This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 1.1 Truce 1.2 Truce 1.3 Temporary Halt to Activities 1.4 Addition of Jack Merridew as an involved party 1.5 Addition of Ursasapien as an involved party 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 Proposed injunction 2.2 Second question - opinion sought 2.3 TTN stop removing content during the duration of the rfar 2.4 TTN stop removing content during the duration of the rfar 2.5 Temporary injunction 2.6 Halt to activities, revised 2.7 Apparent violation of injunction 3 Questions to the parties 3.1 Question from uninvolved party User:Roninbk 4 Proposed final decision 4.1 Proposals by John254 4.1.1 Proposed Principles 4.1.1.1 Extreme edit warring 4.1.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.1.2.1 TTN 4.1.2.2 Template 4.1.3 Proposed remedies 4.1.3.1 TTN Banned 4.2 Proposals by Kirill Lokshin 4.2.1 Proposed Principles 4.2.1.1 Fait accompli 4.2.1.2 Template 4.2.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.2.2.1 Template 4.2.2.2 Template 4.2.3 Proposed remedies 4.2.3.1 Working group 4.2.3.2 Template 4.2.4 Proposed enforcement 4.2.4.1 Template 4.2.4.2 Template 4.3 Proposals by uninvolved User: Masem 4.3.1 Proposed Principles 4.3.1.1 Notability describes what topics should be covered on Wikipedia 4.3.1.2 Editors should notify others of articles that fail to meet policy and guidelines 4.3.1.3 Good faith efforts should be made, and should be given time, for improvement 4.3.1.4 Consensus may not always reflect the majority viewpoint 4.3.1.5 Editors should not create "edit wars" 4.3.1.6 Consensus is not demonstrated by only existence of articles 4.3.1.7 Editors are not required to participate in specific tasks 4.3.1.8 Redirection is not the same as deletion 4.3.1.9 Plot and characters summaries are derivative works 4.3.1.10 The burden of evidence for notability is on the editor(s) that have included the topic 4.3.1.11 A merge/redirection should not eliminate the coverage of a topic 4.3.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.3.2.1 Template 4.3.2.2 Template 4.3.3 Proposed remedies 4.3.3.1 Consensus building for Episode and Character articles 4.3.3.2 Following consensus for Episode and Character articles 4.3.3.3 Template 4.3.4 Proposed enforcement 4.3.4.1 Block of involved parties that fail to follow consensus 4.3.4.2 Template 4.4 Proposals by Y|yukichigai 4.4.1 Proposed principles 4.4.1.1 Deletion by redirect 4.4.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.4.3 Proposed remedies 4.4.3.1 TTN's redirecting limited 4.4.3.2 TTN's redirecting limited 4.5 Proposals by Wizardman 4.5.1 Proposed principles 4.5.1.1 Extreme edit warring 4.5.1.2 Wikipedia is an encyclopedia 4.5.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.1 Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle 4.5.2.2 User:TTN and consensus 4.5.2.3 Pixelface 4.5.3 Proposed remedies 4.6 Proposals by Pixelface 4.6.1 Proposed Principles 4.6.1.1 Guidelines are descriptive 4.6.1.2 Redirect warring is harmful 4.6.1.3 Template 4.6.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.6.2.1 The prevalence of episode/character articles can no longer be avoided 4.6.2.2 Television episode articles that do not cite reliable third-party sources are common 4.6.2.3 TTN has ignored the previous decision by the arbitration committee 4.6.2.4 TTN has violated WP:3RR 4.6.3 Proposed remedies 4.6.3.1 Striking the root 4.6.3.2 TTN restricted 4.6.3.3 Eusebeus restricted 4.6.3.4 TTN blocked for one month 4.6.3.5 TTN's reverting restricted 4.6.3.6 Template 4.6.4 Proposed enforcement 4.6.4.1 Enforcement by block 4.6.4.2 Template 4.7 Proposals by User TheFarix 4.7.1 Proposed Principles 4.7.1.1 Editorial process 4.7.1.2 Mergers and article cleanup 4.7.1.3 Edit warring considered harmful 4.7.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.7.2.1 Wikipedia is not consistent 4.7.2.2 Template 4.7.3 Proposed remedies 4.7.3.1 Template 4.7.3.2 Template 4.7.4 Proposed enforcement 4.7.4.1 Template 4.7.4.2 Template 4.8 Proposals by uninvolved User:Anomie 4.8.1 Proposed Principles 4.8.1.1 The ends do not justify the means 4.8.1.2 Retaliation is not acceptable 4.8.1.3 Enforcement of policy does not justify incivility 4.8.1.4 "Good" edits do not justify incivility 4.8.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.8.2.1 It does not necessarily take two to edit war 4.8.3 Proposed remedies 4.8.3.1 Policy-enforcing editors encouraged 4.8.3.2 Existing behavioral guidelines and policies are to be enforced fairly 4.9 Proposals by Casliber 4.9.1 If identified as contentious, editors must have 25% of edits to addition, improvement or sourcing of mainspace material 4.9.1.1 Template 4.9.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.9.2.1 Template 4.9.2.2 Template 4.9.3 Proposed remedies 4.9.3.1 Template 4.9.3.2 Template 4.9.4 Proposed enforcement 4.9.4.1 Template 4.9.4.2 Template 4.10 Proposals by User:Rdfox 76 4.10.1 Proposed Principles 4.10.1.1 Template 4.10.1.2 Template 4.10.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.10.2.1 Redirection has been used in place of merging 4.10.2.2 Other homes for the disputed material exist 4.10.3 Proposed remedies 4.10.3.1 Transwiki prior to redirect/merge 4.10.3.2 Transwiki prior to redirect/merge (Mark Two) 4.10.4 Proposed enforcement 4.10.4.1 Template 4.10.4.2 Template 4.11 Proposals by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 4.11.1 Proposed Principles 4.11.1.1 Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for an encyclopedia 4.11.1.2 Notability is inherited 4.11.1.3 Articles composed entirely of primary sources are not necessarily "original" research 4.11.1.4 Wikipedia is a diverse community of editors 4.11.1.5 Articles concerning episodes and characters are encyclopedic 4.11.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.11.2.1 Harassment of inclusionists 4.11.2.2 Template 4.11.3 Proposed remedies 4.11.3.1 Twinkle not to be used to flood, overwhelm Articles for Deletion 4.11.3.2 Editors will avoid insulting each other. 4.11.4 Proposed enforcement 4.11.4.1 Template 4.11.4.2 Template 4.12 Proposals by Seraphimblade 4.12.1 Proposed Principles 4.12.1.1 Editors expected to justify content reverts 4.12.1.2 Editors to engage in good-faith discussion 4.12.1.3 Sourcing is required 4.12.2 Proposed remedies 4.12.2.1 Undiscussed reverts may themselves be reverted 4.12.3 Proposed enforcement 4.12.3.1 Edit warring without discussion 4.12.3.2 Topic ban enforcement 4.12.3.3 Applicability to subject area 4.13 Proposals by User:Crotalus horridus 4.13.1 Proposed Principles 4.13.1.1 Edit warring considered harmful 4.13.1.2 ArbCom does not handle content disputes 4.13.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.13.2.1 Conflict over articles involving episodes and characters 4.13.2.2 Requirements for Wikipedia articles 4.13.2.3 Disruptive activity by User:TTN 4.13.2.4 User:TTN has promised to stop, but continued 4.13.2.5 Template 4.13.3 Proposed remedies 4.13.3.1 Discussion encouraged 4.13.3.2 Use of Transwiki for unencyclopedic fan material encouraged 4.13.3.3 User:TTN prohibited from redirecting or merging articles 4.14 Proposals by User:Dorftrottel 4.14.1 Proposed Principle 4.15 Proposals by Sceptre 4.15.1 Proposed Principles 4.15.1.1 Notability 4.15.1.2 Wikistalking 4.15.1.3 Article development 4.15.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.15.2.1 Reviews 4.15.2.2 Bad faith 4.15.2.3 TTN 4.15.2.4 Pixelface 4.15.2.5 Geni 4.15.2.6 Age of articles 4.15.2.7 The Simpsons 4.15.2.8 TTN and wikistalking 4.15.3 Proposed remedies 4.15.3.1 Restriction 4.15.3.1.1 0RR on fiction articles 4.15.3.2 Geni 4.15.4 Proposed enforcement 4.15.4.1 Template 4.15.4.2 Template 4.16 Proposals by Hiding (talk · contribs) 4.16.1 Proposed Principles 4.16.1.1 Negotiation 4.16.1.2 Disruption 4.16.1.3 Consensus can change 4.16.1.4 Specialised guidance 4.16.1.5 Discuss and compromise 4.16.1.6 Good faith in resolving disputes 4.16.1.7 Reversion not a substitute for discussion 4.16.1.8 Consensus 4.16.1.9 Pages are not owned 4.16.1.10 Dispute resolution 4.16.1.11 Guidelines are not policy 4.16.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.16.2.1 Content dispute 4.16.2.2 Dogmatic editing 4.16.3 Proposed remedies 4.16.3.1 All editors on revert parole 4.16.3.2 Mediation 4.16.3.3 Probation 4.17 Proposals by White Cat 4.17.1 Proposed principles 4.17.1.1 Consensus 4.17.1.2 Consensus can change 4.17.1.3 Breakdowns in consensus 4.17.1.4 Building consensus: external discussion 4.17.1.5 WikiProjects 4.17.1.6 Building consensus: WikiProjects 4.17.1.7 Ownership of articles 4.17.1.8 Guidelines 4.17.2 Proposed enforcement 4.17.2.1 Indefinite block of Jack Merridew 4.18 Proposals by Ned Scott 4.18.1 Proposed remedies 4.18.1.1 TTN restricted when challenged 4.19 Analysis of evidence 4.19.1 Disconnect between /Evidence and /Workshop 4.19.2 Analysis of Evidence presented by Hiding 4.19.3 Analysis of Evidence presented by User:White Cat 4.19.4 Template 4.19.5 Template 4.19.6 Template 4.19.7 Template 4.20 General discussion

Motions and requests by the parties

Truce

1) The involved parties must cease all AFD nominations as well as all redirecting of televison episode articles and character articles while the arbitration case is ongoing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Pixelface (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

PF - aside from this arbitration, if you concentrate on getting third party refs as requested by TTN etc. this will be most productive. Then, if deletions continue despite sourcing this can be taken further. If you have already done this let me know - I saw the one Peewee episode. Did you want to resurrect that now? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that finding third-party references would be productive. Perhaps parties redirecting articles should be doing that as well. --Pixelface (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Certainly people need to be more flexible and relaxed about these issues, since there's so much heat right now, but we don't need to come to a total halt. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, extremely one-sided "truce" and some of that redirecting/merging is being done on already reached consensus among projects and editors in the articles. Collectonian (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, too broad; AfD is the correct location for articles that don't meet policy; and this suggestion would prevent merge/redirecting of articles that do have consensus for such actions, regardless of notability. BLACKKITE 13:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Pretty one sided truce ... can we delete all episode articles created while this arbitration is being processed?Kww (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse, once the dispute is on-going, the validity and reliability of in-questioned guideline must be taken into consideration and the excessive application of this problematic guideline like now is intolerable. @pple complain 17:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse as continuing doing so will only raise tensions as we discuss the matter. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse I'm all in favour of calling a halt and discussing properly. We need consensus before continuing. Astronaut (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Absurd — One might be tempted to counter with:

• All episode articles are summarily deleted and may only be recreated in a solidly notability-establishing state.

--Jack Merridew 11:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- excessively broad and one-sided. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse for reasons pointed out by others. --Maniwar (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- utterly one-sided; concur with User:Jack Merridew :- "Verify or die" -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose unless there is a similar moratorium on the creation of episode or character articles. This creates a situation in which anyone who wishes to can create any fragmented and unverifiable crappy stub with no cleanup process allowed. Edison (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Truce

1.1) All involved parties must cease editing episode articles as well as character articles while the arbitration case is ongoing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Less one-sided version of 1). --Pixelface (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - while it is a good idea, I'm too involved in the Doctor Who WikiProject that it would effectively stop my editing entirely - in fact, just before this case was opened, I've been collaborating with another editor to get a set of episode articles to GA. Also support a wording that doesn't cut off the valid creation of Torchwood, Lost, or Simpsons episodes. Will ^(talk) 02:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - just try sourcing what is still around and work from there. They want sourcing so let's get some cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose obviously. -- Ned Scott 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose just as one-sided and even worse for those of us in the TV and Anime/Manga project whose primary work is with such content. Collectonian (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, sorry, but I agree with Casliber. I think this is a good time for us to improve and source some articles as examples of what they can be. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose per Sceptre. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps another route could be something like "all parties work to reference, improve" episode and character articles instead? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that's a good idea. Astronaut (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, by the way. per Tim Q Wells. Astronaut (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per... well, just about everyone in the "involved" section, really. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- just as one-sided. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Temporary Halt to Activities

2) Involved editors will avoid performing the actions under contention of this RfA (tagging for notability, merge proposals, redirection for merging, undoing such actions, and nominating articles for deletion) for television-related articles during this process; though they may continue to participate in any other acceptable form of editing and involvement. Involved parties are discouraged from creating new television-related articles during this process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. --Pixelface (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support, though the only creations I can possibly see right now due to the the WGA strike are actually Torchwood, Lost, and The Simpsons (and all three are covered by non-parties) Will ^(talk) 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to accuse or expect this from anyone, but this is to prevent one of those involved from creating more episode articles to deal with after this is over while there's a moratorium on deleting or merging them. --MASEM 02:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

True. I'd expect none of the three shows to have problem articles, though. Will ^(talk) 02:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem is - that hasn't stopped nominations before for shows of similar status, so I wouldn't take that as a given. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose It's the forcing of the issue that needs to be cooled down, not a total stop. -- Ned Scott 03:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I realize that ArbCom is looking at behavior and likely not content, I agree to some extent, but it seems fair to me that until this matter, which is running adjacent to the notability of episodes RFC, that the parties hold off on these questionable changes until behavior issues are addressed as well (if any) content ones. --MASEM 06:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The behavior in question is the act of redirecting. There wouldn't be any need to restrict tagging or even sending things to AfD. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, it is part of the work I do as a member of the two related projects, particularly tagging and suggesting merges. The parties calling this RfC claim the "deletionists" claim their issue is with people NOT tagging and discussion merges, so now they are saying not to even do that? Collectonian (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed to balance out 1, non-restrict general editing per 1.1. --MASEM 02:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the enforcement measure if someone were to violate this, may I ask? Wizardman 03:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Maybe a block would be preventative actions if somebody blatantly violates this. @pple complain 17:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should focus on this discussion for now, rather than starting new, potentially contentious AfDs. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree TTN has been redirecting 20-100 articles per day while this RfArb was being considered. He's refused to make a response, and is not engaging people to discuss. If his redirects get reverted, he simply repeats it the next day. This is disruptive. The non-response to the considerations of an ArbCom issue where he is the most discussed party shows contempt for Wikipedia as a process. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Oppose Though I concur with User:SchmuckyTheCat's view, it should be noted that the proposal includes "tagging for notability, merge proposals, redirection for merging, undoing such actions, and nominating articles for deletion" (emphasis added). If one party persists on tagging or merging, there is no sense in expecting the other party not to undo such actions. - PeaceNT (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose like PeaceNT, I agree with SchmuckyTheCat's view, but a halt to all activities would not give us the chance to undo TTN's disruptive edits should he continue to ignore this RfA. Astronaut (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This is not the right direction. Nothing to prevent others from stepping-in (from either camp). --Jack Merridew 12:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak Support -- Not the ideal solution, but considering that BOTH sides of this dispute are continuing to fight it out even as the case is going on, something's gotta be done. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree as pointed out by others. --Maniwar (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Jack Merridew as an involved party

3) Jack Merridew made several comments in the edit warring on episode articles ANI thread. Jack Merridew said, "I agree that this issue is not limited to tv episodes; it includes tv characters, video game characters and locations, and D&D characters, modules, locations, spells, deities, hoards and a hundreds of other thangs; all non-notable, of course. Block the disruptive editors after one warning; 24h, a week, a month, a year." [1] Jack Merridew has violated the three-revert rule and has engaged in edit warring on fictional character articles. On January 13, 2008, Jack Merridew performed 7 reverts on the Bhaal article. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Jack Merridew has participated in drawn-out revert wars on articles such as Number One (My Name Is Earl) [9] [10] [11] Jack Merridew also accused Pixelface of being a "troll" on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes [12]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Pixelface (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Having an opinion on the matter does not automatically make one a party in this dispute. The Bhaal examples of reverts are unrelated, and completely appear to be vandalism reverting with an anon who keeps removing cleanup tags. The Earl example is pretty weak as well. This seems to be retaliation for Jack's comment to Pixel on List of Scrubs episodes. -- Ned Scott 00:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And yes, Pixel was inflaming the situation with his constant suggestions of going after Simpsons articles (such as the one made on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes). -- Ned Scott 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Further comment, Pixel leaves out that other editors were reverting the same anon, and that the article was semi-protected to stop that anon from removing the tags. -- Ned Scott 00:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've struck out the mention of WP:3RR (since it may have been sockpuppets that were reverted) and I mentioned the Grawp checkuse case on the /Evidence page. --Pixelface (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jack Merridew, in addition to this evidence, you've already claimed [13] to be "semi-involved." Do you want to retract that statement? --Pixelface (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with my statements; some of yours, however, are of concern and are part of why I choose to participate here. --Jack Merridew 07:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Conditional Support - if the crux of the debate is TV episode notability, then yes, if it is behaviour that is identified as a single purpose account like I outlined elsewhere then yes as TTN shouldn't be singled out for it, if it is for extreme rapidity of reversions and lack of conversation then probably not. All depends on what Arbcom define as the limits of this issue really. Personally I don't think it will go anywhere unless the scope is enlarged. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thing I would like to point out, arbcom is taken as a last resort in a dispute. No attempt has been made with Jack Merridew directly to resolve his role in any dispute, let alone be established that he's done anything wrong. As such I don't think it's fair to make him subject to arbcom's rulings on this matter. If Jack wants to add himself as a party, he can, but that is his decision. If any of you feel differently, start taking other steps in the dispute resolution process, and if that fails, then you might be on to something. With this in mind, there are other users currently listed as parties that I believe could be fairly re-evaluated and removed from the case, if anyone desires, with this same line of logic. -- Ned Scott 07:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Technical Oppose per Ned Scott, though I don't really see how it matters greatly. BLACKKITE 13:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Support, especially when Roses2at is listed as a party. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a weak reason to include him. Consider the comment I made just a few lines above this, "With this in mind, there are other users currently listed as parties that I believe could be fairly re-evaluated and removed from the case, if anyone desires, with this same line of logic." If anyone wants to propose that some people be removed as parties, please do so, it might be a good idea. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a weak reason (which is why I used the comma and the word "especially"). Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support per this edit and this discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

re that second link, please note that I was undoing very pointy redirects of two lists of tv stuff. The discussion there endorses this view and the redirects were not ever performed again. --Jack Merridew 06:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. I am not sure why he was not listed in the first place. He is certainly actively involved in this dispute before the ArbCom. Ursasapien (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support -- Merridew has been one of the more strident voices in the many ANI threads about this issue, and appears to have a similar editing pattern to TTN, Eusebeus, et. al. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support, sorta -- I will agree that he is involved, but I wouldn't go so far as to single him out as one of the worst offenders. Unlike TTN and a few others Jack doesn't have the same habit of "brute enforcing" his edits, which is where much of the outcry and outrage from other editors comes from. Still, he's a vocal proponent of TTN's actions and a distinct figure in this dispute. His inclusion should be a no-brainer. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 20:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support, this user is a hard-working voluntary spokesman for TTN for a while. His recent increasing involvement supports this inclusion. @pple complain 15:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So my offense is one of speech? --Jack Merridew 16:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are similar to Yukichigai. If some of the people listed are considered involved that I've hardly seen anywhere, then Jack's certainly an involved party. Note that this doesn't mean he's at fault for anything, despite what he says; he's merely an involved person in the dispute, which seems pretty obvious to me. Wizardman 03:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Jack Merridew:

Petty snipe by Pixelface. I have already addressed the Bhaal stuff on the case talk page (nb: the checkuser cases have produced a lot of interesting results). And yes, I have posted opinions on the tv issue in various places, including the prior case. I believe this is primarily in response to some comments I've made re Px on this page. Glad to see that Number One (My Name Is Earl) remains a redirect. --Jack Merridew 06:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by utterly-uninvolved party

This appears to be establishing a doctrine that whoever disagrees with one side, is automatically to be hit with the spanner by the other side. This looks to me less like conciliation and more like aggravation. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with expressing disagreement. But edit-warring over redirects on episode and/or character articles indicates that an editor is an involved party. --Pixelface (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Ursasapien as an involved party

4) Ursasapien should be added to this RfA has a party. They have been disruptive and edit warred at WP:EPISODE, making multiple attempts to redirect the page despite not having consensus and being asked by multiple editors to stop attempting to enforce his own views against the guidelines under various claims. His actions were reported to ANI[14], but for specific links:

• 00:32, 7 January 2008 - first done, despite no consensus on talk page, under the claim of "redirect per WP:BURO and WP:CREEP"
• 05:52, 7 January 2008 - again, now claiming consensus when there was none (claimed it by randomly deciding to discount all discussion from before December 22nd)
• 23:31, 8 January 2008 - instead of redirect, replaced the page with a "disambig" page
• 23:59, 8 January 2008 - reverted the undo of his stuff
• talk page discussions with him by multiple editors explaining why he was wrong
• started a "poll" after discussion was obviously not going his way

proposed by Collectonian diff

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose unless he wants to be added. Ursasapien needs to calm down about some stuff, and he certainly is active with the discussion pages at WT:EPISODE and others, but no dispute resolution has been explored for his involvement in this, and I don't believe it would be fair to add him in unless he wants to be added. Similar to the reason I gave for Jack above. -- Ned Scott 07:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I am fine with being added to the arbitration case. However, I strongly object to Collectonian's spurious accusations. She has continued to state that I was wrong and disruptive. She has assumed the worst faith in me from our first contact. She filed a vindictive ANI on me that was promptly ignored/dismissed. She has harrassed me and now is using this motion as a pretext to once again slime me. I tend to be easy-going and am loathe to report any but the most egregious editor conduct but I am nearing my limit. If Collectonian has the moral courage to file an RfC on my behaviour, let her. I am willing to be transparent and demonstrate my good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia. However, she should refrain from making any further scurrilous indictments of my character. Ursasapien (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose as premature -- This issue is thus far being dealt with adequately on WT:EPISODE and its subpages. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- There's nothing in Ursasapien's edits or the evidence cited that indicates anything more than a good-faith assumption of established consensus (mostly due to apathy from the "opposing side") and an editor having the balls to ask the hard questions that nobody else has stepped forward to ask. Like it or not there is question as to whether or not there's consensus for WP:EPISODE currently, and all I'm seeing after the initial redirects and reverts is an editor putting in incredible effort to gauge consensus as thoroughly as possible. If everyone involved in this dispute had put in as much due diligence as Ursa we wouldn't be at Arbcom hashing it out. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed temporary injunctions

Proposed injunction

1)

• No party to this case shall contentiously delete, rename, merge, or redirect, an article covering a TV series, an episode of a TV series, or a significant character in a television series, nor apply a contentious tag or process to such an article aimed at these actions or related to notability issues.
• If a party to this case wishes to perform any of these actions prior to the close of the case, then it may only be performed following consensus on the talk page or some other appropriate venue.
• Until the case closes, any uninvolved administrator who is not a party to the case and is uninvolved in TV episode related disputes, may revert any such change that modifies these pages contentiously and block for up to a week any party who breaches this injunction, and such an action should not be repeated until consensus is obtained.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed recognizing that no wording will suit all parties. We are talking about a brief period of a week to 2 weeks, at a guess, and during that time it is less harmful to allow content creation (and later remove if decided) than content destruction. That said, if a genuine consensus exists and has been sought (one of the main themes of the case is removal without consensus seeking) then there should be no problem. This injunction would therefore affect removal of content without consensus only, and only for a limited period. I am aware it would create a "green light" for some residual undesirable content addition and/or tagging, however if abused then consensus should not be hard to obtain to genuinely list it for AFD, or genuinely tag it, or seek uninvolved help to decide the matter. If some form of "truce" is sought, this may be a way that's readily possible. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This (or something like it) is being considered by the Committee. This post at /Workshop is mostly for parties to consider improvements that might be made in its wording before listing, and consider and let Arbcom know what other issues they feel need to be considered before a temporary injunction is proposed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Inclined to support but I'm concerned about 'contentious' because the contention only happens after the merging/deleting/demerging has done. Would it be better to prohibit 'recklessly' merging/demerging articles without discerning consensus? Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

What defines a "contentious" tag? Heck, some people hate seeing an article tagged at all, or what if someone argues with one of us tagging an article for having no references, etc? Why should those of us who don't even belong in this thing have to stop 99% of our work because of the edit warring between a handful of people? I do a ton of work in the Anime and Manga and the Television projects. Part of that work includes tagging articles while going through unassessed articles, or tagging articles for issues and bringing them to the project's attention. I know some folks have already said "well just fix it yourself instead of tagging" but let's be realistic. I'm already actively an extensively working on a dozen articles, several of which are being worked on for FA/FL status. And what defines contentious renaming (didn't know there were any renaming issues)? If we see an article with the wrong name, are we just supposed to hope someone else fixes it? Collectonian (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In a decision like this, an action or tag is usually said to be contentious very pragmatically - ie if there is visibly doubt whether all "parties" (or users on both "sides") in the dispute would agree it's non-contentious. Thus, a correction of a spelling error or a page refactor or edits and deletions both sides agree on, is usually non-contentious; actions one side agree and the other side don't (whichever way around) are often contentious. Admins who are not involved look into the discussion, the views given, and the basis and backing discussion (if any) for the action and form a view if the action did in their view have a reasonable basis in consensus and is not considered particularly contentious.

Injunctions like these are intended to help prevent (or reduce the chances of) a resurgence of the core area that "flares up", to allow editing to progress as much as possible without escalation, whilst a ruling is being considered. It's a reducer of wikistress. Once the case is closed - in a week or so - the injunction automatically then completely terminates. It's an interim measure.

The reason for an injunction like this is that a case does not reach and become accepted at arbitration because of trivia. This case is here because nothing else has prevented a small number of users having nuclear wars over reversions, deletions, tagging and the related issues described (so to speak). Whilst a fine tuned remedy is being considered, and whoever may be at "fault" if any, it is desirable to allow normal editing to proceed and to be disrupted as little as possible -- but not to re-allow the behaviors that have led to this case from arising. In this case, it would seem that listing the behaviors that (when carried out) have caused dispute, and saying these behaviors are not to be done by anyone on either side without consensus, and the consensus to be assessed by an administrator, is a way of giving the editors on both sides as much of normal editing as we feel can be handled without it reigniting, and also giving both sides the ability to do all actions of all kinds for which there is genuine consensus. For 1 - 2 weeks, it's reasonable and most editors see the sense and value of it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but what about the contentious actions of the "other side" like attempting to use "be bold" as an attempt to redirect WP:EPISODE without consensus, and continuing to try different tactics to have it removed/redirected despite having no consensus and using the same bulldog tactics they accuse TNN of, of trying to wear down everyone who is getting sick of deal with the multiple attacks to policy-supported guidelines because they "don't like it." If we're supposed to be restricted from enforcing policies and guidelines, they should also not be allowed to continue trying to remove those same ones until this is done with. Collectonian (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Again, if you want to restrict something, restrict the reverting, not the cleanup that the project desperately needs. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee Ned can we drop the urgency? No-one finds these articles accidentally, they don't clutter anywhere. Gosh, shock, horror, maybe folks can go and improve sourcing on some health- or politics-related articles in the meantime? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee, it has nothing to do with urgency, it has to do with not restricting things that are not a problem in this case. -- Ned Scott 01:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks sounds fine to me. --Pixelface (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, mainly of the use of "contentious". Contentious does not mean "I don't agree with it", but should mean "this isn't particularly clear in regards to policy". Having said that, I'd guess that Wikipedia is not greatly harmed by the existence of multiple policy-violating pages for another couple of weeks. BLACKKITE 13:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What if parties, or others, should take this as a green light to undo some large number of redirects and restore episode articles that are in violation of various policies and guidelines? I am concerned that this is one-sided and would prefer something that constrained editors in a more balanced fashion. --Jack Merridew 13:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Would adding "...nor contentiously revert actions of these kinds" do it? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It would, providing that it does not include reverting contentious deletion/redirection. - PeaceNT (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be ok with that tweak. As long as all sides know they all have to chill or else, this can work. --Jack Merridew 13:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: might be a good idea to include semi-involved editors (such as myself); i.e. anyone who has been involved in a significant way. --Jack Merridew 14:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. This RfAr exists as a consequence of TTN's disregard for the first RFAR decisions, as well as the fact that his/her continually contentious actions have provoked considerable controversy and objection from the community. Thus, it is perfectly justifiable to request that TTN and other editors cease deleting articles when this case is still active and perhaps take some time to comment on relevant issues here instead (especially TTN, who apparently has been notified of this case, but mysteriously has not found the need to comment). At any rate, deletion/redirection which is based on consensus will not be prevented if this injunction is granted; they shouldn't be concerned. - PeaceNT (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. per Jack Merridew. I think this should help calm passions during this RfAr and may even lead to more commentary here. Comment to Ned Scott. There is no urgency. Clean up is no more desperately needed than the creation of a thousand more episode/character articles. What is desperately needed is careful thought, civil discussion, and consensus. Ursasapien (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - I am already trying to steer clear of it until we get some direction here. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Support per Jack Merridew, PeaceNT. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - per the various reasons pointed out. --Maniwar (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. per above. @pple complain 15:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Second question - opinion sought

Do people (parties and others) feel the case should proceed in parallel with discussions at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability and Wikipedia talk:Television episodes? Or should the case pause a bit to see what happens there? Quick comments sought? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

Comments by others:

The discussions listed should be the decision on content, and generally they seem to be working well despite some strong disagreement. ArbCom is needed more for a few points of policy and mostly for civility and conduct discussion, from what I can tell. As such, these can proceed in parallel, and indeed ArbCom's rulings may help speed up the discussions. LinaMishima (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest keeping things going in parallel. I'm glad the other discussions are being held, and followed by the AC. I personally find the half-meg on that talk page unreadable and hence unfollowable. Of course, if this workshop pages expands as the last case's did, we may have the same issue here. (nb: I dropped 'talk' from your first link as I moved the RFC to its main page a few days ago) --Jack Merridew 14:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I meant this page: Wikipedia:Television episodes/Proposed Objective Criteria. --Jack Merridew 14:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The parallel approach seems to be working; there are some aspects here, but I think we are figuring out the content side pretty well without intervention (though we may need someone uninvolved to determine the right consensus, if needed). --MASEM 18:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

1/ Noted, and 2/ build that into your decision-making process early. If need be or if there is doubt, a simple neutral formula is "the decisions of any polls (if not obvious) shall be agreed by means of a request to ANI/RFC/wherever for final uninvolved views..." or some such. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This really isn't about who's right or wrong when it comes to the content decision, it's about how we handle the situation. However, arbcom should consider this is part of the attempt by the community to help resolve these disputes, both current and in the future. This second case really just needs to adopt #Fait accompli and let the community handle the rest, and I still strongly urge arbcom to do just that. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't see any reason this case shouldn't proceed; the discussion at WT:EPISODE isn't going to resolve the issues involved in this case, while at least one of the parties to the case (TTN) refuses to participate in the discussion there. The discussion is about setting standards for episode (and, presumably, character) articles to follow; this case is about disruptive editing on both sides of the issue. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN stop removing content during the duration of the rfar

2) It seems like all TTN doing is adding to drama. Can arbcom please tell him to temporarily stop these edits not based on consensus. This is to allow dialog and help work for a resolution on this dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, although I'd be happy if TTN simply acknowledged this arbitration case by leaving any sort of comment on any case page. --Pixelface (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Support, even though I think that 90% of the time TTN is in the right, this is probably a good idea until the case ends. BLACKKITE 13:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Initiator: If what TTN is doing is right explaining himself here would help arbitrators understand his perspective better. At a minimum "working together" requires some level of discussion right? -- Cat ^chi? 13:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. Unfortunately, even the AfDs he is participating in are turning into intense debates: [15], [16], [17], [18], etc., where AfD is becoming something of a battleground, rather than just having a focused discussion here in this Workshop. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Support; to borrow a phrase from someone discussing Richard Nixon's role in the Watergate incident, even if one is an administrator; they are NOT ABOVE Wiki-policy. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a side note, TTN isn't an admin. -- Ned Scott 08:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought he was at one point. My fault. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN stop removing content during the duration of the rfar

2.1) TTN to stop removing content in any way (redirectification, xfds and etc) during the duration of this rfar. This is to allow dialog and help work for a resolution on this dispute. See also:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TTN
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jade Empire characters
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kracko (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enter Magneto
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dyna Blade (Kirby) (2nd nomination)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, reworded above entry a bit. -- Cat ^chi? 13:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support as many of those discussions listed above have been quite contentious and it still feels as if we're having the same discussion all over the encyclopedia rather than localized in this case. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

The main reason the prior injunction was limited to television episodes and characters is that only the editors on those articles are likely to be aware of the case and the injunction. I could support expanding the injunction if (i) evidence is presented of a problem on the broader group of articles, and (ii) the editors on the two groups of articles are substantially the same, or a way is found of letting the video game editors know about the case and the proposed injunction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I support this. I assumed the injunction that passed applied to articles about all fictional characters, not just fictional characters from television. And I assumed it only applied to the involved parties. I think the phrase "no editor" should be changed to "no involved party." --Pixelface (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As an involved party that and has voluntarily become a party to this case, and one that hasn't had issues of mass redirection or edit waring over episodes or characters, I'm not happy at the idea that even I would not be allowed to tag articles or merge content. -- Ned Scott 08:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the injunction still allows editors to trim content, merge content, and nominate articles for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Since it's been clarified that this applies to editors that are not a party of this case, I must ask "WTF, arbcom?". We've painfully detailed to you who's been involved, who the key players in this dispute are, and yet you take this absurd extreme... for what? Why lump even non-controversial actions by uninvolved editors into this. This case is regarding editor behavior for a listed group of Wikipedians, it is not your place to get involved in content disputes that are unrelated to this case, especially the ones that aren't even disputed. -- Ned Scott 07:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Simmer, Ned. It's a temporary injunction, not a permanent one. It's not uncommon for a temporary injunction to cover all possible interpretations of who is wrong, so to speak. Side effects aside, this does a reasonably good job of stopping the actions of the dispute (though I've made it clear that I think other fictional characters should be included in the injunction) so that discussion can take place without people having to worry about whether or not a certain article will be redirected/un-blanked/etc. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 10:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I recently added evidence of edit-warring on videogame character articles to /Evidence, which can be seen here. The edit-warring over the Frank West article[19] is also relevant. I can provide detailed evidence on it if anyone wants. --Pixelface (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - wording gives articles like Oceanic Six a free pass to speculate. Will ^(talk) 20:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A slight modification to the current temporary injunction, as it appears that the wording does not extend to a particular category of articles. My addition is italicized.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this needs to be expanded. These contentious edits are focused primarily on TV episodes, but all manner of fictional characters are bearing the brunt of this as well. I never took the title "episodes and characters" to mean exclusively those related to television, and I suspect many here didn't either. Besides, this is about behavior, not content. If an editor is using the same type of questionable tactics on two completely different topic areas do we say that it's okay in one area but not the other? -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What about fictional dinosaurs? Or fictional war axes or magic spells? (and what about non-fictional magic spells?) Then there is the question of fictional flowers that only live on a fictional island in a fictional sea inhabited by fictional mermaids.

Perhaps a better way of looking at the core issue here is that there are a lot of "articles" that amount to encyclopaedic hoaxes. --Jack Merridew 10:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we ought to follow Newyorkbrad's advice and make this modification when we have the evidence to back it up. As far as I can tell, TTN and others have not used the same tactics (certainly not with the overwhelming number of edits or revert warring) on video game character articles. Perhaps someone else could review and, if this is the case, present evidence on the evidence page. Ursasapien (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note As per the announced injunction, the following template is being placed at the top of AfD's that are currently affected by the injunction: