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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"2.1) TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has made disputed changes on a massive scale and in an excessively aggressive manner, causing needless escalation of the dispute ([3], [4])." I think this gives an incorrect view. TTN has made disputed changes on a massive scale, obviously, but only "sometimes" in an excessively agressive manner", while most of the times his changes were made in a perfectly normal, civil, though perhaps at times a bit robotic manner (not accusing him of using a robot at all, just that at times he should look better at the individual articles). I would urge the members of arbcom to rewrite this finding of fact to make it clear that the "excessively aggresive manner" was not present in all or most of his edits in this dispute, but only in a limited number. Fram (talk) 09:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Or to put it another way, "fans" edit-warred if someone (TTN) brought information in line with existing policies and guidelines after a started merge discussion brought no results. Note that WP:V says, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. It's clear who added or restored material by reverting, and so by reverting the revert, TTN is just applying WP:V, while the others ignore it. If TTN has driven of editors, then that's unfortunate, but if these editors have found a new home where they can build a fansite to their taste instead of what wikipedia aims to be, an encyclopedia with at least some standard, then this is better for both parties. (Note that I'm a fan of fiction, but I am here first and foremost to build a great encyclopedia, as I think should everyone else.) – sgeureka ^t•c 12:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Actually, TTN has been edit warring. More specifically, he's been revert warring. You can see that with his edits on these history pages here [1] and especially here [2] where he violates 3RR at least twice. I'm planning to add it into evidence once I figure out how to do that. - Superlex (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

diff an 'oppose' to Editorial guidelines (5.1)

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

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

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

He's also wrong about little harm. If such articles are allowed to proliferate, they will — there are a near-infinite number of trivial subjects and editors have proven all too good at covering them. If a principle such it this is allowed to pass, it will serve to encourage a plague of such shite. Dealing with unencyclopaedic articles take time — too much time — and this time is that of other editors who did not create the problem. --Jack Merridew 10:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get the issue of "not just plot" and the potential harm of copyright infringement. However, "Dealing with unencyclopaedic articles" is an editorial choice. Yes, if one wants to dedicate themselves to this it will take much time, just as it takes much time for those who dedicate themselves to getting rid of non-free images and vandalism. It seems like some editors happily give themselves over to this task despite the sacrifice of time. TTN has devoted himself totally to this task and has, apparently, given up on all others. I do not think Wikimedia is under a huge threat of litigation and I do not see what is the harm if this clean up takes several decades. Ursasapien (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

an additional comment re editorial choice

It is not just the time of editors who choose to directly address this issue that I was referring to. Take typos, for example. Many editors fix typos on sight and when you have hoards of unencyclopaedic articles underfoot — such as all the Disney show articles that are mostly written by 12 years olds — there are huge numbers of typos, grammar issues, etc in addition to the unencyclopaedic nature of many of these articles. This is a burden on everyone who goes near these things and is probably a reason many avoid the area entirely. As this project has grown and continues to grow, the ratio of inexperienced editors to experienced editors only increases, so we are really talking about fundamental scalability issues. --Jack Merridew 11:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No time like the present. Seriously, if there's a problem, it is better to work to clear it up before it is more of a problem. In several decades there will be several billion trivial articles underfoot — unless the problem is addressed. --Jack Merridew 11:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that there is no time like the present. I do disagree that "in several decades there will be several billion trivial articles underfoot." The truly unencyclopedic articles will be addressed, just like other problems are (in a patient, thoughtful, process-oriented way). Ursasapien (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your impression may be completely mistaken in this point. You cannot cleanup the existing mess if you allow for the addition of an even greater mess (wikipedia becomes more popular each day and all). The longer we wait, the worse it gets, up to a point where everything collapses (i.e. where the few people trying to cleanup surrender to the incoming fancruft flood). – sgeureka ^t•c 11:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same thing they said when they created "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." I think you are mistaken in your impression that only a "few people trying to cleanup" WP. Where we differ is in the how. Despite it being discouraged by policy, I do not see a small group of editors mass-deleting trivia sections. I believe this is because despite being annoyingly unencyclopedic, they do no great harm. There is no WP:DEADLINE. Ursasapien (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that per WP:DEADLINE the articles we agree on should not even exist. --Jack Merridew 11:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... also, I interpret WP:DEADLINE to mean that there is no rush to get everything right, now, but that attempts should be made to address issues sometime. Pushing the addressing of underlying issues into eternity gets us nowhere. And if a topic deserves an article at all is a pretty underlying issue, and existing policies and guidelines are pretty obvious in this matter. Part of this arbcom case is whether these policies and guidelines may be enforced literally, after months and years of non-enforcement. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per proposed remedies: TTN is admonished to avoid overly aggressive campaigns to impose changes on articles, even when he considers those changes to be justified by previous consensus. I find stoats lurking behind this wording.

Either the systematic application of consensus policy is a good thing or else it is not. If arbcom tries to find a middle ground, I think nothing is solved here since it simply places us back where we started, with some added guff about civility, building consensus, etc....

While possibly falling against my own personal view, I concede it would be actually be preferable to conclude decisively one way or the other:

1. The systematic redirection of material which fails our prohibition on plot summaries and in-universe perspective should be avoided as disruptive, in which case campaigns of policy enforcement should be generally avoided. Editors who disagree can be directed to this arbcom case to understand why, even when content fails sitewide policy, undertaking policy enforcement in the wake of local resistance is disruptive (or choose a better term).
2. Actions to remedy the existence of content which contravenes consensus-driven policy is generally recommended. (Typically) local editors who disagree with the implementation of that policy can be directed to this arbcom case to find out why the persistence of such material is considered disruptive (or choose a better term).

While this arbcom case focuses on TTN, the fact is that there are a number of editors who share the general view that the proliferation of this content redounds very badly to the reputation of Wikipedia generally, and erodes its credibility as a repository for accurate and encyclopedic information. Thus, the decision by arbcom has wider repercussions and it would be helpful if a clear and direct finding be issued.

I fear this arbcom case will conclude along the lines of: TTN is doing a good thing in a bad way. In fact, in the tens of thousands of edits that have accumulated to TTN's efforts (and add in those of the others who have assisted), the vast majority, and I underline vast, have been civil and in-process, with careful edit summaries that direct editors to the consensus policies that inform the redirect. That occasional edit-wars ensue to make the policy stick is not surprising. But it would be salubrious to have clear finding in this matter, an up-or-down decision on whether campaigns to redirect articles that fail existing policies and guidelines are salutary or not. Eusebeus (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing or redirecting rather than referencing and improving the material only turns away contributors and readers. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your comment, I think there is already extensive evidence that editors have strongly divergent views; that is distinct from requesting a clear finding. Eusebeus (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I definitely agree that editors have extremely divergent views, which is why I would much rather err on the side of not discouraging them from working on what they are willing to volunteer time to work on. I am much more concerned with what those who spend a good deal of time contributing to the project think than the elite media's opinion of Wikipedia and its merits. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chalk you up behind option (1) then. Eusebeus (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not "share the general view that the proliferation of this content redounds very badly to the reputation of Wikipedia generally, and erodes its credibility as a repository for accurate and encyclopedic information", though my actions on the Friends episode list might have implied that. I just believe that allowing sloppy episode articles that can never be expanded beyond plot and a teensy bit of reception reduces the quality of well-written articles that have loads of info ("The Joy of Sect", for example). Please avoid using my name in these discussions, as I am not planning to join in (the funny section heading attracted me here). Brad (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think every instance of List of South Park episodes should be changed to List of The Simpsons episodes, an area I think TTN has been avoiding because it would be met with much resistance. I pointed out the The Seven-Beer Snitch article to TTN at Talk:List of Pee-wee's Playhouse episodes. On October 18, 2007, TTN said "[The Simpsons episodes] will eventually get their turn.", but that was nearly 2 months ago. I wonder if List of The Simpsons episodes will ever "get their turn" or if TTN will keep applying the episode criteria to shows he doesn't personally care for and avoid applying that criteria to shows he likes. --Pixelface (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Simpsons and South Park both have legions of loyal fans (and several episodes of shows are actually notable). TTN is just picking fruit from the low branches first. I think it does not matter when or in what order policy is enforced on these articles, it is just important that it is enforced. --Phirazo 21:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're both wrong, actually. The Simpsons episode articles have, to a lot of our surprise, shown far more potential than any other show on Wikipedia for having enough real-world information. It is unknown if every episode is notable, but at this point there is more than enough to assume it to not be a problem area for the time being. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EPISODE is not a policy. Once all the "low fruit" has been picked, TTN can just decide not to apply the same criteria to television shows he likes or television shows that are popular. TTN has had plenty of time to add a merge tag to the The Seven-Beer Snitch article (and other Simpsons episode articles) yet he has failed to do so. This makes me think that TTN is singling out television shows he does not like, and ignoring television shows he does like — a violation of the policy on neutral point of view. I mention List of The Simpsons episodes because I think if this decision mentions List of South Park episodes, the South Park episode articles will be the next target for the merge tag/redirect tactic. If TTN seriously thinks WP:EPISODE is all that important, List of The Simpsons episodes should be the next target. And then we will see editors coming out of the woodwork to talk about episode articles and how valuable WP:EPISODE really is. TTN should start with The Simpsons (season 16). --Pixelface (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You first sentence is factually accurate. The rest of your post is merely a massive assumption of bad faith. --Jack Merridew 10:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually just say that choosing to not work on some areas yet is a violation of the NPOV policy? I (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying the criteria of WP:EPISODE is clearly being applied inconsistently, leaning towards favoritism. Why give all 409 Simpsons episode articles time to develop yet redirect other episode articles? The Simpsons episode articles are allowed to slide on by, yet when it comes to other shows, suddenly it's a problem? Yes, there is a Simpsons WikiProject, but there is also a television WikiProject. There may be Simpsons episode articles that are featured articles, but that still leaves hundreds of episode articles that don't meet WP:EPISODE. If WP:EPISODE is going to continue to be cited, editors shouldn't be turning a blind eye to shows they personally like. Neutral point of view is expected of all editors. --Pixelface (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, your conclusion is not the direct result from the premise. There were probably tens of thousands of episode articles (and character articles), and work needs to start somewhere; there are still thousands episode articles. Favoritism is not the starting point, but a side effect. When/if this is all said and done (I know, WP:DEADLINE), favoritism will/should no longer be there, as all that matters is real-world information, which is obviously present and easier available for popular/well-known things. As for your second point, part of this arbcom case is that TTN is allegedly moving too fast, so someone wanting him to move even faster is not going to help the situation. You believe a merge/redirect discussion should be started for the Simpsons? Feel yourself encouraged to be WP:BOLD and start the discussion yourself. It's not TTN's job or anyone else's to do so when others want it to happen. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of no other reason why TTN has not targeted Simpsons episode articles. I know that TTN is aware of them. I told him two months ago. The Simpsons is the longest-running American sitcom and The Simpsons Movie grossed over half a billion dollars worldwide. And by TTN's standards, many, many of the Simpsons episodes articles should be redirects. TTN said "[The Simpsons episodes] will eventually get their turn." and it's been two months. I can no longer assume good faith about his actions unless the same criteria is applied to List of The Simpsons episodes, and soon. --Pixelface (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not blame TTN for the limitation you express in your first sentence above. That is not his fault. --Jack Merridew 10:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I should ask him myself. I'll go do that now. --Pixelface (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason not to do The Simpsons episodes immediately. Unlike many other series there is a wide range of resources including books with episode specific information. There is also a large group of editors making real improvement on the articles including getting them promoted to WP:GA, WP:FA and WP:FT status. There are so many episodes out there so why start with the ones that have potential when there are hundreds if not thousands that have nobody trying to improve them and no resources available to do so? He's aware of them. He says he'll get to them when he gets to them. If you think there's a problem with them then you can go start the discussion. It's not TTN's job to do this, he's a volunteer just like everybody else on Wikipedia and as such he can choose which articles he wants to work on. Also I think at one point WP:EPISODE had a note that where possible the show specific wikiprojects should be expected to evaluate their own articles but I can't seem to find that now so perhaps it was my imagination. Stardust8212 15:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in doing The Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park and Doctor Who until last because there is tons of production information from the first google search page alone. IIRC, The Simpsons in particular has somewhere upwards of 50 GAs and 10 FAs. Will ^(talk) 15:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So those episode articles should be given time to develop but every other episode article should be redirected as soon as possible? --Pixelface (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is worth noting, as an aside, that the profile of Wikipedia editors helps define both consensus and content. Just because it is an encyclopedia that everyone can edit doesn't mean that everyone does, of course. The overwhelming presence of young white male computer geeks means there is a strong bias in favour of content that this demographic favours, such as Simpsons, Dr. Who and anime. Don't forget the Anime. Eusebeus (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. White 16-35 American Male bias. Though throwing in animé complicates things, as I think that was TTN's focus first, as it's a lot harder to find conception history. Will ^(talk) 17:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]