the context of Misplaced Pages as a whole, where it is a tiny fraction of the material, most of which is GFDL. Please remember to avoid copyright paranoia. No one has cited a single case where any website has ever been sent a takedown notice over plot summaries. Furthermore, no one at the Foundation has ever raised any issue with the lengthy, in-universe discussion on Wikimedia sites such as Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia (nor should they).

Framing this as a copyright issue is inaccurate and unhelpful. Rather, this is a disagreement about what kind of encyclopedia Misplaced Pages should be, and what the threshold of inclusion should be for trivia. I do not think that trivia and in-universe plot summaries have any place in a mainstream encyclopedia, but I do think that they need and deserve their own site. I have, on several occasions, proposed a project fork to handle such materials. I think this will prove to be the only viable long-term solution. *** Crotalus *** 11:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by WAS 4.250

Misplaced Pages's popular culture articles constitutes the world's single most useful Popular Culture Encyclopedia and every year it gets better. The Misplaced Pages we are trying to create, as the sum of all knowledge, is the sum of all possible encyclopedias. Help that effort to make it an even better culture encyclopedia within the vast Misplaced Pages encyclopedia that contains all other encyclopedias. Don't try to destroy it. I suppose if some were editing Misplaced Pages in 2003, they would have put up the whole encyclopedia for deletion because at that time no article on Misplaced Pages was adequately sourced by today's standards. We don't delete an article just because it is not yet perfect. We should never never delete an article just because it lacks something, if what it does have is useful. An article that has an accurate plot is useful. Lacking other data makes it a kind of stub, needing additional material. It should eventually be more than that, but deleting useful articles because they are stubs by one measure or another is simply pulling up crops because they are only half grown. Where is the sense in that? WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by thedemonhog

I was not contacted by John because I have not once reverted a redirect or restore of an episode article, although I have been following these disputes. I do not really have an opinion on the matter and even if I did, my edits would probably be reverted by TTN or Pixelface. Obviously, the edit wars need to stop, which is easier said than done. One can say, "everyone, this is ridiculous so stop it", but which side should stop first? A decision must be made. Either the articles should be redirected or they should be restored; users should not just be told to work constructively amongst themselves.

Why do I not really care whether episode articles containing only plot summaries are kept or not? I know that in the long run, I will get the articles of the Lost WikiProject to good or featured atatus, which I have done before and suspect that this is why the articles have not already been redirected. There are also reasons for both sides' actions that I can understand. I recently participated in a couple Heroes WikiProject AfDs (1 2) and voted for redirection because they are notable (reviews and interviews from reliable sources for Heroes, even on specific episodes are not hard to find), but this has not been demonstrated in the article. If an article never demonstrates notability, but it can, is it notable? And there are so many stubs on Misplaced Pages, one would not think that it matters if something is a work in progress—which is explicitly stated in a guideline, although it is stated in another guideline to redirect "problem" episode articles. I do not know what the correct answers are, but hopefully I will soon. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SchmuckyTheCat

I'd re-iterate what WAS 4.250 says above. I'd also that I find the idea of "consensus" around deleting episode lists with tongue firmly in cheek. There are a fairly small number of editors that pay attention to the episode notability guidelines. They've written their guideline in a vacuum without input from people who actually write episode articles. They lord over it and hound away anyone who questions their interpretation. The number of people objecting to these deletions, over time, has far exceeded the people doing the deleting. Here is how it goes:

1. A deleter comes along and redirects (which, for stubs, is a soft-delete) a series of articles from one show.
2. An objector says "hey, what are you guys doing?" and gets hounded away: "See, this is what our policy says. Too bad you didn't speak up when we wrote it."
3. Objector goes away, it's not worth fighting over with an entrenched clique.
4. repeat.

Clearly, at any single moment, the deleters can claim numerical superiority - but only because the objectors have never shown up simultaneously. That's a pretty thin idea of consensus; because it isn't, it's an illusion and we describe that as tag team ownership.

There is nothing wrong with stubs about TV episodes. Any TV guide data shows when the show was on. The show website probably contains some amount of production information (show serial number, etc). The show itself is a fine source for a (non-interpretive) plot summary. Ta-da, instant stub. Those doing the deleting should stop, it's disruptive to the project and community harmony, they've done a poor job of understanding sourcing in their guideline and are stonewalling any attempts to modify it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Statement by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

As to my own thoughts on the matter, I feel essentially the same as I did in the previous case: , , , , , , , , , .

Statement by uninvolved Lawrence Cohen

Just specific to consensus matters, if there is such an epic stink being raised by people each time these episode articles are being redirected away, perhaps it may be safe to assume that consensus does not support these actions. Additionally, I'd ask the committee to look at the validity of consensus developed in "back corners" of Misplaced Pages, that many people may not be aware of. How many people actually came to the redirect consensus? 5? More than 5? Less than 10? More than 10? We don't count consensus by heads except in special major cases (Arbitration Elections, Board elections, side-wide issues like the Main Page vote, and the 3rr vote), but it would be worth looking at how many people, and who, made these consensus decisions to redirect the episode articles that are the root of all these fights. Was it a valid consensus? It may or may not have been, given how nasty this is. 22:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Farix

I'm somewhat reluctant to comment on this matter given the divisiveness of the issue, but I will ask the Arbitration Committee to look into the edit warring engaged by editors on both sides. A secondary issue I like to see the ArbCom to look into is whether merging or redirecting articles is a form of deletion, a claim frequently made by the proponents of episode articles. Other issues that ArbCom may want to touch on are whether episode articles are immune to Misplaced Pages's policies, specifically WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOR, and WP:V requirement of at least one reliable third-party source, and the notability guidelines, if there a clear inheritance of notability from the series to the episodes that make up the series or do current policies and guidelines require episodes to establish notability independently of the series. And finally, does the presents of {{Infobox Television episode}}, plot notes, and quotes mean that the article no longer violates WP:NOT#PLOT. I also think that ArbCom needs to better define when discussions on merging episode articles are strongly encouraged and when discussions are not required. --Farix (Talk) 22:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Judgesurreal777

The situation regarding disputes over Wikipedias fiction notability and television notability policies is getting out of hand. We have a fervent band of inclusionists who think that they can ignore wikipedia policies, and harass and intimidate other wikipedians. Having my userpage protected has been an eye-opening experience to the extent that people can, in many cases, successfully protect articles that are not in any way corresponding to wikipedia guidelines and policies without having anything to back it up with except "I like it". To yet AGAIN bring TTN and others here for castigation for following wikipedia guidelines is outrageous, and it should be recognized that those who would keep content on wikipedia must provide evidence of notability, not the other way around. It is also time to recognize teh vast incivility that is being perpetrated by inclusionists on wikipedia is not acceptable anymore than it is for "deletionists". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

There are two issues here: a procedural/behavioral one and a content one. The former, well, I've not participated directly in TTN's edits, but there is something to be said about the proper editing procedure that needs to be employed if you notify or are notified that several articles are non-notable. As the notifier, how long to do you wait for a good faith effort towards improvement or any sort of response before merging, or how do you overcome a vocal majority of WP:ILIKEITs that don't cite policy or other consensus for keeping articles; as a notifee, what types of good faith steps can you make in improving an article. This is the issue many of the above have stated. However, clearer resolution on what should be expected by both sides of such article disputes (such as what I suggested) would be good as to provide better procedural steps to follow to help reduce such conflicts.

The bigger issue is the content one, and this is a larger point of contention which, as I understand, is likely not to be addressed by ArbCom. Specifically for episode articles, three questions are being asked:

• Does an episode article with only a plot summary and an infobox with dates of airing satisfy policy and guidelines?
• Is an episode article (notable or not) consider as part of the coverage of the series that it is in, in that regardless of notability, an episode article could be considered appropriate due to WP:SIZE and summary style writing approaches?

And a much larger issue (which goes beyond just articles but includes nearly all works of fiction):

• Does Misplaced Pages is not imply, deny, or otherwise refer to the concept of "Misplaced Pages is not a fanguide" and in what way? (This might be too large an issue to be addressed here, but certainly can be seen in the number of AN/I and ArbCom cases coming up).

Unfortunately, I know that the ArbCom is not necessarily deciding issues on content. Unfortunately there, we have situations where there are a large number of both editors and readers that have come to or otherwise expect larger coverage of fictional topics (given PAPER and regardless of PLOT and NOTE (and subsequently FICT and EPISODE)), and a smaller number of editors that recognize that the level of coverage that the former group desires is, in many cases, incompatible with WP's current mission and policies. I've been leading a rewrite of WP:FICT for the last several months and know that there is a very fine line of a middle ground where we are finding a possible solution, but we have yet to find it. This may simply be a case where we editors just have to bear it out and figure out a proper consensus. --MASEM 23:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• To specifically clarify one point, how we deal with episode articles is a tip of the iceberg in terms of how we handle fictional content. The question Does WP:NOT imply, deny, or otherwise gives any advise towards the statement "WP is not a fanguide" has several implications:

• Certainly with respect to WP:EPISODE but this also affects how WP:FICT is handled; this then leaves the question of, if fiction can be handled differently from generally notability guidelines, how do we show this?
• In line with the typical job of a fanguide, does this or does this not allow for multiple non-free image uses in the discussion of elements of those works, particularly in lists of characters where the images are only providing visual reference
• To what extent can we promote off-site wikis to transwiki such material to, in particular, given that some people have concerns on conflict-of-interest, Wikia and the Annex.
• Is the coverage of in-universe details of fiction non-free use, and as such, has to have the same arguments for its use as we do for images and other media?

• Again, I feel some of these are larger issues that do fall outside the scope of tv episodes, but some of these concerns should be addressed, if they are at all, during arbitration. --MASEM 15:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by AnteaterZot

I believe that at their core, all disputes are miscommunications. The people who create the articles for the episodes probably wonder, "Why are some people so against my documenting these episodes? Why are they so against my scholarship, my thoughtful analyses?" The people who dislike individual episode articles wonder, "Why do these people write these things? Why can't they understand that these articles are not appropriate?"

Why do some people dislike individual pages? Is it because they think pop culture is not worthy of scholarly consideration? Perhaps. Is it because they perceive such writings to be poor scholarship? Perhaps. Is it because they think that fans of the show are parasitizing the creativity of the writers and actors who created the show? Perhaps. In my case, I feel that anything, including TV shows, are worthy of scholarly consideration. I have read many a Misplaced Pages article that constitute poor scholarship, but that problem is not confined to TV shows (although more common there than in some fields). But poor scholarship is to be met with cleanup, right? Finally, I must admit that I do feel that there are editors who are feeding off of the creativity of the people who made the TV show. But I cannot fault them; everybody does that to some extent.

The urge to document anything is commendable. Scholarship is commendable. However, when scholars submit their writings for publication, they must undergo peer review. In my opinion, consolidating the episodes into list pages allows for better oversight (read: peer review). A Misplaced Pages user can get a better overview of the story arc on a list page than on dozens of individual pages. Certainly there are many cases where individual episodes should have their own page.

Scholars are supposed to cite correctly. When I find myself writing long stretches of text on a topic without including citations, I become uncomfortable. If I was unable to find any third party sources, I would eventually conclude that either I was incorrect about the importance of the topic, and/or that I was engaging in original research. Now, if I was sure the topic was important, and nobody else was doing a very good job of writing about it, I would stop giving it away for free on Misplaced Pages and write for academia and/or get an agent so I could get paid.

So what do we do? If this dispute is about a miscommunication, then we need to communicate better. Then we need to find points of agreement. And then we find a practical solution. I'm not sure if I have helped, but I felt I had to try. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jack Merridew

Accept the case. This issue needs sorting and new blood on the AC may be beneficial. --Jack Merridew 13:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Maniwar

I would like point out that this case is way above what is being discussed here. Please see this centralized discussion as well. There is currently this case, an admin noticeboard case, several RfC's, and various other discussions taking place. A solution needs to be had to fix this and all issues need to be looked at or this will never end and more arbcom, noticeboards, and RfCs will continue to be called. --Maniwar (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

It should be noted that the smerging of a long episode article (shortening and merging the article) can result in lots of text being edited away and made difficult to work on (not many people are aware that the previous text is still accessible in the page history of the redirect, for example). I think there are several ways for the community to resolve this without involving ArbCom. What is needed is a solution that satisfies people at both extremes. I propose the following (previously posted at ANI) as a starting point.

It is trivially easy to generate a list of the page revisions before all of TTN's redirects, and to put such a list of links to those old articles, either on an external website or on a WikiProject page or talk page. Linking to old versions from within an article itself would subvert the entire Misplaced Pages process, but it is technically possible, so something should be done to forbid putting links to old versions of other articles in current articles. For Open All Hours, try this list of episode articles I generated from looking at "what links here", and filtering for redirects and then grabbing the oldid numbers of the versions before the redirects:

• Open All Hours Pilot
• Full of Mysterious Promise
• A Mattress on Wheels
• A Nice Cosy Little Disease
• Beware of the Dog
• Well Catered Funeral
• Apples And Self Service
• Laundry Blues
• The Reluctant Traveller
• Fig Biscuits And Inspirational Toilet Rolls
• The New Suit
• Arkwright's Mobile Store
• Shedding At The Wedding
• St Albert's Day
• A Mattress on Wheels

I would suggest that in cases where lots of text is being smerged, that TTN (and others) leave such links in a central place, as a courtesy to editors who may wish to work on the removed material and provide sources. There are already talk page templates that call oldid numbers for featured articles - the same sort of thing could be done here. Would this be a workable compromise? The redirects would stick, but editors are pointed to older material to work from if they find sources. A similar principle applies at Category:Redirects with possibilities. Indeed, I would suggest that some template is used (if it doesn't already exist) to group the redirects into categories of: (a) Redirects from episode articles; and (b) Episodes of ABC. See Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects for more on how that works. Thus TTN (and others) would simply have to remember to put this template on any redirects they carry out, and they or others could create categories to hold the redirects, and lists (using oldids) to the episode articles in a "episodes with possibilities" page on the relevant WikiProject. People could then pick a particularly promising episode that they have several sources for, and work it up to a full article again. There are other ideas, but this one could, I think, help avoid the incessant drama, as it provides way for both sides to work together instead of revert warring. TTN and others would help ensure material with possibilities is not made too hard to find, and those wanting to work on episode articles would still have easy access to the text and a starting point for debates.

I know this proposal is not technically suitable for a request for arbitration, but I hope it helps to demonstrate that the community may be able to resolve this without a need for sanctions. Carcharoth (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: {{ER to list entry}} has been created and is starting to be used. I have notified User:TTN on his talk page. Other editors carrying out redirects should also be notified. Given that User:TTN has yet to take part in the ongoing discussions, I hope that the committee will note whether or not TTN and others modify their behaviour to use this template. This may provide a measure of how amenable the named parties are to changing their behaviour and/or participating in discussions, per the previous rulings. Carcharoth (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Further update: User:TTN has started using {{ER to list entry}}, and was already using {{R from merge}} (since when, I'm not sure). I am hopeful that this will improve things somewhat, as people can now more easily keep track of what has been redirected, and where work can be done to source notable episodes if needed. See Category:Episode redirects to lists for some examples of redirects placed in that category. Hopefully this will provide alternatives to the stale edit warring that was going on, and people can start to work on the notable episode articles again, while maintaining a record of the other episode articles. Carcharoth (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

statement by uninvolved editor DGG (talk)

With respect to actions, BOLDly redirecting a large number of pages on a fiction episode topic is without prior discussion is an obviously controversial action, and I think it at least bad manners to do it without prior discussion. Once it has been done though, i can not see that to revert it is improper. At that point obviously, it has to be discussed until the people involved reach some sort of consensus or compromise. (Personally, I'd like to see us eliminate BRD altogether and require discussion before any major action or edit. I doubt there's consensus for this, but it might cut down on the workload for the arb com and AN/I)

With respect to the the underlying issue, I definitely have my own point of view (which is that appropriate length subarticles are almost always the way to go, recognizing that the earlier unencyclopedic over-long ones are every bit as inappropriate as a bare redirect or an uninformative sentence. ). But I can not see how to achieve any consensus on my view or any other on this topic. Certainly quoting policy is not the point, for policy can change, and the argument here is that some want to change the policy to accommodate the way they think WP should be. What do we do if we have half one way and half another, and neither will compromise? Even if it turns out 2/3 - 1/3 on a major issue, (in either direction--I do not pretend to know what everyone thinks) that's a very sizable minority--and if they wont agree to live with the other view I think too much of a minority to say there's consensus on a general matter of this importance. I dont know it is the business of arb com exactly to resolve something like this, so perhaps we should view this as an informal appeal to them to act as mediators to prevent conflict that will escalate until it needs their intervention. If they decline to do this, or put this issue back on the community, I guess someone will have to be clever enough to propose a workable compromise, or await a decision by attrition. DGG (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ursasapien

I, too, am not suprised that this has ended up at ArbCom again. As has been noted, there have been some significant discussions and I think some headway toward consensus. Sadly, some of the "deletionists" have chosen to ignore discussion and have madly continued their campaign to "clean up" Misplaced Pages at super bot speed. When they are challenged, they say something like, "Guidelines are immutable consensus. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be assimilated (and redirected)." I believe, as others have expressed, that the only way to properly make a difference is to take a side. Either:

• A: TTN (for example, he is certainly not the only editor in this group) is completely right and should develop a bot to make this redirecting more efficient. He should ruthlessly redirect every television episode article on Misplaced Pages and AfD those that are disputed. He should be freed from the 3rr provision to allow enforcement of these redirects.

Or:

• B: TTN, et al, should be forced by threat of block to engage in discussion on each and every redirected article that is reverted. This discussion should include a reasonable effort to educate editors about current policies, a thorough look at any sources attempting to establish notability, a reasonable time period to allow for improvement, and an allowance for articles that show reasonable potential.

I think choice "A" will stop the edit wars and will lead to a massive exodus of editors from Misplaced Pages in favor of other venues. Our coverage of fiction will suffer and some of our readership will decrease. Choice "B" would most likely lead to the exit of TTN and, perhaps some other editors. However, if people were sent back to the discussion table, we might finally find a compromise the two ends of our community can live with. Ursasapien (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Note by Masem

I have created an RFC to try to open up the issue of what makes a TV episode notable to try to resolve the content aspect of this dispute without in the involvement of ArbCom, though there still may be need for their guidance if consensus cannot be reached. --MASEM 23:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Query by Radiant

I'm aware that the ArbCom doesn't decide content disputes. Although there are some conduct issues here, this would seem to be, at the core, a content dispute. Perhaps Misplaced Pages needs some new body of people to adjudicate content disputes? (or perhaps not, I can think of several pitfalls, but it can't hurt to think about it) >Radiant< 00:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved editor Maniwar

As I pointed out above, I initiated a central discussion in hopes of moving forward and coming up with a community solution. I would encourage this RfA to look specifically at TTN's actions because while many of the parties involved stopped redirecting and reverting to try and come up with a solution and take part in the discussion, TTN and a few others have ignored the discussion and been engaged in mass redirecting and total avoidance of trying to come to some community solution. This represents the sheer disregard and the attitude he has carried all along. Additionally, I would like to point out that much of the talk is that articles are deleted or merged or redirected because they have no sources or or 3rd party support. However, as TTN's history will point out, and as another user indicated above, many of the articles have substantial sourced support, yet they they are still wiped out. The actions of the editors must also be scrutinized in this case. I realize that some percussions may come back on me, however, if it benefits the community, I'm open to it. 00:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Jack Merridew as an involved party

I added Jack Merridew to the list of involved parties and notified him on his talk page. I now see that the page says "Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case." and his name should probably be removed. Is there some process that should be followed in order to name additional editors as involved parties? Perhaps in the Motions and requests by the parties section on the /Workshop page? I believe this editor is an involved party based on evidence I added to the /Evidence page. Shall I remove that evidence and make a request at /Workshop? --Pixelface (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed Jack Merridew from the list of involved parties, as I am unsure of the process. However, I have left the evidence regarding this editor on the /Evidence page. --Pixelface (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Impulsive, you are. First, that is not even a tv related page. Second, those are reverts of vandalism, primarily of clean-up tags. If you had looked into this a bit more you would have realized that there is a huge campaign of ongoing disruption of clean-up effort of D&D related articles involving many anons likely arriving per an off-wiki discussion on sites such as 4chan and a hoard of harassing and impersonating sockpuppets (see the checkuser cases). Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The general procedure is that a party can only be added to an opened case by motion to the arbitrators. Please create a motion on the workshop page, detailing your rationale in the "Comments by ..." section, and if one of the arbitrators agrees they may copy it to the proposed decision pages. At that point, should it reach the required number of votes to approve, the user would then be added to the list of parties and be appropriately notified. Daniel (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by WAVY 10 Fan

I feel somewhat mixed on this issue in that, I feel TTN should (at the sake of being civil if nothing else, send a warning to the person(s) editing the article in question and give a decent amount of time to find sources. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Query about temporary injunction

What about articles that are at AfD where the decision turns out to be delete or redirect? Black Kite 09:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad covered that query. It should be fine. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 10:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That comment by NYB did not cover his question. Black Kite, I asked the same question a while ago, but no Arbitrators clarified. So atm, it seems that articles already at AfD that result in delete cannot be deleted until the case is over. Such is unclarified bureaucracy. seresin | wasn't he just...? 19:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about injuction

Does it apply to articles nominated for AFD/redirected for reasons other than notability? e.g. I nominated the articles My Bad Too and Oceanic Six before the injuction was put in place, both for violating CRYSTAL (e.g. all of the text was pretty much speculation). Will 10:23, 3 February 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. that was a quote from newyorkbrad who I believe is an arbitrator. --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was if it was okay to nominate articles as long as notability isn't mentioned (not meaning to make a loophole). Will 12:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The injunction is horribly ambiguous and loopholed. But since you wouldn't "be applying a tag based on notability (the AfD tag is for WP:CRYSTAL)", nominating for such an AfD seems allowed, but if it results it a delete, it cannot be deleted until the case is over. seresin | wasn't he just...? 19:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My personal interpretation of that quote is that you shouldn't redirect, merge or delete an article unless a dicussion like AfD has taken place and even then you try and avoid starting any new AfDs, merge or redirection discussions until the arbitration is over. I agree that the injunction is a bit severe but if you think about it if things have escalated to a second arbitration I think some severe action is required not that I'm an arbitrator or anything. --Sin Harvest (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement By Uninvolved Editor Ferdia O'Brien

The simple fact of the matter is that due to the fact that WP:Episode isn't exactly precise in its nature, no one editor has the right to decide the value of large amounts of content, and certainly not the value of entire pages. It seems to me that the best solution to this would be to create WP:AfM, with the same basic setup as AfD but due to the less serious consequences of merging over deletion, perhaps the debates should last a shorter amount of time. ☯Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 15:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Insanely stupid injunction

A minority of the TV editing community edit warred and disputed with others over AfDs and merging/redirection, and arbcom thinks it's a good idea to force everyone to stop? No. Misplaced Pages doesn't work like that, and the idea is so incredibly horrible that I can't believe the four arbs that passed it are people that know how to turn on a computer. I'll be taking this up with the other members of the committee, asking that they oppose the injunction. Until that time, I strongly suggest to the community to pay the injunction no mind. This is a new low in complete and utter absurdity and stupidity on Misplaced Pages. -- Ned Scott 05:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)