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)[reply]

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 ^check) 05:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. [1].

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)[reply]

::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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Wikipedia's popular culture articles constitutes the world's single most useful Popular Culture Encyclopedia and every year it gets better. The Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia encyclopedia that contains all other encyclopedias. Don't try to destroy it. I suppose if some were editing Wikipedia in 2003, they would have put up the whole encyclopedia for deletion because at that time no article on Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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)

As to my own thoughts on the matter, I feel essentially the same as I did in the previous case: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].

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 Wikipedia, 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)

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 Wikipedia'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia is not imply, deny, or otherwise refer to the concept of "Wikipedia 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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:

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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" Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)

I added Jack Merridew to the list of involved parties and notified him on his talk page[12]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

This is as clear as mud. The pedantic interpretation of the AfD issue would be that any editor is still free to prod or open an AfD discussion, but any admin actually hitting the delete button would be subject to a warning followed by a block if they continued. I don't think this is the intent here, just that this is what it says. --Jack Merridew 10:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 10:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 12:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's incredibly overkill. It's as if these arbs are not even familiar with this editing community, or even the issues at hand. A small group of people having an issue has stopped valuable volunteer work dead in its tracks for the entire project. It doesn't make any sense, and certainly isn't based on any practical thinking. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^(T)/_(C) 15:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 05:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing, Ned? This all seems rather quixotic. Editors are being asked to wait before making changes to certain types of fictional articles. As you have told me, this "certainly isn't going to get glossed over, not with this many people following the issue." There will be plenty of time to work on these articles after we get clarification from ArbCom regarding the behavior in this case. Ursasapien (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the involved editors that are primary focus of this ArbCom Request, its the practice. Therefore, if its in dispute (again), it should stop until its been examined. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 05:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought TTN would react badly, but then again he's pretty patient. I'll agree the injunction is worded pretty harshly, but in practice I think it won't be as far-reaching as it suggests. People totally unrelated to this case will continue as they do on other pages, and likely no one will care. If the parties or commentators on this case do, then obviously trouble follows, but we know that already. The point remains that we had parties to this case just continuing on their behavior, and with TTN you have someone completely unwilling to even acknowledge the dispute. The injunction may be extreme, but it least it suspends the main parties from continuing unabated. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And they could have done that without applying this to the community at large. Arbcom has instructed admins to revert those editors who are unaware of this case, and who are going about as they normally would. -- Ned Scott 06:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have it wrong, Ned. The edict states, "Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction." First, it clearly states that a warning should be given before any blocking. Second, it states "administrators are authorized" not "adminstrators are expected." Ursasapien (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom can't force admins to work if they don't want to, that's all that means. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! ArbCom, in my mind, has tried to calm the waters while they are trying to work this out. You are choosing to stir the pot. I think this is the same behavior you critiqued in me. Ursasapien (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand me. There likely will be admins that, while they don't have to, will be glad to follow this to the letter and revert every such action they can see. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to calm the waters without closing the pool. My stirring has nothing to do with the actual dispute in this case, and is far more about a really bad judgement call for the Arbitration Committee. This is something people need to stir about, because it's something that shouldn't be acceptable from people we've chosen to serve on the Committee. If I were one of those four, I would be embarrassed about supporting this injunction. -- Ned Scott 07:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"People totally unrelated to this case will continue as they do on other pages, and likely no one will care." Not so. I'm not the only editor totally uninvolved in this case who's had a note on their talk page about it.[13] The maddening thing is that I was simply restoring tags that had been removed after the injunction, but now every time I put a {{notability}}tag on a article I have to double check here to see if the injuction has been expanded, lest I get slapped down, even though the tag might be exactly in line with current guidelines. --Fabrictramp (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia does not have a deadline, there is no urgent need to redirect or AfD articles during the duration of this case. Also, we need to keep the discussion civil. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why not just shut down the whole place every time a dispute breaks out? This could set an incredibly horrible precedent. It makes no sense to place an injunction on non-problematic situations, especially to the point of restricting things like tagging, or even being allowed to perform actions that do have consensus, even the really obvious consensus that no one disputes. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think tagging articles is problematic really, but some of the latest AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slaad, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kracko (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dyna Blade (Kirby) (2nd nomination), etc.) have been particularly biting and should be avoided for now. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. We asked TTN to use AfD when he was challenged on these things, and he starts to do it and gets punished for it? What? -- Ned Scott 07:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only when he thinks he can't outlast the other side. He still edit wars considerably beforehand, even when told in no uncertain terms to AfD a thing. This isn't so much a "shut down" as it is a "stall" for the disputed merging. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, TTN needs to stop doing that, which is why we are all here, but it doesn't need to effect unrelated parties who are preforming non-controversial actions for thousands upon thousands of articles. -- Ned Scott 07:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine fiction articles being merged so routinely (barring the efforts of those here) that this will present much of a problem. I say it's still too early to tell if this will go horribly wrong. At worst, people wait some time to merge things. Not a terribly big deal. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know that it won't be the end of the world, or anything close, but it's an incredibly stupid idea to prevent volunteers from preforming mostly-unrelated and non-controversial actions, and violates all sorts of core policies and values that Wikipedia has. -- Ned Scott 07:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another uninvolved editor here, who has to agree with Ned Scott. I made an uncontroversial redirect [14] of an article that was a duplicate of the already redirected article Doremi Harukaze, got warned, and came here to read about the injunction and others' complaints. It really is a sad day for Wikipedia when volunteer editors have their good faith efforts at improving the encyclopedia rejected on their face. Jfire (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dense[edit]

Aren't seven votes required for a majority? Hiding T 15:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")" for that section. Majority is 7 for the rest of the decisions? Perhaps I'm dense too. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What most bothers me is it passed seven minutes after the fourth support. I mean, okay, if that's how it is done that is how it is done, but that just feels wrong. Even motions to close need four net support votes but have to wait 24 hours before they are ratified to allow other votes. Here it was decided that seven minutes was adequate time for considered dissent? Is that typical and the norm? Hiding T 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still wondering: if one arbitrator opposes, will the injunction go away? --Pixelface (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this. Instructions from arbitrators were that, given the motion had been up for around five days, it could be passed straight after the fourth vote. Anyone who wanted to object had plenty of time to, given this injunction was mentioned on the mailing list so that arbitrators awere of it. The contradiction in policy was remedied by instructions both publically and privately, hence why I passed the injunction straight away.

As to the "one oppose": no, it will not. It will take a motion or an injunction to cancel the current injunction, with it achieving the necessary support and procedure (at least 24 hours since the proposal is made, in this case). I do not know whether it would be an injunction (requiring four net) or a motion (requiring the majority), as it has never happened yet to my knowledge. Daniel (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm personally at a loss to see how this becomes exceptional circumstances which would wave the usual observance of the 24 hour grace period after the fourth vote, but, as me ma used to say, it'll all come out in the wash. Hiding T 11:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that much more character and espisotes articles are being created in new page patrol, taking full advantage of the injuction, can the injuction be limited to creation as well, speedy on sight until the injuction is over. Thanks Secret ^account 15:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm just keeping a list of articles I need to revisit after a final decision is made. At that time I can tag / fix / merge as appropriate, based on whatever the guidelines wind up being.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't noticed "much more" character/episode articles being created because of the injunction. Do you have some examples? --Pixelface (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YMT-05 Hildolfr in which this injunction was discussed relative to a newly created (post-injunction) article about a gizmo in a cartoon. There is likely to be a great outpouring of reductionistic articles about unreferenced, non-notable microscopic aspects of every form of fiction while there is an injunction against deleting such articles. Edison (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Lawless fan's contribs, as they are rapidly making pages for every episode and minor character of Xena: Warrior Princess. Thanks to the injunction, the pages can't be redirected back to the episode and characters lists or outright undone. Hope someone else plans to go behind them and clean up their mess if/when this injunction is ever lifted. Collectonian (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is actually going to be achieved by this? Recent discussions, such as Wikipedia:Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability show the community to be pretty much split down the middle on the issue and it is doubtful that either "side" will accept an outcome that is not to their liking. Whilst I hold the highest regard for the arbitration committee and the work it does, the numbers and passions of the users involved here make it unlikely that any outcome one way or the other here would be left uncontested. Any compromise or third way would likely be pushed and twisted by individual users in order to encompass their original opposing views. The issue of television characters/episodes may seem trivial but the debate really pertains to many of the core style, inclusion and deletion guidelines and policies that govern all of Wikipedia; can the opinions of a handful of people - however well respected - really be used to change and enforce the general editing of Wikipedia on such a scale? It may be a slow and tortuous process but in the end a thousand individual AfDs and merge discussions are probably more likely to result in a truly accepted consensus among the community than anything that can be achieved here. Guest9999 (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have already had over a thousand individual AfDs and merge discussions followed by people getting frustrated with unending discussions and resorting to edit warring. I agree that this is a core issue that goes to the heart of what type of encyclopedia we wish to become. I agree that as the camps have become more polarized, they have become roughly equal in size and passion. I do not agree that there is not a third (or fourth) way, a common sense compromise that can be implemented. I do not agree that this will not be widely accepted by a majority of editors if it comes from the arbitration commitee. A huge part of the problem is that both sides claim de facto endorsement. If someone official says, "editors must behave like this . . ." editors will listen. Ursasapien (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're right, maybe I was being unduly pessimistic. Guest9999 (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Roe. "Consensus"? "ArbCom ruling"? I think not. This article was created when the injunction was looming to try and take advantage of it, and it's not the only one. This needs to be fixed quickly (and removing that template would be good start - it seems to imply that ArbCom have stated that these articles can't EVER be deleted, and at least one editor on that AfD has taken this to be true!).

Either that or the injunction needs to state that any episode articles created after the injunction are subject to possible deletion should they fail policy. I sat down this morning to try and pull that AfD backlog on February 10 right down, but that nonsense has kicked all the enthusiasm out of me. I'm going down the pub instead.Black Kite 12:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an assumption of bad faith to think that the article was created in order to "take advantage of" arbcom injunction; users may not be aware of what is going on here and they may go on writing new articles when they see fit. I don't see the AfD template implies anything like you mentioned, please feel free to propose changes to the template if you think it has led to misconception.

Newly-created articles are in no more urgent need of deletion than older ones; why exactly do you think the injunction has to changed so that users may get these articles deleted? --PeaceNT (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that there is chaos is not supported by the cited AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make an assumption on my part when you claim that I think none of these articles can be deleted. You know what they say about "assumption", don't you? JuJube (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Chaos"? I don't think so. Unless you can cite some evidence that MusiCitizen created that article because they somehow knew the injunction was going to be enacted, your suggestion is ludicrous. The article can't be deleted while the injunction is in effect (while this case is open). I suppose there could still be a consensus to delete the article — the actual deletion would just have to take place after this case is over. I suppose the AFD can be closed and relisted after this case is closed or the AFD could be continually relisted while the case is open. --Pixelface (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Missing the point. See below. Black Kite 22:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I would say that when an AfD has a massive great utterly misleading template slapped across it, which either incites users to !vote "Keep", or plain confuses the hell out of them, as it is obviously doing, then something is obviously wrong. Black Kite 19:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've modified the FICTWARN template, for what good it will do. Black Kite 19:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway the Arbcom can at least clarify the injunction? It is currently being used in deletion discussions and in contesting PRODS to oppose the deletion anything remotely related to TV shows, movies, video games, and the such. For example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of resident evil 4, an editor is interpreting the injunction to cover this article on weapons from Resident Evil 4, though I do not see how rocket launchers and rifles can be construed to be fictional characters. Again, at Wikipedia:RFD#Several_redirects_to__List_of_animated_television_series, editors are interpreting the injunction to cover a dozen or so articles having to do with animated television series, which are not in the least bit episodey and do not have anything to do with fictional characters. To give one more example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command Carrier (3rd nomination), the article in question, Command Carrier, regards a ship on a television show, not a fictional character, yet several editors are arguing this is covered by the injunction.

I propose there needs to be a clarification on this motion since it is being used more broadly than intended currently. Either the injunction needs to be expanded to cover all articles which are fiction related, which I hope that Arbcom will not do, or the Arbcom should issue a statement explaining that not all fictional articles are covered under the injunction, only those directly relating to fictional characters and television episodes. Thank you for your time in this matter. Redfarmer (talk) 12:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until we hear any more from the arbs, assume the wording to only mean what it says. In this case, it doesn't apply. If arbcom wants to clarify, they can, but we're not going to second guess them. This injunction was poorly defined, poorly thought out, and the very least we can do is damage control for this blunder. -- Ned Scott 12:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, the article on Resident Evil 4 weapons has now undergone a massive revision with a larger number of references added, including published sources, reliable secondary sources, assertion of notability added (Capcom made a trailer focusing on the weapons, GamePro had an article on just the weapons, and a one of a kind chainsaw controller was actually made for this game, etc.), I uploaded and added a photograph I took of the special controller, which I own, some of the writing has been improved, etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another one - this AfD was about a plot device in fiction - not a character or episode guide. Given that the user who added it was the excellent editor User:Haemo, it shows how confusing this is. Black Kite 01:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There have been numerous instances where the injunction has been invoked for fictional characters in books and podcasts. The way I read the injunction statement, it explicitly states for TV episodes or characters only. Please clarify. DarkAudit (talk) 21:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets take this matter back into our own hands. The community needs to define what is acceptable behavior when dealing with these articles, and we have the right to do so. This case is a mess, with overflowing rants on both the workshop page and the evidence page. The few smart things said on those pages are lost in a sea of madness. I think we should start an RfC, constructively define some boundaries, and come back to present our findings to arbcom. We'll do the leg work for them, and I think they would be likely to endorse something we came up with. They're volunteers, this case is a headache, and it's no surprise they haven't been very active on it.

So unless anyone wants to just stand in limbo for a few more weeks, let's make a plan. -- Ned Scott 12:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll endorse a RfC with you. The injunction is a mess and is being used in cases it was obviously never intended for. Redfarmer (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. This needs fixing. Black Kite 12:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think the injunction is not a terrible idea per se, its lack of (any!) official clarification and the extend of its (mis-)application in the last two weeks also makes me want to "take this matter back into our own hands". If you (arbcom) cannot handle this alone, please let other editors help you so that we can at least return to the non-controversial cleanup. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The injunction deals with controversial actions that few consider "cleanup", so I don't know what you're talking about. --Pixelface (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am specifically talking about the injunction's disruption at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command Carrier (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 13#Kressler → List of Stargate SG-1 episodes#Season 9, cases where its current wording does not apply, but people apply it nevertheless. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also should be addressed that there are some editors, including at least one admin, who are advocating the arbitrary closing of AfD discussions which do fall under the injunction simply because they fall under the injunction. My interpretation is that the injunction was not meant to halt discussion at appropriate venues like AfD but simply to prevent edit warring that is involved in this case. Redfarmer (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly arbitary closing; currently they are being re-listed every five days, even if there is non-Keep consensus on them. Why just not close them all as no decision and then re-open them again after an ArbCom ruling? Especially as ArbCom are hardly going to change the rules upon which AfD is based, i.e. policy? Black Kite 16:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what the community as a whole wants to do, then so be it. But it is nowhere indicated in the injunction that AfDs should be closed in such a manner so a consensus should be reached before we advocate doing it. Redfarmer (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very pessimistic on the use of an RFC in this case. Ned Scott, what reason do you have to believe that the RFC page will be any different from the evidence and workshop pages here? User:Krator (t c) 15:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A clean start with a focus on the core issue (regardless of who did what): acceptable editor behavior when dealing with fiction cleanup. -- Ned Scott 01:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that something needs to be done. The arbcom hasn't bothered to clarify the injunction even when questions were raised before it passed. So yes, we should do so. seresin | wasn't he just...? 18:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried asking the active arbitrators on their talk pages? --Pixelface (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. That's why I took a step back a couple of weeks ago. I've been keeping an eye on the pages, but it just got too much seeing the same arguments being rehashed time and time again. Astronaut (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there already is an RFC going on at WT:EPISODE. If you want to see what's considered acceptable behavior, see my evidence — particularly the articles that have existed for 4, 5, or 6 years. That's better evidence than any "guideline." --Pixelface (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That RfC is about our guidelines. What I was proposing was to address editor behavior and conduct, regardless of the topic or who actually did what. Since Kirill Lokshin has started making proposals, it might not be needed, but I saw such an RfC as a way to help speed the process of the case. Allowing us to take a fresh start, address the concepts and not the hotly debated history, behind the behavior, is still probably a good idea, regardless of what happens in this case. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see some aspects of the injunction has been brought up. There is one however that needs a look with regard to this AfD.

The long and the short is that it is an article on a comic book character that includes a section on the adaptation of that character for 2 television series. The injunction was cited as a reason for a "speedy keep". Is this the intent of the injunction or is it aimed at articles solely, or primarily, about television characters?

- J Greb (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a RFC regarding the temporary injunction so the community can attempt to reach a consensus regarding this issue. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Request for Comment. Redfarmer (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately an RfC like that won't really do us much good at this point. What we need is to help resolve the case, so that the injunction can also end. -- Ned Scott 01:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [15] where Dortftrottel seems to have twice removed content from an episodes list, and then nominated it for deletion as empty, in direct violation of the injunction. another editor reverted him; he removed the material again, andi have just reverted him again. DGG (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dortftrottel has shown me that the article was started on Feb 17, and is therefore technically not covered by the injunction, and I have apologized to him--for I had not noticed this. DGG (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are ALL episode related article suppose to be kept? Ugly Betty (season 3) was just closed as keep despite the fact that the ONLY verifiable information is that there will be a 3rd season. We don't know when any of the episodes will air, how many episodes, any of the storylines, and of the cast members. Nothing except that the season will happen. If this was a movie article, it would easily be deleted. Because of this ridiculous arb com ruling (which I strongly disagree with and hope gets removed ASAP), some people are scared to delete TV episode and character related articles for any reason (even if they easily fail policies like WP:V). So can they still be deleted if it's for failing WP:V instead of WP:N? BTW, if someone could respond on my talkpage as well it would be appreciated since I don't know when I will check back here. TJ Spyke 09:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can't to use the Arbcom injunction as a reason/argument for keeping an article. The discussion for whether or not an article should exist should occur as normal but if the discussion produces a delete/merge/redirect result then the discussion is kept open and the article be deleted/merge/redirected only after the Arbcom ruling. In summary the arbcom injunction is suppose delay the delete/merge/redirection of articles for episodes and characters and not force a result. -Sin Harvest (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So even if an article is in such terrible shape like the example I provided can't be deleted until the Arbcom lifts this injunction (which they don't seem to be too eager to do anytime soon)? So if somebody went ahead and created 1 sentence stubs for hundreds of TV characters, those hundreds of articles can't be merged or deleted until this injunction is lifted? I can see why other people disagree with this injunction. I fully support lifting this injunction or at least allow case by case exemptions. TJ Spyke 13:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it only applies to articles created before the injunction was passed. New articles are fair game for AfD, PROD, Speedy, etc. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 15:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, that means the pitiful excuse of an article on Ugly Betty season 3 can't be deleted even though it's obvious that it should be since it was created on January 28 (which was before the writers strike was started, so it should have been deleted at that time for being nothing more than a rumor). TJ Spyke 03:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had planned to re-create separate articles for three Death Note characters (Light Yagami, L (Death Note), and Misa Amane) once I found an English version of Death Note: How to Read 13. The book gives specifics of character creation, characterization, etc. and so it would add a lot of real world information to the articles. Previously the articles were redirects to List of Death Note characters. Awhile ago I tried making separate articles with just character plot info but that was redirected since there was no real world info.

So, once the book came out in English I created the articles AND added information from the book's artist about how and why he created the character designs, but User:TTN reverted them back into redirects and cited the injunction created.

As I am an administrator, do I need to ask the Arbcom for permission to create the three articles WITH the new character design and development information?

• For context see: User_talk:WhisperToMe#Death_Note_characters, User_talk:TTN#Light_Yagami, and User_talk:IronGargoyle#Injunction

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the edits more carefully, I notice that WhisperToMe added a significant amount of real-world content to the articles in question. This differs from simple un-redirection (cf. CSD G4) and thus TTN is not only in violation of WP:GAME (which is what I warned him for), but also direct and deliberate violation of the arbcom injunction. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The injunction doesn't say "only un-redirect if there is real world information". It says they may not be unredirected until the case is over. seresin | wasn't he just...? 22:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, real world information from the creator on how they were created does not establish notability for the creation or recreation of the articles. Notability comes first. Collectonian (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it can be enough, Collectonian. If there is enough real-world information added that would make a large main article too large or distracting, the character article may be separated into a new article as per Wikipedia:FICT#Summary_style_approach_for_sub-articles. In addition real world information through third parties is fine too. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of creator's comments as establishing notability is an issue, discussed at both WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE; the general consensus when it was brought up is that this is very careful water that has to be treaded, as both WP:V and W:N require "third-party sources", and a creator's commentary is not such. WP:N adds that primary sources should not also be used for notability, so that a third-party guide is not appropriate either. It's also generally accepted that lists of characters may be pulled out by summary style and not have to demonstrate notability (being a sub-article), but an individual character needs to establish notability on its own to be spun-off. But again, both above guidelines are in discussion still, and part of the reason why we're here in the first place is that they were (and may still be) disputed when this ArbCom case stated. --MASEM 00:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to add, the guideline about "Summary style approach" was intended for characters who were judged as not notable on their own... "A sub-article on a single non-notable character" ... - And to add the character design information book was published by Shueisha (the same company that published the series) so there was editorial insight over the comments made by Obata and Ohba. Also, when a statement might be questionable or in the bounds of opinion, adding a "X says" or "Y says" may do as one can honestly say "So-and-so said X" and not so much "X is the truth." WhisperToMe (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That book is what I've been calling a 1.5 source: it is not quite primary, it is not quite secondary, generally reflecting the creators' comments on their work some significant time after the creation of the work, and (as exampled) not directly published by the creator. I'm not saying these have been accepted as satisfactory sources for notability, but if such exists, there's likely a secondary source to corroborate the notability.

But to the case in point: I would recreate those in your userspace and await the end of the ArbCom case, allowing others to help get them nice and ready to be added or fixed, pending any other decisions. --MASEM 00:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll do that :) WhisperToMe (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering such information is a welcome, and much needed, addition to the main article as part of its production section, the excuse of summary style does not realyl work well. Collectonian (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I do in mainspaces is typically use creator comments that reflect the entire work. With characters I use information applying that specific character. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For manga, creator comments on specific characters can, and often do, relate to the entire work. It is valuable information we'd like to see in the main article, unless/until the main has so much production information (rare), that it would then be good/appropriate to break out extensive character stuff into the list of, or if still too long, individual character articles. Collectonian (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Note: How to Read 13 is an entire book with production information, some 4-koma, and a pilot chapter, so I think I have enough to branch out the information :) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else think it would have been more productive for TTN, Jack Merridew, etc.; to have actually done some digging to find reliable sources for some of the articles in question instead of simply tagging and/or redirecting at the drop of a hat? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would absolutely benefit the project much more if editors spent more time helping add reliable sources. I cannot even think of how many articles I have saved from deletion due to the references I found during AfDs that would not have even needed to occur had the nominators conducted the same searches I did. As you can see from these diffs, though, Ned Scott is willing to be open-minded and so I would not lump him in with TTN. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Digging for reliable sources is wasted time if no non-obscure sources exist. Anyway, WP:BURDEN already takes care of this. (2) When I start work on a popular article that I want to take to GA, I regularly cut about 70% of the current plot/trivia/original-research content, and then still have to spend a considerable amount of time to copyedit the poor prose. If summary style is observed, then the summary in the main article is often already better written and just as concise as necessary, which I can expand on. I.e. it is often just as much work to start new than to cleanup, but you will only know afterwards. Cleanup becomes impossible if you (general you) disallow tagging and being bold. So I'd answer your question with "no". What Grand Roi said above is one of the reasons why I only AfD articles that I think are lost cases anyway, and I prefer merging/redirecting instead. But TTN's AfDing isn't really the issue of this case. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(to WAVY 10 Fan) Uh, what? While I am sticking up for TTN on many issues, I am not endorsing the level of force that was used. And far more often than not I have looked for sources more than redirected/merged/AfD'd. -- Ned Scott 00:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies issued. Also edited original comment (think another editor using similar tactics to TTN was Jack Merridew). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I almost agree with sgeureka , but actually it is not that "Digging for reliable sources is wasted time if no non-obscure sources exist.", it's precisely when when the obscure sources exist that it's needed, and the time or an AfD is inadequate. He's right though that a large part of the problem is the poorly written plot sections: it is by no means as easy to write as some of our contributors imagine, who think that transcribing the video back into a narrative version of a screenplay is of encyclopedic value--or, equally, those who think that a TV-guide style teaser is enough to provide actual information (rather than being, as indeed they are, carefully designed not to provide information). Either a moderately long or a moderately short explanation can be understandable, if done right--the appropriateness of each depend on both the necessary complexity of the story and the importance of the series. DGG (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that the semi-recent proposals by Kirill [16], and additional activity by Morven [17] meant that my previous proposal wasn't really necessary, and that we would be concluding sometime soon. Unfortunately, there's been no activity since then, and I'm still very concerned about this case not getting to the core of the issue: what to do in a dispute of this nature, regardless of who's right or wrong, regardless of who you are. I'm starting to think it might be wise to just explore this, even if shortly after I make this post there is some more activity.

We've all lost focus in this case, including myself, and we need a clean plan of action that gets to the core of the issue. As frustrated as some of us have gotten, we need to approach this objectively. Any help in trying to plan this would be great. I'll try to draft some sort of structured RfC in a sandbox later tonight or tomorrow. -- Ned Scott 04:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This case does seem to be a lengthy one! Hasn't it been going on for over a month now already? Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of my major frustrations, the application of the injunction in non-character and non-episode fiction-related AfDs, seems to have waned somewhat, so I can live with what we currently have. I am still holding out to see some arbcom activity like with Kirill so that we can see the end of the tunnel again. Because of the lack of transparancy, I have no way of knowing if arbcom is busy discussing behind closed doors, but as they have not replied to any input from non-arbcom members, I am no longer sure if even RfCs would achieve something. Maybe I just lack imagination, and Ned has some holy-grail ideas for the RfC... Excuse my pessimism, I hope it's just temporary. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My idea is to present solutions that the community feels would be effective, and to do so by focusing just on the concepts rather than the who and what. Basically "We did the work for you, it's a great idea, sign here". But again, we can only get that done if we are able to focus on the core issues, rather than the grudges. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been open for well over a month now (just 10 days short of two months), and it seems like the discussion has slowed to a standstill. Frustrating still is that ambiguity in the language has allowed this injunction to be broadly interpreted to apply to any article remotely connected to a fictional character, with they be on television or not. When will this injunction close? Because this single case is causing disproportionately large ripples across the wiki. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its in the voting stage, but one vote short of closing :( Collectonian (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a slightly different approach, I'm unfamiliar with the whole ArbCom process. What's the proper outlet to vent opinions that amount to "I don't think this is really helping"?

Well, any of the talk pages I suppose. But the ArbCom hasn't really considered anything at all said here, and it's going to close soon (if there is any mercy in the world) so there's not really much point in doing so. seresin | wasn't he just...? 19:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If ArbCom isn't considering anything said here, then I am really confused as to why this single issue is taking almost two months to solve. I'm not trying to tell everyone to rush the process, but seriously now, it seems like this case has been trying to deal with issues that go far beyond it's scope, and has been too ambitious to the point of exhaustion. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any place to report admin's who are improperly closing AFD's while citing this injunction? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Tokyo Mew Mew was speedy kept by User:Nihonjoe despite the fact that there is a template saying that AFD's that would results in a delete or merge should just stay open. When another editor and I both pointed out that what the admin did was wrong, he basically said some BS about not wanting to clog up the AFD system. Can the AFD be manually re-opened or do we have to go through the annoying deletion review process when the admin was clearly in the wrong here? TJ Spyke 17:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "improper" because no-one really knows what the injunction really meant, and no-one should get punished for interpreting it differently than others. Just re-open/re-start the AfD in a few days (tomorrow?) when this case is closed. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, since no one seems to know anything about this injunction, we could close the injunction and proceed normally once again. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, unless they changed their minds, the injunction is going to close tomorrow.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, it was snowballing toward keep as it was. Stop getting all uptight about an obvious non-issue, TJ Spyke. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no finding, I take it that means we can undo the deletion of pages we feel should have been kept? I really don't want to get another war started. --Flash176 (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a very rash assumption; please do not go there. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have elaborated a little bit more. The pages I want to reinstate, about 4 or 5, were deleted by TTN with no warning right before this whole thing started. Like I said, though, I don't want to start anything right back up and make people think that just because I did it then it's ok to start bringing back everything.--Flash176 (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about undeleting fiction sub-articles that did nothing but consist of original research (WP:NOR), retell the plot (WP:NOT#PLOT), had no reliable sources (WP:RS) and thus failed the fiction notability guideline badly (WP:FICT), and you don't fix these things soon, it is very likely that the articles will be redirected again. So the answer is: you can undelete the pages, but you shouldn't unless you address the concerns leading to redirection. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TTN requested the article to be merged on the AfD.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is allowed to comment in support of a merge. He is only restricted from initiating such proposals, or carrying them out. seresin ( ¡? ) 18:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not to alert of any bad action, but to note that there is currently an RFC to determine if the proposed version of WP:FICT (a key guideline behind this decision) has global consensus, as per the second remedy given by ArbCom. --MASEM 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Kww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked for a week on April 27)
• Rlevse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocking admin)

Statement by User:Kww[edit]

The decision text is : TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate.

TTN was blocked for one week today, for edits that did not violate a single term of the restrictions from his arbcom enforcement. "Broadly interpreting" [18] and [19] as substantially amounting to a merge or deletion is a broad interpretation beyond all reason.

Can TTN still edit character articles to bring them in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Or is any edit that removes material from a character article capable of being broadly interpreted as a deletion?Kww (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure I'm understood ... I'm not concerned about applying the decision to video-game characters. I'm objecting to the idea that taking an article that was in truly miserable shape and fixing it substantially amounts to a merge or deletion.Kww (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to expand a bit here, and register my objection to the term of his latest block as well. Recapping his first block: I agree that the tantrum that starts every time TTN edits an article is disruptive, but he is not the source of the disruption, his opponents are. He was blocked for editing Final Fight:Streetwise. He was criticised for removing about 80% of one of the cruftiest articles around, and turning it into a reasonable video game article. He made three different passes at it, and was reverted by Zero Giga and an anonymous IP. Each pass made an effort to address the previous concerns. This editing was broadly construed as requesting a deletion, so he got blocked for a week. Black Kite shows up a few days later, and, instead of removing 80% of the article, only removes 65% of the article. Not a peep. None of the editors that so cheerfully reverted TTN's edits wholesale found a single line of Black Kite's edits to object to. The only conclusion I can reach is that the editors that were reverting him were not motivated by the material: they were motivated by the fact that it was TTN that had made the removals. Now, in such a situation, what is the appropriate action for an admin to take? It's to go have a chat with the editors that reverted the change, and make sure that they are undoing the change as opposed to undoing the editor. Instead, admins looked at the arbcom decision, and stretched the interpretation of "deletion" well past its breaking point, and blocked TTN for a week. Notice that the Arbcom sanctions called for blockages increasing to a week in the event of repeated violations. Even if this edit had motivated a block, a week is complete overkill ... they reached for the biggest hammer in their toolkit as the first step.

Now, TTN has been blocked for two weeks, based on the perception that he is repeatedly violating his sanctions. His offending edit was to the Fiction Noticeboard. The community is reasonably split as to whether this falls under the restriction of "project pages" or under the freedom of "free to contribute on talk pages". I can see both sides, and think clarification is warranted. Still, worst case is that it is his first offense, and an offense that reasonable people can see as not an offense at all. For this, he was blocked for two weeks, despite the fact that the maximum sanction in the Arbcom decision is one week.

I think that not only is clarification needed, but a strong statement is needed that the phrase "broadly interpreted" does not mean "block TTN at the drop of a hat". I sense that there is a group of admins that have decided that the easiest way to end the controversy is to simply block TTN at the time that any dispute involving him occurs. Sanctions against an editor are a serious thing, and, in order to be meaningful, but be subject to reasonable interpretation. Editing articles cannot be interpreted as "requesting deletion", and "up to one week for repeated offenses" cannot be reasonably interpreted as "two weeks". Kww (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be too much to ask for an arbitrator to take the time to read my complaint and respond before banning me? Kww (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So nice to be appreciated. How many arbitrators have to vote for the topic ban in order for it to become binding?Kww (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have some clarifications, please?[edit]

This section is intended to be a place where previous decisions are clarified, not extended. You wrote piles of different variations of different sentences. Thought them over. Voted on different versions. Subtleties of different text were weighed, evaluated, and then chosen, based on their merits. Not a one of you really thought that when you selected TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. from all of the other choices that that text meant TTN and Kww should be topic banned. In good faith, none of you can claim that it meant TTN should be blamed for all conflicts that arise, and blocked at a rate greatly exceeding the specified enforcement. Even if those things are what you wanted to say, they are not what you said. If the community was requesting you to amend your previous cases, we would have made statements under Request to amend. No one has done so.

So, time for clarifications:

• At the time that you wrote TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly, did you intend for the noticeboards to be included as a project page?

• At the time that you wrote TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly, did you intend for TTN to be banned from trimming articles?

• At the time that you wrote He is free to contribute on the talk pages, how did you intend for that to interact with request for any of the preceding in the previous statement? Does his freedom include requests for deletion? Or not?

Please answer those questions. That's all this section is for. What you think of the situation now is interesting, but for another place. What you wish you had thought of is interesting, but again, for another place. What you think of my attitude is interesting, but, again, for another place. This is a place solely for clarifications, so, please, please, please, give us clarification.Kww (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rlevse[edit]

Over the last week TTN has removed over 80% of the "Final Fight: Streetwise" article 3 times, which TTN claims are trimming and cleaning up, yet in fact whole paragraphs were removed, such as here. In the Mario characters, which have also been on TV as best I recall, he removed entire paragraphs, as here. Similar issues were brought here at AN. As video games are very similar to TV, they often appear on TV in some form, and the fact that this problem was evident during the arbitration hearings, and the ruling says "broadly interpreted", and TTN seems to be pushing the envelope, the need for a block was apparent to me.

An unblock was declined and supported by others.

Response to Kww's clarification...I'd have to say that removing whole sections, paragraphs, and 80% of an article amounts to deletion. This is not "trimming and cleaning up". Further consider that the remedy also said "The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question." This seems to have been clearly violated by TTN too. There has been no chat at Talk:Final Fight: Streetwise for a year. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRBerry[edit]

I will be pleasantly surprised if the editors in this area manage to avoid another full ArbComm in the near future. The issues are not specific to TTN; one example is shown by this archived WP:AE report. In my view, problems exist in the behavior of both factions. It seems ridiculous to consider discretionary sanctions for this topic area; these editors should be able to work together to find consensus if they choose to. But if they don't choose to, we may have to end up with discretionary sanctions. GRBerry 13:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TTN[edit]

Can I please get some sort of clarification on what exactly I can do and cannot do? Can I cleanup articles by removing information? That's that's what I was initially blocked for. Can I revert at all? Edit warring is bad, but to have a block sustained because of two reverts (where one revert is a anon with a non-static IP) seems a little steep without some sort of restriction on that in the first place. Can I suggest that things be merged on talk pages of users, projects, and other articles? I assumed that the restriction was towards templates, but I was scrutinized for doing so. Can I point out bad articles? I guess I wouldn't ask one user single again, but can I just post a list of "problem articles" on a project talk page or the Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard, and let them take care of it? If this could be responded to quickly, that would be appreciated. TTN (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sjakkalle[edit]

I am not exactly sure where to put this statement, since there are already two requests for clarification here, but I want to register my concerns here.

I have a deep concern that the ArbCom's admonition The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. is not being followed at all. Let's see.

First, "Cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question." (The redirection and unredirection of episodes and characters with little or no discussion is still taking place.)

Second, "...attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute.". Since the E&C2 case closed, I have seen at least two instances of parties from that case use the term vandalism. (And I have not been actively searching for these, there are probably more, from both sides of the dispute)

• Kww at 14:00, 1 April 2008 Regarding authors of fiction/fancruft articles: "I would happily treat people creating such articles as vandals, as opposed to editors". (After looking at E&C2, I see that Kww is not listed as a party, but since he initiated this clarification, and supportive of TTN, I think he is de facto party to it.)
• Eusebeus at 03:06, 6 May 2008 restores a redirect, calling the undoing of the redirect "vandalism". (And there are two more, here and here.)

I cannot imagine anything more inflammatory than calling the "other side" of the dispute "vandals".

This has got to stop.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding Kww[edit]

When I listed Kww in my statement, it was not an attempt to single him out in particular. The reason I added it was that the statement struck me when I saw it as something highly inappropriate, and an indication of how low the "discussion" had sunk by this time.

However, I want to say that Kww is not by any means the worst offender in the FICT debate, his work in removing or consolidating fictional topics has to my knowledge not included edit-warring or massive swathes of deletion nominations or redirects. Indeed, I have no problem believing MartinPhi when he says that Kww has been able to work and contribute constructively on certain fiction articles.

I have no problem with Kirill's dismay at seeing the comparison between vandals and fiction editors, I continue to think that this particular diff was very inappropriate, and it was one which hit me quite close to home. There is a discussion between Kww and myself on my talkpage, and if I understood Kww correctly, his remark was directed against editors who add fiction with no sources, and edit war to keep it in. Calling this "vandalism" remains inappropriate, but I don't think he directed the accusation at all fiction writers in general. I don't know whether this diff is representative of Kww's attitude either, he assured me in the discussion on the talkpage that he was careful not to call any editor a vandal directly, and he also took time out to caution another editor that restoring redirects with an accusation of "vandalism" in the summary would only lead to trouble [20].

I am not going to tell ArbCom how to handle their cases, but when evidence presented by myself is used as basis for a sanction, I will state my opinion that I think issuing a topic ban for what amounts to one diff over six weeks ago is an overreaction. If this were an example of behavior from a person otherwise engaged in edit-warring in this conflict, I would probably be in support of something like this. I can understand an impatience that continued incivility and edit warring after two ArbCom cases is wearing the tolerance very thin here. If the ArbCom can find a way to send a very clear and unequivocal message that calling anybody in this dispute a "vandal" must cease, without perma-banning Kww from fiction topics, that will be much more preferable. Yes, I know there were two admonitions from two previous ArbCom cases, but I don't think Kww's single inappropriate comment has rendered useless all further input from him in this conflict. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding TTN[edit]

My sympathy with TTN is at zero now. A look at List of Mario series characters shows a number of edits where TTN removes a little bit of content from the article, calling it "trim", most recently here, with no explanation given for this "trim". And this is not only unquestionable trivia he is removing, he has been removing content about which games the characters have appeared (isn't that relevant to the character?) like "Princess Rosalina also appeared as a hidden character in Mario Kart Wii". This seems to be an effort to slowly tap the list of content in a way which does not attract attention. Also on List of Sonic X episodes, this edit, which the edit summary claims to be "Set up basic table", is far more drastic that setting up a table, TTN actually removes all the description of the episode, and again this is without any discussion on the talkpage. Another "trim" on List of Kirby characters here didn't just trim the section on the characters Mr. Shine & Mr. Bright, it removed them.

I feel this is at the very least a skirting of the edges of the ArbCom restrictions. If the right to merge, redirect, or nominate for deletion is taken away, just move on to aggressive "trimming" instead. The proposed sanction from ArbCom on TTN, as opposed to the sanction on Kww, which I have opposed in the above section, is in my opinion, completely in order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lawrence[edit]

Can we place get AC action on this? It's starting all over again: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_review_of_2_week_block_of_User:TTN. I know you guys are busy, but this appears to be now a critical case and clarification action is needed. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite[edit]

Whilst using the term "vandals" to describe editors who repeatedly create multiple policy-failing articles on the back of the previous ArbCom decision is probably excessive, I'd certainly go as far as to use "disruptive". Topic-banning editors who attempt to balance policy against those creating reams of unencyclopedic articles (and then descending en masse onto any AfD which occurs with masses of WP:ITSNOTABLE non-!votes) is certainly a good way of reducing the quality of this alleged encyclopedia, which becomes less and less of one every day that such articles continue to multiply. It is time for ArbCom to realise that there are two sides to this dispute, and stop listening - as has happened so far - only to those that shout the loudest. If ArbCom actually wants to improve the quality of our articles, they either need to throw this proposed sanction in the bin, or add about another half-dozen users to it. Where are the sanctions for those that edit-war on policy pages, flood AfD with wikilawyering or revert TTN and other editors even when they are editing in line with policy?. Nowhere, it appears. I am astonished that at least two arbs (so far) appear to have looked at a few incidents yet not at the bigger picture. This is a ridiculous proposed sanction, especially on User:Kww who appears to be targeted for a single frustrated edit. Black Kite 22:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill's quote here User_talk:Ned_Scott#TTN of "his (TTN's) reputation is such that anything he does will likely be reverted regardless of its merits—so all he's doing is needlessly antagonizing the editors supporting this material" - makes it clear that he is supporting topic-banning an editor because those with opposing views continually revert him especially as those editors reverting TTN are usually reverting against policy. I had to read this a number of times before I was sure he was serious. Black Kite 10:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ned Scott[edit]

TTN got recently blocked because he honestly did not think his restrictions meant that he wasn't able to start a thread on a project notice board, myself and several other Wikipedians in good standing were under the same assumption. That's not gaming the system or pushing the limit, that's nothing more than miscommunication. TTN even pleaded with you guys to get some guidance, and arbcom ignored the request for clarification for weeks. Now Kirill comes out of no where with a complete and total ban proposal? That's a horrible idea. TTN has been behaving very well, and hasn't been doing anything wrong. The flames seen are nothing more than the left over feelings from the past, not because of things that are happening now.

And Kirill comes completely out of left field with a proposal to ban Kww, who hasn't even had any kind of RfC or mediation, or focus of any kind in the last two cases. It's like swinging around blindly, smashing furniture and breaking walls, just to put out a candle. Take off the blindfold and put down the bat. I personally would do anything (within my human abilities as a Wikipedian) to get arbcom to reconsider this, and to actually look at the situation instead of the white noise. The fact that these proposals are even being considered is a very scary thing, and shakes my faith that arbcom can be fair and reasonable. -- Ned Scott 02:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And no one even notes stuff like this. Please, I beg all of the arbs to not make assumptions here. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like some more eyes on this: User talk:Ned Scott#TTN. Kirill's logic is that even if TTN isn't doing anything wrong, because of his reputation people will revert and argue with him, so Kirill wants to remove TTN by force. That seems very inappropriate to me. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Casliber[edit]

TTN (and others) have had a year or more of multiple reports at AN/I and arbcom etc. to stop behaving like single-purpose content removal accounts, sending all and sundry scurrying about to ref or remove material, plainly not in the spirit of collaborative editing of a volunteer project. Some have shown valued roles and abilities in other areas, some haven't. I can't comment on KWW as I have not examined his edit details but am happy that he can think independently on some issues (we swapped sides on Jack Merridew's ban after all), which is a good sign. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By Martinphi[edit]

Could you make an exception for What the Bleep do We Know?. Kww was one of those who was able to work toward NPOV on that article. He wasn't perfect, but he did manage it, and he was also a moderating influence on other editors of his own general opinion. Might need him there again. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie[edit]

So ArbCom is going to compound their mistakes by dropping further "clarifications" on an issue that has already seen the other side turn ArbCom's words into pretzels in an attempt to run "the other side" off the encyclopedia? I can't say as I agree with the suggested outcome. SirFozzie (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vassyana[edit]

I recently blocked TTN for what I felt was an outright violation of his restrictions, compounded by what I perceived as pushing the boundaries (or moving against the spirit) of the sanction. I unblocked him when he agreed to refrain from initiating any merge/redirect/etc discussion and avoid asking others to act on his behalf, until such a time as ArbCom responded to these clarification requests.[21][22] There was some discussion of the block on my talk page, as well as TTN's.[23][24][25] My block was raised for review on AN, where the actions of Pixelface and a potential topic ban for TTN were also raised.[26] If the arbitrators feel my actions were inappropriate, I would welcome the criticism and appreciate any advice. Vassyana (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by sgeureka[edit]

I am quite concerned about the current motions to topic-ban anyone who dares try to improve the encyclopedia per policies and guidelines, or who sympathizes with editors legitimately trying to improve the encyclopedia. Before someone else does it, I'll do it myself.

• Sgeureka 16:12, May 17, 2008 restores a redirect, calling the undoing of the redirect "vandalism". (By the way, the redirect needed to be semi-protected for two weeks before, and the undoer has been blocked twice now, the last one for "persistent vandalism", but I realize some people would continue to call my action vandalism.)

I agree with Sjakkalle that this has to stop, but there are two sides of the coin here. Someone described the current actions against TTN (and by extension any fiction mergist/deletionist, including Kww) as "lynchmob". I think no other word better captures my impression of the situation. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jakew[edit]

I became aware of this quite recently, when I noticed repeated and insistent demands (bordering on disruption) at WT:NOT to remove WP:PLOT from policy. This kind of thing is somewhat familiar, and although exceptions exist, when we trace the history we usually find repeated attempts (and often edit warring) to insert some material, which is removed per policy (often WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, though not in this case) and the user in question then decides that the issue is so important that policy must be changed to accomodate it. Such attempts rarely succeed, because consensus is that the user has fundamentally failed to grasp what WP is (and is not). That may be the case here.

I would suggest that the very fact that one side of this dispute has identified a need to change policy indicates that they may have previously been editing against policy. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are "wrong", per se, but it is hard to understand why other editors should be sanctioned for "enforc[ing] most policies and guidelines by editing pages, and discussing matters with each other". If there are behavioural problems (I understand from FoF #3 that there have been), then these need to be addressed, but please make remedies proportionate and understandable in a wider context.

Statement by Masem[edit]

• I have to agree with Ned, Sgeureka, and Jakew in that what is being proposed here seems very one-sided to the overall picture that was developed from the E&C 2. TTN, to me, seems to be trying to meet the spirit of the motion, but unfortunately due to his past actions, he's got a set of editors that watch most of his edits, and like to wikilawyer the specific wording. (Case in point, TTN posted a suggestion on the Fiction-related noticeboard, and some took this as violating where TTN is allowed to edit as, strictly speaking, that noticeboard is not a talk page. The "to be interpreted broadly" language in the motion is causing a lot of this trouble, which is why I think those looking to penalize TTN need to consider what the intent of the motion was, and not the specific wording - we want TTN to work collaborative with others to determine how best to improve articles on fiction on WP. There are some actions that TTN has done since the motion that are within the motion's restrictions and thus blocks are appropriate, but the thing is, he is talking and discussing proposed changes. That's mostly what people wanted out of the E&C 2 case, right?
• Unfortunately, this is really not true. The heart of the E&C 2, based on its discussions and the resulting actions since, has seemed to be to validate the fact that Wikipedia's coverage of fiction should not conform to WP:NOT and WP:NOTE, and that coverage of fiction can be broad and expansion based only on primary sources. Now, first, taking this position towards coverage of fiction works itself is not in any way wrong; if that's what the editors believe, I can't say its incorrect. But, in taking that belief, against what is probably an equivalent push to remove much of the coverage of fiction from WP specifically due to WP:NOT and WP:NOTE, there feels to be a strong effort to get rid of editors that do not share the same inclusionists beliefs towards fiction such as TTN and Kww, and to staunchly argue that policy must be changed to support the inclusionist view. The result of the E&C 2 case, based on the above scrutiny of TTN's actions since, seems to be validation that their approach is correct, but again, we have this second motion from this case that involved editors are supposed to help shape how such articles should be handled, not that one side is necessarily right. I have been working the past year to try to get WP:FICT to a point of balance between these extremes which has been long and mentally exhausting, much which rests on WP:NOT#PLOT, but as recent discussions at WT:NOT can show, there are some that simply want that policy gone and do not seem to be making concessions or collaborative efforts to try to figure out the balance, despite the fact that myself and others have offered wording changes and other suggested policy and guidelines to remove some of the concerns they have. That second motion from this case really needs to be considered a lot more in order to balance this out and make sure that the case was not validation for the inclusionists' point of view - unfortunately, the way its written, there's no teeth behind it as much as the TTN restrictions on editing, and it's impossible to show the lack of collaboration, only state that how one's actions in a debate may not feel collaborative. Thus, I feel that the first motion should be read in conjunction with the second, and specifically look at the intent of TTN's actions in regards to both motions regardless of the source of the complaint: is TTN working in a collaborative effort to improve the encyclopedia, instead of his previous hard-nosed and overburdening efforts? --MASEM 14:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kung Fu Man[edit]

I'm a bit late to this, but only recently caught wind regardless. I've dealt with both TTN and Kww in a few formats though, and I'm not going to sit here and speak about TTN: my stance towards him is neutral, he has his heart in the right place, but is overly forceful with his vision. I will speak in defense of Kww however. Kww has shown willingness to discuss proposals on subjects like merges and his edits have not had a negative impact on the related subjects. So despite where the ideals may lie, Kww is far from warranting a topic ban in this case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG[edit]

There's a difference between TTN and Kww--TTN is determined to disrupt the formation of consensus on each individual article in any way he can devise, and Kww is trying to get consensus for his general view--a view in complete opposition to mine, to be sure, but I do not see how is is doing it disruptively. I think a permanent topic ban for him is over-reaction. He did not address the word vandal to any editor, he used it I hope a little hyperbolically in a discussion on a policy page to support an extreme view about what ought to be the policy. I don't think it helpful to ban him from these discussions at this point. DGG (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AuburnPilot[edit]

Also a bit late to this discussion, but having just discovered this case, I must strongly disagree with any ban placed on Kww. I've worked extensively with Kww on topics unrelated to this one, and have never found him to be anything but willing to help and discuss points of disagreement. I agree with DGG's statement above, in that a ban on Kww is an overreaction. - auburnpilot talk 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Woonpton[edit]

I have no experience with the fiction articles in question, but I've worked with kww on What the Bleep Do We Know, a very contentious article where he took the lead and worked with all constituencies to craft a compromise lead we could all live with and had it inserted by an admin into the protected article. This is the kind of editor I would think Wikipedia would want to protect and nurture, rather than punish and alienate. I've never seen him use the derogatory expressions used by some other editors to characterize those of a different viewpoint, and if he did so on a fiction article, then I would have to wonder if, unlikely as it seems, he might have had even more provocation there than on What the Bleep Do We Know, where his demeanor was always professional and respectful to all, during the time I observed him there. Also, though this is less germane to the issues at hand, kww is one of the very few Wikipedians who made me feel welcome and respected as a new editor. It seemed only right to speak on his behalf, though no one asked me to and though I have no information to offer touching on the present issues. Woonpton (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Rogue Penguin[edit]

Mostly reiterating the last few postings, the topic ban on Kww seems unnecessary. From what I've seen, I would make this analogy: TTN is skating on thin ice, and rather than get off, he starts jumping up and down. Murky areas or not, a little common sense would dictate that you don't push the envelope on such an open-ended restriction. Kww's got no such problem, and aside from some uncivil comments, certainly hasn't enough to warrant a topic ban. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Statement by User:Ned Scott[edit]

Full topical ban or not, arbcom still hasn't clarified this request. The only thing TTN did "bad" this time was to start a discussion on a notice board that was in the project namespace. Given that two arbs were able to support a ban for Kww then change their minds makes me wonder how much attention is being paid to this situation.

The two proposed bans are both atrocious, but only is the one on Kww easily identifiable (but still missed by two arbs, so far). It really seems like the only reason the topical ban for TTN is getting support is based on assumptions only, and has nothing to do with TTN's actions. Kirill himself has blatantly admitted this [27].

On May 4th, TTN practically begged arbcom to comment on this at #Statement by TTN. It's right there, on this same page, but I'll repeat it again since no one seemed to notice it:

Can I please get some sort of clarification on what exactly I can do and cannot do? Can I cleanup articles by removing information? That's that's what I was initially blocked for. Can I revert at all? Edit warring is bad, but to have a block sustained because of two reverts (where one revert is a anon with a non-static IP) seems a little steep without some sort of restriction on that in the first place. Can I suggest that things be merged on talk pages of users, projects, and other articles? I assumed that the restriction was towards templates, but I was scrutinized for doing so. Can I point out bad articles? I guess I wouldn't ask one user single again, but can I just post a list of "problem articles" on a project talk page or the Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard, and let them take care of it? If this could be responded to quickly, that would be appreciated. TTN (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not some guy trying to skate around a restriction. He's honestly trying to understand his restrictions and abide by them.

I beg of the arbs, if you can find reason to question Kww's restrictions, then take some time to question TTN's. If TTN's topical ban does pass, is it for the duration of the original 6 month ban? And please, actually answer our request, which is all we wanted from you. -- Ned Scott 04:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Jtrainor[edit]

User:Sesshomaru could stand being looked at as well-- [[28]] bit on TTN's talk page, and his habit of spamming templates at anyone who reverts him tend to show a general lack of AGF on his part, as well as chronic incivility. Jtrainor (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

• This request has been retitled to "Request for clarification–Episodes and characters 2" (note the "–" after clarification, as oppose to the customary ":"). This is to differentiate it from the similar "Request for clarification: Episodes and characters 2". Please note the difference between the two, and be careful in linking to either thread. Anthøny 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• I suppose it was too much to hope that the editors fighting over these articles would take two cases as an adequate hint that they were out of line. Oh well; we can always try the hard way, then. Kirill ^(prof) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I could have supported a motion for this case and I still believe that there was no need for a clarification. However, after discussing this matter with the concerned parties and the ArbCom, I now believe that we can move forward. I don't see a real threat of disruption from user:TTN and particularly user:Kww who does not deserve more than a firm reminder: users involved in the area should be more careful with their actions and consider that any misguided action(s) can affect the atmosphere. I will assume good faith and trust the words of user:TTN posted on my talk page and understand that he is fully aware of the seriousness of the issue. I assume he now knows for real that he is not entitled to initiate any discussion on any article or project's talk page. I also would see no problem with him contacting users, admins or anyone on their talk pages where posts and comments should be judged by their own merits -unless there are users who would not want user:TTN to leave comments on their talk pages. That being said, I'll be glad (unfortunately) to have another general look on the issue in a wider scope anytime that would be deemed necessary. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting[edit]

For these motions, there are 12 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.

TTN restricted

TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise having any involvement whatsoever with any article substantially related to a work of art or fiction (including, but not limited to, video games, movies, TV shows, novels, comic books, and so forth) or any element of such a work.

Support:

1. These senseless flareups will be stopped, one way or another. Kirill ^(prof) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'm beginning to think we should have done this at the start. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. While many of the issues that reach arbitration are controversial due to the nature of the topic and will always be heated topics of discussion, I do not see this as the case with this topic. Instead, I see the problems here are due more to the manner of interaction between users. I think that removing users will be effective and will not hesitate to expand the list of involved users that are banned from this topic. Also, the purpose of the restrictions on TNN were to stop controversial edits. The list of restrictions was not exhaustive in this sense, and all controversial edits should be recognized as such. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Paul August ☎ 15:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per my view above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Shouldn't be needed beyond the case. But, if it really does become necessary, just block and throw away the key. James F. (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Kww restricted

Kww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise having any involvement whatsoever with any article substantially related to a work of art or fiction (including, but not limited to, video games, movies, TV shows, novels, comic books, and so forth) or any element of such a work.

Support:

1. If you feel the urge to treat legitimate editors like vandals, it might be time to take a break from this topic. Kirill ^(prof) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It's become necessary. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC) I am rethinking; may reinstate this vote or change it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. See my above comment. And agree with Kirill. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Not convinced that restrictions on Kww are justified at the present. Seems to be based on a questionable interpretation of a single edit. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. On consideration, I'd rather a warning than a restriction at this time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kww was instructed and warned and not restricted on the related ArbCom case. A 6 months restriction would be reasonable this time. If problems persist Kww would face the same measures applied to TTN above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Per my comment in the arbitratiors' view section above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Paul August ☎ 15:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per above. James F. (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

---

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Kyaa the Catlord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (left note on talk) (blocked for a week on April 27)
• Sgeureka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (left note on talk and has responded below)

Statement by Kyaa the Catlord[edit]

The decision text is : TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate.

My question is the following:

Can TTN request others to redirect articles as a proxy or is he under the same sort of restrictions as a banned user would be in cases where others would work as his proxy and redirect articles on his behalf? He has recently asked another user to make some redirects on articles where the other user had not acted in the previous month and three weeks (roughly) until encouraged to redirect by TTN. Thank you for the clarification in advance. (for further information and discussion please see Adminstrator's Noticeboard thread on TTN

Response to sg (who's name is really hard for me to spell, forgive me): I believe that's the crux of the problem TTN seems to not be able to initiate discussion per the ruling and bringing them to your attention is similar, in my view, to asking you to act as a proxy to work around the sanction which would be, in my view, terribly ungood behavior. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to sg2: I agree that doing so in the light is better than sneaking around and coordinating it off-wiki, but... the key question remains, is he allowed to initiate such conversation. From my reading of the ruling, it would be no. Its the "initiated by another user" bit that has caused me to ask for clarification. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Neil for providing diffs. (I'm new to this sort of thing.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by sgeureka[edit]

Speaking metaphorically, arbcom prohibited TTN from bullying the other kids at school, but at the same time took away his right to self-defend when he is the target of bullying (or at least of gross unfairness). This risk was pointed out in the arbcom case, but no solution was offered. TTN asking a teacher for help (who may grant it or not based on their own good judgement) neither automatically makes the teacher TTN's proxy nor does it make TTN the bad guy. So I would like some clarification if (a) TTN is allowed to point out problematic articles/edits without editing or tagging the articles himself, (b) if I am allowed to agree with TTN's reasoning and (c) if I am allowed to edit problematic articles/edits. If the answer is yes to all three questions, there shouldn't be a problem. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kyaa: sg stands for Stargate, Eureka is the famous exclamation, long story. ;-) And just like bringing up an issue at a noticeboard or pointing out a recurring typo that needs fixing, I see nothing wrong in pointing out articles that fail a policy when you're prohibited doing so via the usual channels (tagging and discussing). I guess you'd agree that this transparent action is better than TTN contacting me via email about his "troubles" (which he never did, but I wouldn't hold it against him - if he can't even do the most trivial things without risking a witch hunt against him). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum I think I've got a better illustration of the situation, at least as far as I am involved: If someone disallows the boy who cried wolf to ever (publicly) cry wolf again, may the boy (privately) whipser in my ear that he sees a wolf, and am I allowed to chase the wolf off when I see fit? Note that most people never had an issue with how I dealt with wolves before. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum 2 Since there doesn't seem to be any clarification forthcoming, I'll summarize the current status now that the dust has settled. Of the seven articles that TTN asked me to revert back to redirects, one is not-redirected because I saw no major fault in it (i.e. I didn't mindlessly execute TTN's "request"), one is not-redirected although I redirected it (I had accidently confused it with another article which is in fact redirected, both are/were in a very bad shape), one is still in merge discussions (i.e. TTN is not the only one who saw fault in it), and four are redirected. I'll let that speak for itself. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Neil[edit]

• Relevant diffs:
  • [29] - asking another user to redirect a number of character articles (expressly forbidden in the Arbcom ruling)
  • [30] - suggesting a merge of character articles to another user (expressly forbidden in the Arbcom ruling)
  • [31] - expressed intent to keep such suggestions off-Wiki in future
• Suggest either an extention to the probation, a month's block, or a final warning prior to a year's block. Neıl ☎ 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles[edit]

Relevant recent discussions in chronological order:

• TTN and notability tagging?
• And so it begins again.
• Closure
• TTN, again.

Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kww[edit]

Really, what part of He is free to contribute on the talk pages is so difficult to understand? I don't see that any diff provided is on anything other than a talk page.Kww (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read that ruling as referring to article-space talk pages, not as an invitation to post on user-space talk pages requesting proxy edits. Catchpole (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly." Neıl ☎ 16:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil's quote still only restricts edits on article and project pages. He is free to lobby on talk pages for others to make edits on article and project pages.Kww (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Moreover, it would be very helpful if Arbcom could remind those who are disruptively undoing TTN's earlier efforts that this violates the spirit of the ruling. Asking for assistance in restoring good faith redirects firmly grounded in policy because of a disruptive editing pattern is certainly reasonable. Also, arbcom needs to make it clear that the ruling was not a victory for one side nor the other in the ongoing debate about notability for topics of fiction. (sorry to butt in your statement page Kww; I just agree with everything you said here.) Eusebeus (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petitioning for an article to be merged without discussion and pointing out specifically that he himself cannot do it so he needs someone else to is not promoting good faith, it's bypassing the restriction placed on him by simply adding a middle man to do it instead. In effect this negates the whole purpose of limiting him.

Additionally his comments that he should probably resort to such communication in secret does not help good faith either, but instead paints that he's well aware that his actions are in violation: if they weren't, he wouldn't have anything to even worry about to consider such an alternative, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that ... I might take steps to avoid getting hauled in front of Arbcom every two days, even if Arbcom cleared me of wrongdoing every time.Kww (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know taking steps to avoid Arbcom appearances could end badly, as the "Wikilobby" drama reminds us. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can, which is why I hope Arbcom puts a stop to these efforts to drive TTN underground. Kww (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe it can make TTN realize that he has to work under the restrictions it placed on him, not attempt to find loopholes and proxies to do the sort of things that got him under editting restrictions in the first place. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This neglects to recognize that TTN's problem was style, not content. His identification of bad articles that needed to be redirected was somewhere around 99% accurate. His effort to bulldoze his way through was what caused the trouble.Kww (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ned Scott[edit]

Can we get a comment form the arbs about if TTN is allowed to start discussions on notice boards/WikiProject talk pages? We also need to make it clear that there is a difference between a direct request to do something like merge or delete, and TTN stating that he believes something should be. As in, if he does to a talk page and says "I think this should be merged/etc" that should be perfectly fine, and not seen as the same as him going to someone's talk page and saying "hey, could you redirect X for me" (though I don't believe that to be a real problem here in the first place, since it really is harmless because the burden is put on the editor being asked). -- Ned Scott 01:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• The key to the remedy was requiring that TTN work through article or project talk pages. Asking other editors to perform edits for him, rather than engaging in talk page discussion, clearly violates the spirit of the remedy. If necessary I would support a motion altering the remedy to say something to the effect that TTN is restricted only to discussing such matters on talk pages, though I hope that TTN will refrain from this sort of thing on his own. --bainer (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to echo Bainer's comment here, in the hope that it will help strengthen the clarity. I would also regretfully support the suggested modification if it is necessary, but would prefer no so to do. James F. (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Gazimoff (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Gazimoff[edit]

I am requesting clarification from Arbcomm regarding the case above. This discussion may appear to be slightly premature, but I feel that it is appropriate to raise a request for clarification in order to minimise the potential for further disruption. TTN has been involved in two Arbcomm cases relating to content disputes. As a result of those cases, TTN has been subject to the following remedies.

The remedy from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters stated the following:

• The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.

The remedy from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 stated the following:

• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
• The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute

TTN was since blocked twice for violating these restrictions as recorded here The restriction placed upon him lapsed without extension on September 10th, 2008. Since that date, TTN has created a high number of deletion discussions. The concern here is not about the articles, templates and so on being listed for deletion. It is more about the high volume of content being listed for deletion in a short space of time only days after a lapsed editing restriction prohibiting this behaviour. Such action can potentialy stretch any cleanup team a wikiproject may have over a large number of articles, potentially reducing the quality of debate that can occur and leaving TTN open to criticisms of working against the wikiprojects involved.

The requests for clarification are as follows:

• Does Arbcomm feel that the editing restrictions listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 met their required objective in encouraging good working practice from a long-term contributor?
• How does Arbcomm regard the large number of deletion discussions that have been started in relation to the encouragement "to work collaboratively and constructively" as stated at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters
• Would Arbcomm have any further reccomendations in this area in order to minimise further disruption?

I appreciate that Arbcomm are limited in resource, and hope that by presenting this concern early and cleanly, clarification can be reached with minimal impact on the project.

See also related discussion[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TTN nominating large numbers of pages for deletion (link contributed by Coppertwig (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by GRBerry[edit]

Related WP:AE threads are currently at (reverse chronological order):

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Violation of TTN's restriction?
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive26#Eusebeus
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive22#Eusebeus still edit-warring over TV episode articles (partial copy also in archive 21)
4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive21#TTN and Sonic the Hedgehog characters
5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#Unreasonably broad interpretation
6. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#User:TTN
7. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#TTN and notability tagging?
8. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#And so it begins again

There have also been plenty of AN, ANI, et cetera threads involving many parties. I conclude that remedy #2 "The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute." has failed. GRBerry 18:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the threads with Eusebeus's names in them were not selected for inclusion because I have any concerns about his actions, they were included to help the committee realize that the "all get together and sing Kumbaya" recomendation of remedy is not working and not going to work. In the archive 26 thread, DGG observed "The disputed cases are about minor characters in the most important fictional works, such as plays by Shakespeare, and even major characters in relatively unimportant works." No consensus is going to form that draws a hard and fast line with no grey zone ("no character articles" or "if the work can have an article, every character can have there own article" are both thoroughly rejected by the community. So long as there is a grey zone, there will be disagreements and need for community discussion. The committee should only make sure that reasonable conduct bounds are drawn and enforced for that discussion. GRBerry 03:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by sgeureka[edit]

One way to look at it: TTN is quickly destroying the 'pedia with his quick AfDs. Do something about it.

Another way to look at it: Crappy fiction articles get created (in good faith) faster than they can be dealt with through what-some-would-label "recommended" channels. Cleanup templates get ignored for months (usually because the articles cannot be improved), merge proposals for popular yet crappy articles often get shot down through local fan consensus or take forever (by which time tons of new crappy articles have been created), and bold redirects or bold mergers for popular yet crappy articles get reverted and have demonstratedly already led to severe arbcom restrictions when someone tried to enforce to leave the redirects in place. AfDs however, especially for long-time cleanup-tagged articles, get quick results with community consensus. Not perfect but accomplishes the goal in the absense of other workable solutions.

Summa summarum: Leave dedicated editors at least one tool to keep up with the desperately needed cleanup. Or: fight the source of the problem (creation of crappy and unimprovable articles), not the symptom (AfDs). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Man In Black[edit]

Bearing in mind where my obvious biases are, what's the harm in a bunch of AFDs of articles that will all either be deleted or merged? TTN was censured for edit warring, not cleanup. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf[edit]

TTN is right. Censoring him was wrong from the start. It really is as simple as that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG (talk)[edit]

Based on a comment by TTN on my talk page, [32], I suggested there that the AfDs are being brought deliberately because of TTN's knowledge that they will not be approved at the article talk page. This is essentially the same behavior that the arb com was first asked to address--as it is in essence continuing, with afds showing no previous attempt to discuss, in clear violation of deletion policy, the restriction should be made permanent. There are a great many articles needing redirection , merge, or deletion. There are are a great many other editors to propose them. DGG (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PhilKnight - responding to DGG[edit]

In situations where an episode or character article doesn't comply with notability guidelines, the article talk page is invariably dominated by editors who are vehemently opposed to any merge, let alone deletion. The problem is one of a local consensus attempting to override policy and guidelines. The obvious solution is to take the article to AfD. Accordingly, what DGG describes as a "clear violation of deletion policy" is normal practice for this topic area. Also, looking at WP:DELETION, there doesn't appear to be any requirement to start discussion before nominating the article. Obviously, it's good practice to notify the article creator, and perhaps even some of the other editors, however for deletion (as opposed to deletion review), I can't see any requirement for prior discussion.

Statement by Protonk[edit]

So long as non-community enforced pathways for dealing with marginal and sub-marginal fictional articles result in intractable stalemates and so long as the community cannot agree on a daughter notability guideline to deal clearly and appropriately with these articles, we will have situations like this. AfD is a perfectly acceptable route for dealing with articles which do not meet our inclusion guidelines. Since we have no real agreed upon guidelines that are binding concerning lists of characters, episodes and other daughter articles, AfD may be the preferred route. We may wish, in an abstract sense, that editors discussed improvement, then proposed mergers, then discussed why the merger didn't gain consensus, then prod, then nominate for deletion, but any editor who learns from past experiences will be tempted to skip steps. I see this as a policy issue that needs to be worked out by the community. We don't have an agreed upon way to treat characters and episodes (as it were), so we have problems like this. Fix that policy issue and we have fixed most of the problem.

Statement by User:Randomran[edit]

We need to assume good faith, rather than assuming that TTN is somehow on a vengeful mission after being locked away for 6 months. TTN got himself in trouble when he WP:BOLDly redirected pages en masse. He's learned his lesson, and is now soliciting the feedback of neutral Wikipedians in AFD. "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies." I do not echo his support for deletion in each and every case, but he's using the process as it is designed. Anything else is a discussion of actual content: discussions that TTN has initiated, and cannot unilaterally decide. That's how Wikipedia works.

That said, I might advise TTN that he could generate more good will by nominating AFDs at more scattered intervals. He hasn't broken any policy, consensus, or arbitration decision. But this does needlessly inflame the inclusionists. The WP:DEADLINE applies as much to clean-up as it does to anything else: what's your hurry? Randomran (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RyanGerbil10[edit]

So User:X was told not to do Y for Z period of time, X did not do Y until after Z (as asked), and now we're back at ArbCom? Seems to defeat the purpose if you ask me. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Norse Am Legend[edit]

Anyone's allowed to make statements here, right? What TTN is doing is similar to a police officer strongly and swiftly enforcing the law on any potential criminal that he sees or hears of. Is this acting in good faith? Possibly. Is he doing anything technically wrong? Apparently not. However, when every car in a five mile radius has a ticket on the windshield and the local courthouse is filled to the brim with people paying fines and undergoing trials, many people start to get really annoyed. Going on deletion crusades to "fully purge the video game and anime and manga character categories" and the like isn't something that should be fully endorsed without question - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ThuranX[edit]

Like many others here, I support TTN's efforts. As touched upon above, and seen in the AfDs in question, the local fan support serves to obstruct any management of a number of fiction related articles. The fans hide behind inclusionist thinking and essays, and are often good at mimicking the talking points, but they do a disservice to the real inclusionists by their actions. TTN's actions are commendable, as they make hte project stronger and more encyclopedic. ThuranX (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Kww[edit]

People need to stop expecting TTN to get blocked at the drop of a hat for making a legitimate effort to clean up a large section of Wikipedia. I'm sure he noticed articles that needed deletion during his 6 month restriction, so it looks a bit like a floodgate letting loose. However, looking over the articles that he has nominated, it looks like he is showing excellent judgement about what articles are essentially unsalvageable. As to the idea that one should discuss deletion on the talk page of an article first? Laughable. Articles essentially never get deleted by discussion on an article's talk page, because an article's talk page is watched virtually exclusively by people that think the article is interesting, and, by extension, desire to keep it around.

If this becomes as bad as it has before, it may become desirable to start having negative consequences for bringing unfounded cases to Arbcom's attention.Kww (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:casliber[edit]

Again, we have the editors whose opinions on the material are commenting the same way as before. Again, we have TTN who has absolutely no belief he has done anything wrong. Again we have no scope for negotiation but TTN's actions like a self-appointed wikipoliceman or a bull-in-a-chinashop behaviour which continues to aggravate editors whose opinions differ from his own. This does nothing for morale of the community. Again, I feel that editing solely to reduce content without contributing a jot of sourcing or material is tendentious or disruptive. Of course I am not impartial, but then again neither are teh owners of most statements here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:erachima[edit]

I'll grant that the remedy's failed, but it hasn't failed due to TTN. The reason for the ongoing problem here is the inability of the community to agree on a reasonable wording for WP:FICT despite massively numerous attempts to do so. Some of these attempts got very close to attaining guideline status, but all ultimately failed due to (essentially equal) opposition from the far inclusionist and far deletionist camps. In the absence of relevant guidelines, there's nothing to do but run individual pages through AfD and see what falls out, and the disruption rising around TTN is essentially a case of killing the messenger. If any new ArbCom ruling does come out of this request for clarification, I'm hoping that it targets the root problem of how to construct a consensus guideline when individuals on both sides refuse to compromise. --erachima talk 02:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:nifboy[edit]

I feel obligated to point out that we now have users arguing that, because a redirect is effectively deletion, all efforts to redirect need to go through AfD. I am increasingly annoyed by the bureaucracy creep going on in relation to this subject. Nifboy (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• Comment, I'm aware of this request. I've briefly looked into the situation. I'm not seeing a problem that needs Committee action at this time. The Community needs to deal with the content policy issues involved, not ArbCom. I do not see any user conduct that approaches disruption. I urge all involved parties to listen to the input of other users. Before giving input to other users or taking an action, try putting yourself in the other persons shoes and thinking about how what you do and say will be received. Be understanding that other people have different views, and that they want what is best for Wikipedia, the same as you do. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• To extend a bit on what FloNight has already said... A simpler approach would be AfD-listing a few articles (a dozen or less?) and wait and see what would be the outcome. You can then, go on from there either way... stop and discuss the whole issue or list the rest. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Erachima. Inject new blood. Involve new uninvolved users (third opinions). Try to contact random users through their talk pages and get their opinions. Get out from that vicious circle of discussing it over and over again using the same arguments. Neither side seems to accept or understand the concerns of the other. Welcome new ideas and opinions. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 02:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved users

• Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party;
• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification).

Statement by Phil Sandifer[edit]

TTN was banned from deletion activities for six months for his failure to work "collaboratively and constructively with the broader community" on the area of notability and deletion. Since the expiration of his ban, his contributions have been entirely to "merge" content (I say merge because, in fact, he simply redirects pages without discussion), and mass-nominate articles for deletion. For instance, his mass-redirection of articles with identical edit summaries: [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] and so on. These edits were unaccompanied by any edits to talk pages to garner consensus. Indeed, even as the very policies he cites as justification are under heavy discussion, including an RFC that got a watchlist notice, TTN has made no contributions towards seeking consensus. None. Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise shows no comments by him.

Regardless of the appropriateness of his nominations, this is the behavior he was previously sanctioned for. And he has returned to it. The routine norm, in such cases, is, at a minimum, to restore the sanctions that were actually effective at preventing the behavior.

Therefore, given his continued failure to work collaboratively and constructively, and the fact that he has returned to the exact behavior that got him previously sanctioned, I request that the arbitration committee restore Remedy 1 from the relevant case without expiration. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to some of the comments below, this is not about the accuracy of TTN's deletion nominations. I would vote delete on about half of them myself. The issue is not whether his proposals are within consensus or not - it is on whether he is working collaboratively and constructively with the broader community. That necessarily involves some level of dialogue with said community. As for the suggestion that editors of fiction articles are also working outside of consensus, I do not see extending this remedy as precluding enforcement against other problematic users, and I would be surprised if the arbcom did.

A further piece of evidence as well. I encourage anybody to look at [38]. Those are TTN's talk page contributions. Note that the overwhelming majority of them are redirects or template removals of pages. There are only a handful of cases - once every two or three days - where TTN is discussing his edits. Compare to the 8 edits he has made so far to talk pages making any discussion of his edits in October to the over 250 edits he has made so far to articles either nominating them for deletion or merging them in October. That is in no way, in letter or spirit, complying with the directive to work collaboratively and constructively with other editors. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk, I'm not pillorying TTN over the deletion or merger. But if we don't have a consensus on these issues, and I agree with you that we don't, we need to try to find one. Please explain to me how over 250 merges and deletions in a week with only 8 comments on talk pages about them constitute attempts to find consensus, or to work with other editors. Please explain to me how TTN is in any way complying with the instruction that previous non-compliance with led to a six month ban from these issues. Because otherwise, this seems straightforward - he was previously sanctioned for something. He is doing it again. What's changed? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Bainer's comments, with all due respect, the claim that there is nowhere to discuss these issues except for AfD is absurd. When merging articles, the article talk pages are a fine place to discuss merges. (Or, more accurately, redirects) For the large batch of episodes of the TV show Heroes he recently mass redirected I would think that stopping in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heroes might have been effective.

Were TTN interested in discussion and consensus-building, even with the continued contentiousness of a general guideline for fiction, many opportunities were available to him, not least of which was participating in the RFC to work on the notability issues for fiction. That TTN ignored all of these channels and ignored attempts to build consensus on this issue does not seem to me to be a good thing, and I am, frankly, baffled how you can suggest that AfD was the only channel open to him. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am, frankly, dismayed to see the overall conduct of the Arbcom in this - after two rulings that clearly establish a bar for actions in this area to clear - seeking consensus, discussing, and working with other editors - the arbcom seems to, now that the case has made it to them a third time, they seem to be simply backing up from their previous ruling and deciding that the whole thing is a content dispute. While I understand their reluctance to be involved in notability issues, given that they have twice issued a ruling on exactly this issue to decide that suddenly it is a content issue that they cannot rule on is baffling. Perhaps one of the arbitrators could better articulate why mass nomination for deletion has suddenly become a content rather than a conduct issue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie[edit]

You know, I'm beginning to think "Episodes and Characters" is the ArbCom version of the Chinese Water Torture. I think TTN has been working within Wikipedia Guidelines. One can never fruitfully seek consensus to delete or redirect on a talk page, quite frankly, the most interested (or should I say biased) people to keeping an article on that article. I suggest that ArbCom deny this request and tell BOTH sides to continue to work within policy, rather then constantly seeking the heavy hammer of ArbCom to do their work for them. SirFozzie (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by sgeureka[edit]

...And another E&C arbcom thread aiming to expose TTN as the evil culprit, while fan editors are sooooo totally working "collaboratively and constructively with the broader community", restoring articles that fail WP policies and guidelines left and right instead of fixing the deficiencies to a minimum level so that the messenger (TTN) leaves them alone. (I'd say more but these may-I-say-misguided TTN-arbcom appeals are just getting tiresome.) – sgeureka ^t•c 11:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CBDunkerson[edit]

TTN recently nominated Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch for deletion. The discussion was closed as a snowball keep. TTN then immediately placed a merge tag on the article. That's just not 'working within consensus'. There was an overwhelming consensus to keep the article. NOT to make it a redirect to a brief mention in another article, TTN's acknowledged definition of 'merge'... otherwise known as deletion. Continually pressing against the lack of general consensus around notability standards for fictional topics with constant deletion efforts is IMO bad enough... but ignoring consensus when it does form is a problem. When he loses an argument he needs to accept that. NOT try to get the same result people just overwhelmingly rejected through the back door. --CBD 12:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Protonk (talk)[edit]

This is the same basic request as the previous request for clarification. The answer here should be the same. We don't have a functioning guideline to deal with notability of fictional subjects--specifically those which do not cite any sources. Many, many articles on fictional subjects will either never have sources or will never cite sources (because people can't be bothered). Until we have some community accepted guideline for inclusion it doesn't help to pillory TTN over the deletion or merger of these articles.

His case came to ArbComm because of edit warring over merger tags and redirects. Proposing mergers and nominating articles for deletion isn't the same thing. It is clear that what TTN wants to do is reduce the number of fictional articles we have on wikipedia. I don't think that the result of the previous case should read "TTN cannot work to reduce the number of fictional articles". I agree that people are pissed about the Monty Python thing, although the merger proposal was perfectly reasonable. I have fewer defenses for this copy/paste AfD rationales, but I don't think either act is a refusal to respect consensus. when I say pillory I don't mean you in particular. I mean to say that the debate is larger than TTN and that without some clear resolution of that larger debate we can't blame him for forcing current community standards on articles that people like.

Statement by Kww[edit]

TTN is working as cooperatively as possible with people that don't tend to be cooperative. He is bringing the articles to AFD, and participating in the AFD discussions. He is not performing unilateral redirect and mergings, because, even though they are far more efficient, he was told to stop.

As for Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, there actually is a cooperative merge discussion going on at Talk:Monty Python and the Holy Grail#Merge, where most of the participants are being polite and cooperative. The snowball keep came as a result of a pile-on by fans, not as a result of any policy based discussions.

I think we are at the point where reporting TTN to Arbcom is more of a problem than TTN himself.—Kww(talk) 17:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kung Fu Man[edit]

TTN is a pain in a great deal of asses here on wikipedia, mine included. However, for the most part he is trying to be cooperative and clean things up and do it by the books: case in point an AfD that was closed by him after two people pointed out quickly the characters in the nominated article were mentioned in other books and notable. I seriously don't think at this point in time this is necessary at all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by nifboy[edit]

As I complained about in the previous RFAR thread, as well as an AfD filed solely because TTN didn't, this feels increasingly like bureaucracy creep. AfD is increasingly treated like a CYA, discouraging WP:BOLD across the project. Nifboy (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite[edit]

"As for the suggestion that editors of fiction articles are also working outside of consensus, I do not see extending this remedy as precluding enforcement against other problematic users, and I would be surprised if the arbcom did." This comedic request for clarification would indicate that the current ArbCom actually do think that. In the end, what do we want Wikipedia to be? If we want it to be a free-for-all without regard to independent notability, feel free to reset TTN's sanction. If we want it to be an encyclopedia, he's going about it in the only way possible - there is intrasigence on both sides here and I don't see that concentrating on TTN - yet again - is particularly helpful. Let's face it, he's not exactly doing it for his health [39].Black Kite 22:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG[edit]

I see no real evidence of cooperation. Day after day he continues to nominate 5 to 10 articles for deletion without considering the possibility of merge or redirect--if asked about why he has not done so he almost always ignores the question. Day after day he uses the same deletion summary, without indicating anything about the individual article--he does not help the discussion by even indicating what work of fiction it is or what role the character plays; when asked to clarify his deletion summaries he ignores that also. He generally nominates articles at the same time of widely varying importance from different fictions; either he is working indiscriminately, or deliberately making it very hard to defend intelligently: he can use the same deletion argument for everything, since he includes every possible reason for deleting an article, but a defense of the article has to be focused & cover them all in detail. He continues sometimes to redirect without discussion. I'm not going to add to the diffs here-- 99 % of the diffs on his contributions show this, so there's hardly need to select. But as an example, showing his consistent pattern of asking for sources and then, if found, denying relevance, see "Most recent prime-time episodes are reviewed by a number of sources" used by him as a delete argument! The one sensible close pointed out by Kung Fu Man was yesterday, and he's been quiet since--after it became clear this was going to be filed. This matches what to me is the proof of his bad faith is the immediate resumption of deletion activity immediate after the arb com moratorium. His enforced departure from merge/deletion/redirect will not hurt the deletionist cause any more than his previous enforced departure did: there are enough others trying to carry out a rationalisation of the content, generally in a less damaging way. The victory at Wikipedia discussions should not go to the most stubborn. DGG (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the BRD approach requires being willing to enter into Discussion,and only works when people are reasonable about it. There are other editors who sometimes may be unreasonable, but not to this extent. Failing to agree on a guideline discussion is not being disruptive, and not in the same category as making massive afds and redirects. That people did not all want to adopt someone's proposals does not mean they are disruptive. DGG (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Sjakkalle[edit]

What ticks me off with TTN is not that he has very strict (in my opinion way too strict) standards for fictional topics. It is that he has apparently no interest at all in creating any content whatsoever. His edits are overwhelmingly target towards removing or deleting content. Even while he was banned from AFD-ing or merging fiction topics, his main activity consisted of "trimming" fiction topics.

It also concerns me that TTN has a tendency to fire off AFD nominations at machine gun pace; with several nominations taking place within the space of a few minutes. Has he taken enough time to review each article he nominates, and think carefully through what alternatives there might be to deletion?

I have worked with a lot of users who could be described (sometimes by themselves) as "deletionist", and I can recognize them as excellent contributors; their deletionism is tempered by excellent content writing. Therefore, they realize and can empathize with the challenges in locating sources. They become peer contributors who can discuss and work cooperatively, instead of policemen who hammer down on everything. I can only hope that TTN will redirect his energies towards some article writing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stifle[edit]

I massively oppose any reinstatement of sanctions against TTN. He is doing a very good job clearing up unencyclopedic material, is doing it civilly, and is coming up against entrenched opposition from vested interests. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MuZemike[edit]

As feared, it is my opinion that this (as well as any such discussion involving TTN) has devolved into a inclusionist/deletionist debate. A lot of the AfDs he nominated I happen to agree with, but some I also have disagreed; but that's beside the point. It seems that more than anything many users — which include obviously biased editors, fanboys, and others with extremely vested interests in articles to the point of ownership — want TTN with a proverbial rope around his neck, even to the point that some users have resorted to sockpuppetry and even death threats. I only see this as a ploy to keep bugging ArbCom until they get the result they so desire. MuZemike (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CharlotteWebb[edit]

I don't see how TTN's immediate resumption of the same behavior that let to a six-month topic ban (from merging and AFDing articles related to fiction) can be anything other than exhausting the community's patience. He's certainly exhausted mine. I don't usually edit articles related to fiction, but I do often read them whenever I can. Quite frankly it pisses me off when I have to dig through the edit history or look on Deletionpedia to find the information I'm looking for.

I urge the committee to accept this case and consider issuing a ban of greater duration and breadth. — CharlotteWebb 21:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Randomran[edit]

I just don't see any real policy breach. He's using Wikipedia's process as it has been designed:

• Be bold
• Revert edits you disagree with
• Instead of revert warring, discuss. (For example, AFD or a merge discussion.)

Bold editing is not only acceptable, it is encouraged. "Any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, often quite painlessly." And indeed some of TTN's changes were reverted. I disagree with many of his editing decisions, but he certainly has the right to try them out, as much as people have the right to revert them. I would only have an issue if he started revert warring, or canvassing, or waiting around until no one was looking to try the exact same thing again. But so far, he seems to get the WP:POINT whenever the consensus forms. That's good, isn't it?

The other complaints are more dubious. Nominating articles for AFD with an explanation of the policy violation is insufficient? Suggesting a merge after a failed AFD is disruptive? In my view, starting a discussion is almost always a *good* thing. That's where editors get to challenge his view of the content and build a consensus with or against him. Consensus building is always helpful! I repeat for the sake of summarizing and emphasizing: starting a discussion about content is almost always good faith, and almost always helpful.

(As an aside, the same isn't true for starting a discussion about a user's behavior. It seems there are a few editors who have piled in because TTN breached sanctions that expired a month ago. You can't ask to throw someone back in jail just because they're exercising rights that they were previously entitled to.)

The only time when discussing content stops being helpful is where it becomes repetitive, out of step with settled policy or consensus. Where discussion becomes WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:FORUMSHOPping. But that means that the editor has to be shown that he/she is re-opening the same issue over and over. Someone has to make a good faith effort to educate the problem editor, rather than jumping into accusations or bureaucratic sanctions. For example, the idea that a few reliable third-party sources are insufficient for notability seems to go against consensus -- let alone what WP:N says. I haven't taken a closer look at this particular content dispute, so maybe there's actually a policy reason that justifies TTN's viewpoint. But you won't know until you actually try to discuss it with him, preferably at his talk page away from any specific content.

As someone who just wants articles to meet guidelines -- no more and no less -- I'm sympathetic to people who are frustrated with extreme deletionists or inclusionists, who invent their own standards for inclusion. Even though extremists seldom get their way, it can be frustrating to butt heads with them over and over, after one issue has been settled. I don't think it has gotten to that point yet because I haven't seen TTN trying to re-open settled issues in a WP:POINTy or WP:GAMEy way. But everyone should do what they can to make sure it doesn't go there. That's equally true if people keep requesting new or extended sanctions against TTN without showing a real policy/guideline breach. Randomran (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem[edit]

If people believe TTN's present actions (which are generally targeting articles that do lack notability, and with methods that follow the WP:BRD approach) are against ArbCom, then we should be bringing up those editors (both inclusionists and deletionists) that are prevent any sort of compromise in the last year and half to resolve issues with fiction and notability. We've tried to offer a middle of the road solution (the current failed WP:FICT proposal), we're trying to work out how to resolve this on the general scale with the general notability guideline, but the same names keep coming up (for opposite sides of the issue) saying these doesn't meet what they want. Given that the second part of the ArbCom decision was to get all involved editors to work cooperatively to revolve the issue of notability and episodes and characters, and these people are not helping towards a compromise, then they are as much at fault as TTN is above by his current actions...

But of course, I'm not going to call these names forward for ArbCom arbitration, just as much as I don't believe that TTN is doing anything against the overall ArbCom case. But it is important to remind those that would like to see nothing less than TTN banned from editing WP forever that the decision was not unilaterally towards TTN's actions; cooperation and compromise are needed as well. --MASEM 23:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jc37[edit]

In general, as bainer notes below, there is really no "common practice" when it comes to such articles. Such AfD results often vary wildly.

Let's presume that someday we do develop some sort of policy/guideline, which most everyone can agree on.

Does that mean that we're then going to have to go back through all these articles which have been deleted/merged/redirected, and restore them? A herculean task, which should never be necessary, but will be, regardless.

I've seen enough fait accompli to understand that while theoretically, deletions (and moves, and merges, etc.) can be undone, it's usually much more difficult in practice.

I think this is just another case of "everyone's got a divergent opinion", and there are those who don't want to see the house burned down before the process of remodeling has been completed.

Incidentally, here's another "start" to such a discussion: Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. - jc37 08:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Y|yukichigai[edit]

While I have no particular love for TTN, at this point I'm not exactly calling for his head either. He has nominated a rather large number of articles for deletion and redirected several others in the wake of his restriction lapsing, which I think is a bit excessive, but he doesn't seem to be engaging as much in the same "revert every attempt to restore the article and ignore all discussion" behavior which rallied the figurative Angry Mob With Pitchforks and Torches last time around. The fact that he is still doing it at all is troubling though, because it's causing the same sort of issues that effectively led to a wiki-wide edit war, only this time it's happening slower.

I honestly think TTN has put forth an effort to change, but somehow he's not quite gotten a handle on the whole "you don't have the final say" part of things. At this point I wouldn't endorse an indefinite re-extension of the restriction, but I would endorse a temporary re-extension for a few months just to "gently" re-affirm the point of the last RfArb. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 15:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that after reading Wizardman's statement I most definitely agree: ArbCom needs to make some sort of definitive statement regarding TTN's behavior, one way or the other. Anything resembling a "no consensus" will simply delay things for a few months (or weeks) whereupon a new request for clarification will show up again. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gazimoff[edit]

I raised this same issue at this same venue about three weeks ago. I was hoping that the concerns and issues would be thrashed out, but it's disappointing to see that it's returned to this venue.

To be honest, I do not have a problem with TTN raising articles for deletion, or creating redirects, or merging content. These are a much needed part of the general content editing process that helps promote good articles. Although I would be happier if TTN demonstrated that he searched for sources himself before removing content, I can understand why it takes place.

My primary concern then, as it is now, is the througput or the rate at which he carries out content removal actions or raises AfDs. It is the volume of work that I feel causes concerns amongst the content creators in the community, and which I'm almost certain has brought this back here. It's not a content dispute, as I'm sure we can come to agreeents on content through other processes. It's behavioural - his activity occurs at such a rate that it stretches the ability for other editors to respond to his concerns.

I would encourage TTN to work with Wikiprojects in order to discuss his article concerns becore embarking on mass or large scale actions. I would also urge TTN to throttle or limit the rate at which he removes content or raises AfDs in order to ensure that the rest of the editing community has a legitemate chance to respond to his concerns.

Many thanks, Gazimoff 18:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Josiah Rowe[edit]

It's been suggested that TTN is operating under WP:BRD. He's certainly being bold, and many of his edits are indeed reverted — but in proportion to his bold edits, there is very little discussion. I don't know if further sanctions are appropriate or needed here, but I do think that a strong encouragement towards more discussion and civil engagement with other editors would be helpful. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayron32[edit]

I am entirely uninvolved in this situation, I was never involved in any of the deltions, nor any discussions involving this user or this problem in the past. I am merely commenting as someone who has been a passive observer for months. This is not about the deletions of articles of TV characters, this is about the specific behavior of TTN with regard to making WP:POINTs, especially as it comes to these articles and his behavior at AFD and other places. The act of proposing mass deletions of entire groups of articles with little or no rationale is disruptive. That each of his deletions has the exact same deltion reason shows that he has no intention of considering each article on its own merits, the speed of these nominations shows that he isn't considering that there may be some articles which are deletable, and others which DO pass muster. It would appear from his actions that he is merely trying to delete an entire class of articles at Wikipedia, and as such, is attempting to use AFD to create policy. However, this is old news, because this is the exact same behavior that led to the recently expired sanctions. Seriously, the expectation of setting an expiration date on the sanctions is that, after the sanctions, the behavior would change in some meaningful way. The behavior has not, so the sanctions should return. The points made by bainer below may be 100% accurate, but not one of these statements excuses TTN for disrupting the process in this way. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pixelface[edit]

TTN is now on a mission to purge the "video game and anime and manga character categories."[40] I brought up videogame characters[41] in the E&C2 Arbcom case [42], 7 days after Newyorkbrad changed the injunction to be only about TV characters [43]. On February 28, Newyorkbrad proposed the remedy that ultimately passed and that restricted TTN concerning articles about TV episodes and characters [44] — which was 3 weeks after I brought up the issue of videogame character articles. Category:Video game characters has 1,166 articles in it according to this tool, and Category:Anime and manga characters has 2,698 articles in it according to the same tool — for a total of 3,864 articles. Evaluating the articles in those categories may actually not be a bad idea. But I think TTN is the last editor who should do it. Is there not a point where a certain number of AFDs per day started by one user becomes disruptive?

TTN has created the articles Darkrai (a Pokemon), 5 LOCs List of Monsters, Inc. characters, List of Samurai Shodown Characters, List of Histeria! characters, List of Last Blade characters, List of One Piece characters, and 2 DAB pages Konk and Slowpoke. TTN appears to know a good deal about Dragonball, Naruto, and Pokemon, and I think TTN should continue to contribute to those areas. But the speed that TTN is nominating articles for deletion puts a huge burden on editors actually willing to do research — research that TTN himself seems absolutely unwilling to do.

In November 2007 in E&C1, TTN said[45] "I'm just going to be utilizing AfDs more often rather than revert warring." In E&C2, TTN was placed under editing restrictions for six months. During that time he was blocked twice for violating his restrictions. When those restrictions expired, TTN began (and continues) a mass deletion spree with cut-and-paste nominations, using Twinkle. A remedy proposed in E&C2 prohibiting the use of Twinkle to mass nominate articles for deletion was ignored by arbitrators.[46] If the articles in question are really so egregious that they need to be evaluated now, I'm confident that some other editor (one not involved in E&C1 or E&C2} can do it. For example, WikiProject Anime and manga and WikiProject Video games could be of help. You might say that other people are evaluating the articles, because TTN is nominating them for deletion, and other editors are discussing them, but a robot could make the same cut-and-paste nominations at the speed TTN is making them. There is no deadline, WP:FICT isn't even a guideline anymore, WP:PLOT never had consensus to be policy, and WP:N is in flux. Personally I think TTN has continued to fail to work "collaboratively and constructively with the broader community." I think TTN may have learned some bad habits from the suspected sockpuppet (and troll) Wiki-star at Talk:Majin Buu, the talk page of an article about a Dragonball character.

I have personally never seen TTN add any material with citation to any article (although I would happily welcome some evidence of that). It appears to me that someone, somewhere hurt TTN's feelings. Everything to him is "pointless" or "unnecessary." I don't know how old TTN is, but a troll was calling TTN a "bastard"[47] 7 days into TTN's editing and that may have had a big influence on TTN's future willingness to interact with other editors. I think TTN learned long ago that it was much easier for him to just do whatever he wanted without trying to talk with other editors — this is evident on early archives of his user talk page. So the effect is that of a steamroller. TTN is exhausting the community's patience. Although he does appear to have a handful of supporters.

A principle in E&C2 stated "It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change." I think the volume that TTN is producing new AFDs with Twinkle goes against that principle. I would support an indefinite extension of TTN's previous editing restrictions. I would first support another 6-month extension, but I fear that will only mean another appearance before ArbCom in six months. I think TTN may possibly be helped with some mentorship, which, in hindsight, should have been a remedy in E&C2. --Pixelface (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Thebainer, "One has to begin with the observation that the community has failed to produce a notability guideline particularly for either television episodes or fictional characters", then why is TTN is acting like there is one? I've previously suggested that WP:EPISODE be turned into a notability guideline (since TTN was claiming it was anyway) and during E&C2 I asked Newyorkbrad to designate a place for the parties to "develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question." I also asked about mass AFDs in March [48]. There was an RFC on WP:FICT in June and TTN did participate. But FICT failed to achieve consensus, and it was eventually marked an essay and fully protected. From there, Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise was started. Before that, I suggested to Masem that a survey be started at WT:FICT. I've written up a draft of the survey and I still think it's a good idea. At one point, WP:FICT *was* based on AFD precedents, but the guideline gradually mutated into the mess it is now. It may be that Wikipedia needs a better system of creating and modifying policies and guidelines than the current free-for-all. --Pixelface (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fordmadoxfraud[edit]

I edit a lot of comics articles, and I am aware that the community in which I operate, and that of many other media-related subjects, such as anime and television, have not entirely grokked the utter necessity for reliable sources in all that we do. However. This is not a failing that is remedied by wholesale removals of content or by alienating interested editors who need improvement. TTN might be knowledgeable about the subject, but until his production of references for articles (which, so far as I can tell, stands at exactly zero) comes even remotely close to his deletions, merges and nominations, he can only be seen as putting undue weight on the editors already working to improve and ref these articles.

Several editors have voiced fatigue at the return of this subject, of "another" TTN thread at arbcom, and have dismissed concerns raised against him as those of "vested interests" and "fan editors" who have their knives out for TTN because he culls their pet articles. The majority of TTN's nominations and merges are not horrendous bad calls, but that is not the point: when an editor merges and nominates for deletion with such hyperbolic frequency, and in only communities in which he offers absolutely no other participation--or even the barest word of discussion--that editor is a disruptive influence. Particularly when a pattern of behavior which yielded a six month block is entirely resumed with no change in nature or character.

Those who are suggesting that the debate here is bigger than TTN are also missing the point. TTN is not serving as a scapegoat for the community's utter failure to develop generally accepted standards of notability regarding fictional topics. TTN is an editor who refuses to offer even a token level of discourse with the affected communities and editors.Ford MF (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to VasileGaburici: Again no one is saying that the creation of redirects or the bringing of articles to AfD are, in themselves, bad things. These are both valuable services to the community at large. The people demurring here seem to be under the impression that people are saying "this guy redirects and deletes stuff", and therefore is bad, which makes the discussion about inclusionism/deletionism, which is an offramp to nowhere that effectively stymies any discussion of the effects of TTN's behavior. This is not the issue.

The issue is that TTN's entire, prolific (or whatever negative proliferation is) mode on Wikipedia is to remove content with a volume and frequency that effectively blocks the interested communities from responding intelligently to the concerns that he raises. If he can be said to be raising concerns at all, as his talkpage contributions are, putting it charitably, minimal. There is no conceivable way in which TTN can be said to be "working with" the interested communities at all. And to the people who demur "but these communities have a vested interest in the material and cannot be counted on to be impartial in these discussions", all I have to say is "duh". That's why communities exist in the first place. That doesn't mean it's okay to utterly ignore discourse with the communities, which is essentially what TTN does. You would be hard pressed to find, in TTN's voluminous contributions, much of any edits made to wikiproject spaces. His monomaniacal devotion to articles of a very narrow subject range and his utter refusal to address the concerns about his behavior made by a number of Wikipedia colleagues, constitute a pattern of continuous disruptive behavior. The fact that his disruption is caused via the processes of merging and deletion is a non-issue. Ford MF (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wizardman[edit]

Seems like every other week TTN's back here, deserving or not. So I ask arbcom, make a ruling. Either permanently restrict his edits the way they were in E+C 2, or don't restrict his edits and bar future discussions to do so. It's going to have to be one extreme or the other just so we can finally put this to rest. A no consensus will see this continue again, and again, and again. Wizardman 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by VasileGaburici[edit]

Reading this new October 12 AN/I thread made me come here. I agree with the statements made by Stifle and MuZemike above. Ironically, the results of the AfDs initiated by TTN often are merge/redirect (see AN/I thread for examples), exactly what he was banned from doing by himself, except that after an AfD some community consensus is established for the article in question. So, in the absence of any guidelines to the contrary, I don't see disruption on behalf of TTN for bringing articles to the attention of the community, as Thebainer pointed out. On the other hand the editors (some of them admins) that are constantly asking for TTN's head are disruptive because they are trying to subvert the well established AfD process. VG ☎ 02:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by How do you turn this on[edit]

Since his restriction was lifted on 10 September, TTN has done not much more than create hundreds of XFDs for episode and character subjects, with his first being on the 11th. It seems to me he's sat out the ban fine, but the moment it's lifted, has reverted to the behaviour that started it in the first place. I, like Wizardman, ask ArbCom to make a more permanent ruling on this. It's not that the nominations in themselves are disruptive; it's the appearance that he's held it all in in the six months he was banned from doing it, and has made thousands of edits in the banned area since his ban was lifted, compared to June, July and August when he made significantly fewer edits. A temporary restriction clearly isn't working, and as Phil points out at the top, he doesn't seem particularly interested in discussing, which is really one of the bigger issues here. -- how do you turn this on 20:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth[edit]

Just a quick statement in direct response to what Flonight said. I think your position is reasonable, until one remembers that deletion (and nomination for deletion) is quicker than article improvement. It is possible for a small rump of "deletionists" to focus on a particular area and overwhelm the efforts of those wanting to keep poor-quality articles and take the time to improve them. Equally, it is possible for those creating poor-quality articles to overwhelm the "improvement" and "deletion" camps. So what I think you have here is three camps:

• (1) a fast rate of article production by "fans"
• (2) an attempt by "deletionists" to stem the tide (foiled by local consensus by "fans")
• (3) an attempt by "inclusionists" to keep articles and improve them.

Both (2) and (3) are being overwhelmed by (1), since that is the fastest process. (3) is being overwhelmed by both (1) and (2) as it is the slowest process. What is needed here is better management of the workflow. Either turn off (or reduce) the source of new articles (could have unintended consequences) or place strict limits on the rates at which processes (2) [deletion] and (3) [article improvement] take place. The point being that these two processes should not be responsive to each other, but they should both be responsive to the rate of article creation. i.e. If the rate of article creation goes up, the amount of deletion debates should go up (if the articles are good, they will be kept anyway). If the rate of article creation goes down, people should turn their attention to article improvement to allow the rate of article creation to recover. Otherwise, the logical end point is that the rate of article creation will eventually plateau, article deletions will carry on at the same rate (i.e. faster than article improvement) and the endpoint will be that the level of articles will stablise at a level that "deletionsists" would prefer, and not the level at which "inclusionists" would prefer. Eventually, as the good articles get written, the level will increase again to the "inclusionist" level. But a lot of goodwill will be lost in the process. Carcharoth (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• One has to begin with the observation that the community has failed to produce a notability guideline particularly for either television episodes or fictional characters. The best there is is the general fiction notability guideline. In the absence of any specific guidance, there are really no methods available to seek the input of the community at large about such articles other than deletion debates; indeed, that's the approach envisaged by the general guideline. On what has been presented here, TTN is not repeatedly nominating articles, nor being disruptive within the discussions. The Committee is being asked (again) to remedy the community's failure to produce some coherent approach to these articles by banning someone with a particular point of view about them, and I do not think that is right. --bainer (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Phil Sandifer, I should emphasise that I was discussing methods for seeking the input of the community at large, as opposed to obtaining what is usually called the "local consensus" (at the article talk page, or in this context also at the WikiProject page). Really the only alternative to attract a broad array of input other than a deletion debate is a request for comment on the article, and that is even less feasible. --bainer (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re Phil's "dismay": yes there have been two cases on this matter before, but you are not correct to say that this request relates to exactly the same issues. The evidence here does not indicate that the same types of behaviours that were at issue in the earlier cases (eg, edit warring) are being repeated, and I have already explained why I am of the view that merely nominating articles for deletion, in this subject area, without anything more, cannot be considered problematic. --bainer (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Pixelface, I agree. The project does need a better method for developing policies, but per Flo, that method is not de facto development by ArbCom ruling. --bainer (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is primarily a content dispute, so I reject further involvement as the situation now stands. As I noted in my recent comment on this topic on this page, TNN (nor any other user as far as it relates to this current situation) has not violated any policy or conducted himself in a manner that is disruptive. This is a classic case of one side of the dispute seeing disruptive editing where none exists because they have a difference of opinion with the involved editor. Rather I see this as a two sided issue, with some users thinking that loads of non-notable articles are started and that the Community has trouble keeping up with removing them so many AFDs/mergers are needed. Other users think that too many notable articles are being put up for deletion or merger discussion. Both sides in the conflict feel that the situation will be out of control if the other side is allowed to continue unchecked. As pointed out by bainer, since the Community has not reached consensus on a policy/guideline on the topic, we have repeated cycles of the issue causing content disputes. The Community needs to find a way to write this policy and not look to the Committee to do it through Committee ruling that causes a back door policy decision that one side can link to in future discussions. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---