Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Workshop

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.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Merges must retain some information from the merged articles

1) A merge is only a merge when a non-trivial amount of information is retained from all articles that are part of the merge. If no information is retained from an individual article then the article has not been merged, but blanked or "soft deleted".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm not sure if this is reliant, but I generally agree with this definition of merge. Keep in mind that articles redirected to a parent article that already contains some of the same content could be seen as a merge, even if no edit is required to preserve that information. -- Ned Scott 22:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Conditional support: change "must" to "should", and remove the soft-deletion line or reword it to say "if no non-trivial information is retained... the article has not been merged, but redirected or "soft deleted". Will ^(talk) 00:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree with Ned Scott — the target of the "merge" may-well already include a reasonable summary. Also, the editor redirecting may not be familiar with the subject and thus may not be the best editor to summarize the material. I feel that the onus is on those seeking to include plot summary to edit and format it in accordance with policies and guidelines. I object to the term "soft delete" as inherently biased (and "blanked" is even worse); use the word "redirect". --Jack Merridew 06:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The appropriate venue for deletion requests is Candidates for Speedy Deletion, Proposed Deletion, or Articles for Deletion

2) If an editor feels that no information present in an article (not present elsewhere) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, that editor should use any of the three established deletion processes to have that article removed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose Arbcom is not here to set policy. Also, a great many editors do not wish to delete these articles, as they might be able to be improved in the future, or might be good candidates to transwiki. -- Ned Scott 22:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment It's my understanding that policy already says the above; I'm not seeking to set policy. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose — per Ned, again. This is not about delete. Many editors fail to realize that there really is no such thing as delete when anything can be undeleted. In the case of a redirect, anyone can resurrect a redirected article. --Jack Merridew 06:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge discussions are not an acceptable substitute for Candidates for Speedy Deletion, Proposed Deletion, or Articles for Deletion

3) Any editor who opens a merge discussion with no intent to retain any information from any number of articles involved in the merge, or who executes a merge by "soft deleting" any number of articles involved, is gaming the system.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose Inappropriate, this arbcom case is not here to set a policy on how we deal with these articles. -- Ned Scott 22:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This in no way suggests that the process of dealing with articles needs to be changed. This only suggests that TTN has been going against the existing process. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Then point me to the policy page that already exists that says we can't deal with articles outside of AfD? See my comment on your other section, as deletion is often not desired for transwiki or possible future real-world information. -- Ned Scott 22:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay let's cover a few things in detail:

1) "Future real-world information". Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. It's possible that any of the thousands of garage bands that write articles about themselves will, someday, become hugely famous. That does not mean we blank and redirect every article on a non-notable band on the offchance that it might become notable someday; we delete them, speedily, with no qualms and no issues. If that band does somehow become hugely successful somewhere down the road, then we can either recreate the article, go to deletion review, or ask any number of helpful administrators to retrieve the deleted text.

2) "Transwiki". Quite simply put, if it can be transwiki'd at the time, we transwiki it; otherwise we don't. Again, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. We shouldn't retain a bunch of non-notable articles in history on the offchance that an appropriate wiki might spring up in the future. If that does happen, again, a helpful administrator can retrieve the text of the deleted article for us. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You do realize you are citing a page that is meant for article space? Also, no one is predicting the future with external wikis, as I can tell you that they exist today. Even if there is not a show/topic specific wiki, there are tons of blanket TV, anime, comic, and game wikis out there. Every day I spend a few hours working on transwiki work, and am one of only a few (apparently) that have the desire to do so, and understand how do to so. (most people don't realize that Special:Export is broken, or that there is an export URL that can generate the entire page history of an article (without he 100 revision limit.) It is simply impossible to get to them all at once. How's the search for that policy page, by the way? -- Ned Scott 22:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

1) WP:CRYSTAL is used in deletion discussions frequently as a counter to "this band/show/subject will be notable soon". Just because the examples don't specifically outline the context I'm using it in doesn't mean it does not apply.

2) If transwiking is such a problem, then the process is obviously broken. The solution is to fix the process, not break other processes so you don't have to use the first broken process. You've obviously got a good grasp of how to do it despite these problems anyway; perhaps you should write a guide, which would solve the problem temporarily until the software is fixed.

3) I'm not going to participate in your reductio ad absurdum quest. This proposal does not say "we can't deal with articles out side of AfD"; it simply says that we can't use merge discussions to get articles deleted (or soft-deleted) from Wikipedia. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with transwiking is that it is something that hasn't really been developed. It's not something you can really fix in software (although having Special:Export working properly would be nice, but that's only part of the issue.) It is not "broken" and keeping an article as a redirect does not break anything else. Category:Redirects from Digimon, a category with over 900 articles, exists specifically for such a reason, and no one seems to have a major objection with that. We have deletion discussions because not everyone has deletion (or undeletion) tools, and that's about it. If a discussion is well accessible to other editors, well known, and has a fair amount of discussion, then it is functioning as the community discussion. No one should be using "merge" discussions to get under the radar, but that's pretty much the only reason why you would want to avoid them. Like I've pointed out, nothing in policy mandates the use of AfD for redirecting. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Mandates for every redirect, no. But for those redirects where no content is to be retained, I contend it does. It is, in essence, an undoing of the article. It may exist in the history, but the content is wiped and (in the cases of the articles involved in this RfArb) enforced to remain as such. It is a deletion, albeit a soft deletion, and as such should use a deletion process. Labeling a discussion where soft-deletion is the desired outcome as a "merge discussion" is disingenuous.

On another note, I wasn't being snippy when I suggested you write a guide on how to properly transwiki articles; please do. I can think of several swaths of episode articles I'd like to see show up on the appropriate wikis and I'd like to do it myself, properly. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I guess we can say this is another example of how editors such as myself need to assume some more good faith and put past frustrations behind us. I'm still not sure I entirely agree with this, but I have a proposal floating around in my head that might be aiming for the same point. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose — As I said above, this is not about "Delete". However, I am not opposed to a Articles for Redirection process. I would like to note, carefully, that any assumption about an editors "intent" risks an assumption of bad faith. --Jack Merridew 07:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Episode notability discussions are not an acceptable substitute for Candidates for Speedy Deletion, Proposed Deletion, or Articles for Deletion

4) As the television article review process has not yet gathered community-wide consensus it should not be used as the only step in a contested article removal process. If the article removal is contested, regardless of the outcome of the television article review process, then one of the established deletion processes should be used.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Again, arbcom is not here to set policy. This is also a bit irrelevant, as the idea behind TV-REVIEW was that it was nothing more than a formalization of discussions that should be judged on their own merits. -- Ned Scott 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That hasn't been the way TTN was using it, at least for the brief time he was using it. I seek only a clarification of that point. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Since any merging or redirection is based on the consensus of the discussions themselves, the status of WP:TV-REVIEW is illrelevant. You are blatantly asking arbcom to give you a free pass to undo these redirects, and that is something to discuss on another talk page. -- Ned Scott 22:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm asking arbcom to suggest that WP:TV-REVIEW shouldn't be used in place of AfD (or PROD or SPEEDY); nothing more, nothing less. You're assuming bad faith here, and not only that but assuming I want to undo the redirects. Apparently you didn't read anything I've posted in the General discussion area, particularly the part about how I agree with many of the redirects TTN has made. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, my apologies. I shouldn't have assumed that. -- Ned Scott 06:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is irrelevant. The original process was rejected, and is no longer used. Currently, normal merger proposals are. They may occasionally use use same discussion format on the talk page, but that's hardly unique. All of those pages should either be MfDd or marked {{historical}}. I (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Noted. The project page indicates nothing about this however, and seems to indicate that further notability discussions are pending. It seems as if some people are still using the process. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The page makes it seem that way, or you seem to belive people are? I am not aware of anyone using that process. And as I said, the pages should be deleted or tagged, so that people know the status of the process. I (talk) 08:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The page makes it seem that way. I personally haven't seen any new TV-REVIEW discussions for months, though the one over at Talk:List of Angel episodes#Episode_notability is still raging last I checked. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

My goodness. However, that is not a discussion derived from the process. It's really just a merge proposal. I (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The formalized discussion per WP:TV-REVIEW are entirely legitimate — the problem with this process is that it takes weeks (or months!) and some editors assert that 'local consensus' rules. I don't see this process as being much different from a reasonably formed Articles for Redirection discussion — with the possibility that a new process may garner wider participation. --Jack Merridew 07:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

5) Consensus on policies and guidelines is global. A local consensus of application of policies and guidelines should be sought only if the global consensus is too vague.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"Vague" isn't the best word, but it should be here. Will ^(talk) 00:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. This is in line with WP:CONSENSUS, but the way it is phrased implies that no local discussions should take place, and that local consensus should never be factored in, regardless of how many editors are involved in that local consensus. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Unnecessary. We already have a policy on consensus that includes a crystal-clear definition. No need to repeat it. Eusebeus 12:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly believe that "Consensus on policies and guidelines is global" but also feel that the rest is a wee bit too strong. I reserve the right to warm to the idea, though… --Jack Merridew 07:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

5.1) Consensus on policies and guidelines is global. Local consensus cannot override global consensus except where the specific application of global consensus is unclear, or in certain other, extraordinary circumstances.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, based on my objections to original wording of Principle 5. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose as unnecessary per above. We already have a policy on consensus that includes a crystal-clear definition. No need to repeat it. I understand what Yukichigai is trying to do, but this smacks of anticipated wikilawyering. Eusebeus 12:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to the wikilawyering that already goes on on both sides? In particular, though, the worst wikilawyering I've seen along these lines is by those trying to misrepresent a policy/guideline as being broader than intended by the actual "global" consensus. Anomie⚔ 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That view coincides quite neatly with your own bias in this discussion, but it fails to address how, exactly, the current policy on consensus is unclear or ambiguous. I would agree, however, that any merge discussion make careful and explicit reference to what consensus means since a surprisingly large number of editors apparently (and in good faith) persist in the view that it is an up-or-down !vote on a talk page. Eusebeus 15:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss

6) An editor redirecting and/or merging an article falls under the scope of being bold if the reasoning is correctly based upon existing rules. If said editor is reverted, the next stage is discussion, not edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Will ^(talk) 00:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Ned Scott 03:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, though the "correctly based upon existing rules" is a bit sketchy for my tastes. "Within the boundaries of existing policy and guidelines" would be more appropriate I think. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But the presense of discussions neither saves an article from a merge per se, nor does it buy indefinitely more time. If no new sources or article improvements are presented after some time, discussions or protests are void. AfD would be the next step then. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: I meant AfD to get community-wide approval for redirection, not for deletion of the articles. If we can set up a Articles for Redirection board (I like that idea), this point would be moot. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support — with a few minor reservations. I am not sure about Sgeureka's view that AfD is next — delete is not the issue, it just sticks better. Again, the need for an Article for Redirection process manifests. My other concern is that this does not apply if a reasonable discussion has already occurred. --Jack Merridew 07:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixing problems

7) If an editor removes content based upon policy/guideline based objections, editors who wish to retain the content are expected to fix the problem instead of edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. 00:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The phrasing implies that any editor who removes content based on policy or guideline based objections is automatically "favored" by Wikipedia, regardless of the merits of those objections. (e.g. I could say that all use of the word "woman" violates WP:NPOV because it implies that women are incomplete without men, but I doubt anybody would really "fix the problem") The phrasing also does not allow for the bold, revert, discuss cycle, and it implies that whenever an editor removes content there is a "problem", always. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Even WP:FICT notes that articles that at least show potential should be ok, even if they are not fixed right away. -- Ned Scott 06:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support but understand objections and would welcome a proposal that goes part-way here. Something in this direction is needed. --Jack Merridew 07:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Support with Jack above, but this sounds like more policy; the scope of this arbcom case is limited to a single user's editing habits.

After a merge/redirect, a list or link to what was merged/redirected must be presented on the talkpage

1) If an editor merges or redirects a former article, he must list what he did, or leave a link to the page history when the links were still intact.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposal. Purpose: Make the actions transparant, and keep it in the archive for possibly later transwikiing. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably not something arbcom can really mandate, but a good suggestion to for the community to adopt anyways. -- Ned Scott 06:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a reasonable thing and I have left a few links of this form on talk pages. Such links could be added to past discussions. I have a small concern that this might facilitate edit warring, but don't believe that should preclude leaving such links. --Jack Merridew 07:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Community discussions

1) When mass merging, redirecting, or making other large scale changes to articles, it is generally expected that other editors will be consulted in an open community discussion, with reasonable time to discuss. Some discussions, particularly ones about controversial actions, are (might be?) better taken to a formal community discussion such as AfD.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Needs rewording, but hopefully people will get the general gist of what I'm going for here, in that we expect some form of discussion, and while AfDs and such are not required, they are preferred when things are controversial/ highly disputed/ etc. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support — with some reservations about AfD. --Jack Merridew 07:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What defines mass merging/redirection/large changes? Doing something to one series of articles? Or many series? Also, what is an open community discussion? Are we talking AN(I) or the Village Pump? Or just a discussion? As I read it now, I believe that this contradicts WP:BOLD. If someone is reverted after doing something, then a discussion should take place. It is not required beforehand. I (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

All sides warned

1) All sides are warned to stay civil and assume good faith in both edit summaries and discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Will ^(talk) 01:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is probably the main real issue in the scope of this RfAr, as far as I can tell, since policy is explicitly outside its scope. Unfortunately, I don't think it's so simple. In reading over the discussions on the various pages here, I see incredible amounts of bad-faith-assumptions in contexts where the editor is clearly thinking they are assuming good faith. I also see a lot of "the ends justify the means" style comments in favor of the backdoor-deletion going on. Anomie⚔ 04:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

FYI, I'm dealing with some real life stuff here for the next few days so my contributions to this RfArb will be somewhat sparse during that time. That being said, I do have time right now to expand further on why I initiated this and to mention some things I think need to be addressed. (Which I'll get around to adding to the appropriate sections sometime here)

First, I'd like to mention that I am not a "we need to keep every episode article ever" editor. On the contrary, I think many of the articles TTN has redirected had little merit for inclusion on Wikipedia, and most episode articles in general would probably be better off trans-wiki'd elsewhere. (Compare Star Trek episode articles on Wikipedia with those on Memory Alpha, for example; less restrictions means better articles in many cases) However, that is my opinion; it is not fact, nor can it override a clear consensus expressed by a majority of editors who have contributed to a group of articles. My main problem with TTN is that he does not acknowledge that last point, and if anything adheres to the opposite view.

The other fundamental issue I have with TTN's behavior is that (based on a browsing of his contribution history) roughly 95% of his mainspace contributions to Wikipedia overall are either edits which remove content or edits which are part of a process to remove content. Now I will admit that ensuring articles meet policy and guideline requirements is not detrimental to Wikipedia 99.99% of the time, but when an editor focuses their editing efforts all but solely on doing so by way of removing content are they really "contributing" anymore? At that point I posit that it crosses the line from "helpful" to "disruptive", and based on the not insignificant number of editors who have "piled on" to this RfArb (not to mention the overwhelming number of complaints on TTN's talk page) I am not groundless in holding that opinion.

Now in the process of starting this RfArb a number of non-TTN-specific issues which need to be addressed have come to my attention. First and foremost is the issue of the current merge process; if anything TTN's edits and the subsequent backlash have shown that, at least for merges which are likely to be controversial, the current merge process simply does not cut it. Now to their credit many members of the TV Project realized this and attempted to create an alternative, but their result was a highly specific process for only a small subset of articles, and one which did not address what I feel is the core of the problem with the current merge process: it is not specifically subject to administrative oversight like AfD and RfD are, and doesn't even require administrator involvement. If these merges were performed after a lengthy discussion as part of an official (non-article-type-specific) Wikipedia process, one that was closed by an uninvolved administrator, I doubt we'd be here at all. I think an "AfR"/"AfM" process is one of the things that must come out of this RfArb, regardless of how any of the other matters are resolved.

There are some other, minor issues I'd like to raise relating to this this RfArb, but they are not nearly as important as what I've mentioned already. Once I have more time I'll make sure to detail them. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Administrators have no authority in discussions over any other user, and the only reason they are required to closed AfDs and such is because the closures often require admin access to deletion tools. A process not involving someone with an admin bit really means nothing when the process does not require the tools. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, arbcom cases aren't here to set policy, but rather over look the behavior and actions of the editors involved. An AfR/AfM process would have to be proposed and adopted by the community like any other process. -- Ned Scott 07:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Other than that, I do agree that we need such a process, it's just unlikely that the arbcom case will actually start it (the events around all of this most likely will, though). -- Ned Scott 07:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Authority, no. However, most editors by and far trust administrators moreso than their fellow editors, because the fact that someone is an administrator indicates they have a certain, higher level of responsibility, rationality and other such qualities. Even if there should technically be no real difference between the weights of opinion between admin and non-admin editors, in practice the involvement of a previously uninvolved admin, particularly when they close a debate or determine consensus, goes a long way to stop potential discord. That was my point, sorry I wasn't clearer. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 09:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I've been waiting for this to make it to the Workshop so I could comment without becoming officially a party. I strongly recommend that ARBCOM endorse TTN's activities, and, with minor reservations, his techniques. He is not insulting, derisive, or belittling to his topic. He simply recognizes that run-of-the-mill episodes of Farscape and Hannah Montana cannot be notable by any reasonable definition, and not even by many unreasonable ones. He indicates his intention, and, after not receiving a single argument that is based on policy, proceeds.

He is taking care of a necessary function, and doing it in a reasonable compromise fashion between expediency and politeness. The only better approach would be to make episode summaries that don't meet some objective standard (maybe premiere, finale, or nominated for an Emmy) a Candidate for Speedy Deletion.

We have a huge problem on Wikipedia in the pop culture area. Pop culture is fine, but the involved editors frequently lack perspective. Sure, The Rocky Horror Picture Show needs and gets an article. But every song? My Gym Partner's a Monkey needs an article, but every episode? It took a tremendous amount of effort to get to the point that not every Pokemon character had its own article. When these things are nominated for deletion, the fans come up in enormous numbers, and the closing admin tends to go with the count, even though the keep votes are usually based on nothing more than "I like it", and the delete votes are grounded in policy. In some way, we need to get the effort involved in cleaning this stuff out down to a reasonable level, because 300 Disney fans writing articles on every character in every episode of every series on the Disney channel can create more articles in a day than any group of editors can redirect and delete if they have to go to AFD and DRV on each one.Kww (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. 0ne of the problems is the huge discrepancy between the intention of Wikipedia (an encyclopedia), and how it is used by many people. When you look at the most popular pages on Wikipedia[1], there are basically three categories: news, sex, and popular culture. Bizarrely, Wikipedia is not a news site, not a sex site, and not a fan site... To me, it is the gap between "sticking to the core of Wikipedia (which is already wide enough as it is)" and "expanding to include popular subjects, even if they are not strictly notable in the Wikipedia sense" which causes all these problems, and which inevitably puts editors on opposite sides of the spectrum on a frontal collision course. More succinctly put, it is the clash between policy and consensus. Fram (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not paper and if we have readers interested in episodes and chracters and editors willing to devote their volunteer time to improving factual articles that do not personally attack anyone we shouldn't turn away our readership and potential editors, because of "I don't like it" arguments. As editors work on episodes and characters, they too may edit other aspects of the encyclopedia over time as well. We should improve our project and try to catalog as much of human knowledge as possible rather than systematically destroy verifiable information put up in good faith by hundreds if not thousands of dedicated editors. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the opinion of people in favor of merges really based on "I don't like it", or rather that the articles in question currently violate WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOTABILITY/WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:TRIVIA, WP:QUOTE, etc? Isn't it "improvement" when these articles are brought in line with policies and guidelines by merging, or, in the case that there is nothing to merge, redirecting? What kind of improvement are articles exactly hoping for that simply lack any (secondary) sources? There is also this thing with wikipedia trying to be as "free" as possible. While trying to make wikipedia void of any unfree content is virtually impossible and also not desirable, there should be at least some care to not declare openhouse for detailed plot "human knowledge", which consensus has agreed is not what wikipedia is for anyway. Fortunately, there are other outlets for this purpose, and the longer I think about it, the more I believe that a better collaboration between them and us would be favorable for both sides and all of our sanity. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Then instead of merging articles or nominating them for deletion, look for and add secondary sources. We shouldn't discourage people from editing verifiable stuff that they want to edit and limit our abilities when we have a rare opportunity to go farther than any paper encyclopedia ever has. Plus as many have said to me consensus changes apparently constantly. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said: How can one find secondary sources if there aren't any to begin with? If even fans are unable to find (and/or provide) such sources during "dangerous" merge/redirect/deletion discussions, how is the "cleanup personal" expected to find them? (There is also the issue of WP:V#Burden of evidence.) Someone brought up Isola (fictional city) in a recent discussion. I have never heard of it and frankly doubt its notability, but what's the right thing to do? Let only the people familiar with this topic (i.e. fans) decide what should be done? My impression is they hardly ever recommend merging/deletion (only known exceptions I'm aware of: Kingdom Hearts and Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Notability). And how often have I been asked during my cleanup efforts, "why do you hate fans so much?", when the association of "trim information / delete articles" and "you hate the article contributers" is completely mistaken. This whole thing, as Kww and Fram have already pointed out, is not about what fans want wikipedia to be (a fan site), but what wikipeda is (an encyclopedia). If you can cover your favorite subject from a real-world angle backed up with reliable secondary sources, you can cover even the most obscure fictional topic without ever being threatened of deletion, even if that sometimes means you have to cover all of it in one article instead of ten. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There are enough sites like E online IMDB.com, tv.com, etc, that have generally verifiable information for episodes and all anyone has to do is watch an episode to see if what we have in our articles is true. I wholeheartedly agree that hoaxes should not be on Wikipedia, but if we operate on consensus then obviously the fact that so many editors are willing to edit episode articles must be proof that we do not have consensus that these articles should not be here. Not all editors want to spend time on AfDs (how many AfDs have a half dozen or so participants versus the scores of editors who actually worked on the article?) or ever-changing policy discussions (it is hard to cite policies and guidelines when they too are edited just about if not every day and their talk pages suggest a constant evolution in opinion and interpretation). We should do our best to fight vandalism and nonsense, but sometimes "primary evidence" is what encyclopedia writers have to turn to. When I get the book of the year from Britannica it will likely have some items on current events issues, for example; well, to a historian a newspaper article can be a primary, not a secondary source, an official government release can be a primary source, etc. Having an article on an episode that is likely to at least have a mention in say Entertainment Weekly and/or TV Guide and which thousands of viewers watch on its original airing, when it is re-run, appears on DVD, etc. gives the episode notability. We need to encourage editors to not shy away from printed sources and we definitely should not diminish our project by only worrying about select articles when our contributors and ready and willing to improve a multitude of topics. Do we really want to just be a repeat of other encyclopedias or do we want to give our readers the real fulfillment of cataloging the sum of human knowledge! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(Trying to keep my points short because we should actually discuss editors' behavior and not content) Per WP:RS, Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, meaning that primary sources should be kept to a minimum. WP:PSTS and WP:WAF specifically demonstrate why that is (mainly because it is very easy to abuse primary sources by trying to analyse them, which unfortunately happens almost naturally in editing because this is exactly what we all once learned in school). Take Jack Shephard from Lost (randomly picked) - "Jack is a talented spinal surgeon [...] He is taciturn, but speaks bluntly, and is somewhat emotionally reserved [...] He lets go of matters that appear important to him [...]" from one paragraph, all bolded entries are unsourced analysis of his character. Per WP:WAF, maintain a balanced use of both primary and secondary sources (which I take to mean about fifty-fifty), you should have about one sentence of secondary information for each sentence of plot. If sources are (currently) not available, the episode plots or character arcs can still be sufficiently described in episode or character lists. Popularity (not notability) may come from the number of people watching something, but in wikipedia, A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (WP:N). Granted, popularity may create demand for secondary coverage, which in turn is a demonstration of notability. Wikipedia can then compile these sources, as stated in my intro. By the way, WP:FAC rejects imdb and tv.com as sources (other than for cast information) because they lack editorial oversight. I guess the situation of ever-changing guidelines is a sign of improvement instead of destruction of encyclopedic content.

(Back to the behavior of editors) If editors don't like the current state of policies and guidelines (P&G), the right way is to start a discussion at the P&G talk pages, not in AfDs or in merge discussions. Think an article is notable because of sufficient secondary coverage? Add and use these sources. Still find yourself unable to bring the articles in line with existing P&G? Consider collaboration to bring them in line with P&G. Think that redirecting is too strict? Help in merging. Never act against consensus by reverting to the version you like. It's really simple, actually. – sgeureka ^t•c 01:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, as I do not like to only focus on negatives, I do respect TTN's withdrawal of this discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

TTN doesn't merge, he redirects, even if the article has multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources. If what he's doing is right, why don't we just make a page called redirected for notability reasons and he can redirect every article that doesn't conform to his standards, completely circumventing AfD? The reason why is because we have a consensus to use AfD. It's a time honored tradition that doesn't allow him to blanck a hundred articles a day, so he ignores it. He's gotten a little better since the spotlight that is arbitration has been shined on him, but we should really revert all his edits, or at least the ones he enforced with edit warring and take them to AfD if necessary. I've seen a lot of consensus merges result from AfD, and no one argues with those, but that isn't what he's doing. - 00:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peregrine Fisher (talk • contribs)

Have you got a link to where TTN redirected an "article [that had] multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources"? If you're talking of All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural), then TTN's persistance has significantly improved the articles from their original state.[2][3] The plot is still overly long, and buddy.tv and tvsquad are not reliable sources (but are okay-ish for the reception section for the moment, I guess), so there is much more work ahead. And it seems there are people who are in favor of a five-day source-it-now-or-kill-it AfD, while others prefer a 30-day prove-notability-and-thou-shall-be-spared discussion approach (with the option to resurrect the article). What's probably best is to combine both - discuss for 30 days first, then iniate AfD if nothing happens. TTN stated he is considering AfD now, so your wish may become true. – sgeureka ^t•c 01:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"It's a time honored tradition" ? AfD is a tradition? AfD is nothing more than one of many ways to discuss decisions about an article, and is only necessary when one seeks outright deletion. I understand your concern, but AfD is not some sacred (or even time honored) tradition. If the argument is that an AfD attracts more people to the discussion, then why shoot down ideas like WP:TV-REVIEW? I hope that one of the things this arbitration case can clarify is that not every merge or redirect decision needs an AfD. I might start drafting such a proposal, actually.

And on that note (as a general comment to the recent discussion on this page), remember that we're not here to debate the merits of the policy, but the actions of those involved. -- Ned Scott 02:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly TTN's redirects and the abrasiveness in which he has carried them out are disputed. If TTN unilaterally deems that a page fails notability guidelines, does the page automatically fail notability guidelines? Isn't gaining consensus before redirecting, not after, the name of the game on Wikipedia? -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Only if people revert. Otherwise, it's perfectly allowed under WP:BOLD. I (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

So, if an editor reverts TTN's redirects, he is then supposed to take it to discussion, correct? Ursasapien (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. But he hasn't always, hence the arbitration case we now find ourselves commenting on. I (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Yukichigai referred above (way-up, in Comments by parties) to "a clear consensus expressed by a majority of editors who have contributed to a group of articles" and I would like to state that I feel - and believe policy says - that a local consensus does not rule, and that established policy and established consensus will overrule a locally expressed opinion. Am I somehow wrong here? If a local opinion can "win" in such situations it would allow local fiefdoms and secessions from the wider project. From my experience, local opinion lacks perspective. --Jack Merridew 10:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the "local consensus" you speak of? What is "established policy and established consensus"? I really like this quote from MalikCarr. "That's the way consensus is supposed to work, and in practice, the way it does. Guidelines proposed, drafted and implemented by a few editors will never replace the consensus of editors. This is why guidelines should follow consensus, not consensus follow guidelines. It's counterintuitive, a form of circular logic, and wholly ineffective." Ursasapien (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

By "local consensus" I mean any subset of the community comprised of a small group that actually edits a specific group of articles - as opposed to the wider community of all editors. In otherwords, a group of fans do not own the artices about whatever show and wider policies and precident can overrule local opinion. --Jack Merridew 07:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

One could argue that in this case, "local consensus" is that of TTN (et al), and "precedent" is represented by the wider community's acceptance of individual articles for many, many years. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Or, one could argue, if longstanding things like WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:N (both from which the fiction guidelines are drawn) are considered "local consensus", then there is no point in having policies and guidelines at all. The precedent you speak of may not come from "acceptance" after all, but from resignation. (I remember not even bothering to propose merges and deletions or do anything in popular articles because I knew that I'd be drowned in local keep as it is votes. I'm glad this has changed at least a little.) – sgeureka ^t•c 10:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, again I should have been clearer. The "group of articles" I was talking about were TV articles in general, not just articles for specific TV shows. True, virtually all of those dissenting opinions have been presented in individual show discussions, but it seems that people are under the impression that after that discussion is over all dissenting opinions are considered null and void. I think we can go out on a limb and say most of those editors still hold those opinions. As you said, consensus is not determined locally, but must be considered based on the opinions of Wikipedia as a whole. The consensus on this matter is not a clear-cut "most of Wikipedia versus a handful of fans of X TV show" situation anymore, it's "fans of ALL TV shows versus editors in favor of WP:EPISODE." (Due in no small part to TTN's inflammatory behavior) The question now is which side reflects consensus, and counter to TTN's dismissive opinion that is not clear-cut anymore. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 20:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is we have several levels of consensus, and certain levels are able to get their way much more easily than others. We've got maybe 1-10 editors per TV show who would like to keep these articles. We've got maybe 10 editors at WP:EPISODE who would like to get rid of them. WP:N has however many people who like to use it to remove what they deem fiction related "cruft," and a larger group who uses it to delete garage bands and other stuff that isn't controversial to delete. Then there's an even larger group of editors who just edit real world topics and don't have to worry about notability. Finally, there's the millions of readers who have no idea how much we fight about articles.

If you watch WP:N's talk page, frequently an editor shows up to complain, is shot down by the same 3-10 people, and they leave. Then someone else comes along, is shot down by the same people, and leaves. If 1 in 10 TV editors participated in policy discussions as aggressively as the current people who support notability's strict intrepretation, the episode articles would be safe, but they don't, so they aren't.

This whole RfAr is really about how our system enables small groups of dedicated editors to control what large amounts of other, less dedicated, editors do. I don't think anything can really be done about this, short of major adjustments to the mediawiki software.

I like to think that the number of TV editors should show that there's a consensus to keep these articles, but Ned Scott has pointed out that the larger group of all editors may be against TV related articles. He may be right, I don't know. I also don't know if reader's preferences should be considered, but I have seen a top 100 article be deleted for failing WP:N.

We used to use AfD to deal with these articles, and AfD allows for smaller groups to get there way, even if they can't make headway on the guideline pages. This new model of redirection that TTN has devoloped has closed that loophole, to the great joy of some, and the great dissapointment of others. I've been reading some articles on group dynamics, and apparently rules are the result when groups become to large to actually discuss individual issues.

I doubt if arbcom is meant to address these types of issues. It probably couldn't if it wanted to. Mabye they could use their pull to get this issue a watchlist notification for some sort of vote. That would be cool and at least we'd finally know. Jimbo could make some sort of pronouncement, but I don't think he wants to. He's already created a fork for this content (wikia, with ads) so that's probably what he wants done.

I guess arbcom will let TTN continue as he has been, tell him to be more civil, or tell him to use AfD. Should be interesting. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Perigrine's raised some very important points, not the least of which is that we really don't know what the community as a whole wants with regard to this specific issue. For that matter, what about the readers? (After all, at some point we do need to take the audience into account, not just the content creators.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Satisfying the readers is a far easier prospect; all they need is for the information to be easily accessable. Were the blanked/redirected episode articles trans-wiki'd to the appropriate wikia pages and (this is the important part) cross-wiki links and soft redirects put in place directing readers to those articles then the readers would be satisfied. Realistically non-editing readers don't care where the information comes from so long as they can get to it. Besides, Jimbo set up wikia for articles that, while useful, might not be appropriate for Wikipedia, which to me sounds like a large chunk of these episode articles. Wikipedia even has a link prefix for linking to these pages with a non-external link. (e.g. wikia:jfc:Main_Page) Sounds to me like an invitation to use it. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher has some good points, but ideally, the easiest and best solution is similar to what Yukichigai says. Instead of keeping the articles on wikipedia despite violating policies and guidelines badly, they should be transwikied. That's also why I consider deletion bad. Redirection however allows interested editors to transwiki stuff elsewhere and link there. Now it's our job of encouraging these editors to do so. The unfortunate thing is that there are only a handful of TV shows that actually do so, and the popular TV shows mostly haven't started. There are quite a few experienced editors supporting TTN's actions (including me), and the best we can do is set examples of how it's done correctly. I started transwiki'ing popular TV show episode articles two days ago, and the early result (List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, links will be cut later) looks surprisingly practical and useful. I really do think that's the future. (And I also like the idea of a AfR board (Articles for Redirection) to keep track of what got redirected). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with wikia - and don't want to be. I've seen the idea of stuff being "trans-wiki'd" before and suggest that folks who care about all this fiction "cruft" bone-up on the process and get a move-on. It is my understanding that the arbitration process is about behavior and not policy itself, so there will be no ruling that tv stuff gets a pass on, for example, WP:N and WP:V. And I believe that, for the most part, at least, the editors working to clear-out the dross have done so in ways that are safe from serious reprimand. This means that criticism and harsh treatment of crappy articles will continue - possibly using a somewhat revised methodology. Editors who are 'fans' of tv stuff need to either improve such articles or move them to someplace with different rules, and they need to not disrupt the editors seeking to improve the 'pedia by dealing with sub-standard articles that should never have been created. The idea of "Articles for Redirection" and "Articles for Merge" have been suggested - somewhere around here - and it may be a good thing for the community to test the workability of such processes. At the moment, I see an un-level playing field where it is far too easy for fans to create "cruft" articles and too difficult for other editors to deal with their mess. There needs to be a speedy criteria to smack en masse new articles that fail tests such as notability and verifiability and an accepted process for dealing with the huge backlog of extant dross. Every time I check to see what TTN's been doing, I find him working on another pile of crappy articles about junk. Three Cheers, TTN. --Jack Merridew 08:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Ways that are safe from serious reprimand"?!? Since when has adhering to the letter of the law, while violating the spirit of it, been considered acceptable? There is a real pattern of what can only be described as abuse - dismissive attitudes, demeaning asides, lumping anyone who disagrees with the "master plan" into one nice, tidy, "crufty" group. You know, this backlash against TTN's (and other's) actions isn't coming from IPs who want to add their personal theories about how Bart Simpson's dog is really the second coming of Christ. The real opposition is from the many (many many) editors who work really, really hard to produce decent articles, and to maintain them so that "cruft" is swept away as quickly as possible. Why not actually look through article histories, and see how many editors are constantly working away to clean things up? Why not look at the editors who defend the episode articles you seek to delete, and see how they are simultaneously deleting articles that are purely speculative, or fan-theory-based? Should an article be lumped in with the "dross" just because it is about an individual episode? No, it should not. There certainly are "crappy articles" in the television project - just as there are "crappy articles' in astronomy, arts, technology, and every other section of the project. While I'm sure it is wonderfully convenient for you, it is completely unfair to generalize about the "fans of TV stuff" and presume that they - we - are all the same, and worse still to continually insist that our opinions are worthless because we disagree with you. That is not how this project is supposed to work; in fact, it is exactly the opposite. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't believe that the 'spirit' of the law is to keep every bit of trash that every editor ever dumps on this site "in the house". What TTN and others are doing is "emptying the trash". I don't mean to disparage the work of editors who have done good work on tv related articles - true, policy-conformant "good" work. Maybe I've spent too much time reviewing the lamest of the lame tv stuff; some the Disney shows come to mind. As I've looked further afield than the tv episode articles, I've encountered "crufty" tv character article, Dungeons and Dragons junk, and video game shite. This is a vast sea of unencyclopaedic content and it will bury the content of substance here. Somewhere - the AN/I Episode page? - I referred to these "articles" as silverfish - and an essay still needs writing under this name. --Jack Merridew 10:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I first wrote a lengthy rant, but I'll stick to one example, which has both "camps" around (for simplicity's sake:the "redirecters" and the "improvers", not the "drive-by fancrufters").

We're So Screwed Part I: Fetal Attraction was tagged for merging on August 11, was heavily defended by the regulars (Ckatz, Matthew, and in the discussion Peregrine Fisher), but has not been improved one bit in four months (during which it was redirected and unredirected) and still violated WP:NOT#PLOT until two days ago, when TTN again redirected it. Now, can you explain why reversing to an article which violates WP:EPISODE and WP:NOT is not more disruptive than redirecting the article to an episode list, which makes it in line with policies and guidelines? How is keeping this article as it stands in line with the spirit of the law? The defense basically is "the article should be kept because one day it will get real world information", while the spirit of the law and the core of an encyclopedia is "we shouldn't have this article until real world information is provided in it".

If I would see an attitude of "redirecting articles which are only plot summaries is fine, but keep your hands of reliably referenced articles", I would be more inclined to listen to the complaints raised (some of which are valid). But as long as it comes across to me as a "I'm a kettle, but look only at the pot please" dispute, I find it hard to have any sympathy for it, and in my opinion any sanctions for disruptive behaviour should clearly go both sides, to those redirecting articles which have real world info, and to those recreating articles without real world information. Fram (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish to second everything that Jack Merridew and Fram have written - I couldn't agree more. I will also note that the usual suspects who are strongly opposed to the existence and application of the guidelines for writing about Fiction have largely weighed in on the ongoing debate at that guideline's talk page without effect. To speak directly to the arbcom case, and I respect User:Yukichigai's efforts to encapsulate the problem, the crux of the matter is whether WP:CON|consensus]] backs up TTN's efforts. I feel that it clearly does so. There is no interest in weakening our prohibition on in-universe persepctive, plot summaries, and trivia. As a result, I find the complaints of Yukichigai and White Cat, etc..., to be completely beside the point.

I too hope this arbcom case produces a warm endorsement of TTN's efforts, so that the provess of removing the accumulated fan-driven dross from Wikipedia can accelerate and that the mistaken view that local consensus trumps policy can be decisively dismissed by simply linking to this case. Eusebeus 17:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

How about I, E.T.? The revert of the redirect is the latest edit, but TTN made no effort to merge any of the out of universe information. I picked a random episode and improved it, using the first couple RSs I found and some info from the first few minutes of the DVD commentary. Improving 100 articles is not done in a day, and I don't feel especially motivated with this gun pointed at each articles head. - Peregrine Fisher 19:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• (de-indent) OK, let's look at this stuff since it brings up another important point. The real-world encyclopedic information in that article asserts such gems as:

1. The prosthetics requirements brushed up against child labour laws
2. One scene features D'Argo and Aeryn hiding in a tree where they adlib a gesture.
3. An IGN reviewer felt that the production values for "I, E.T." were "humdrum" whilst a BBC reviewer disagrees.
4. "I, E.T." was included on a DVD with the premiere episode.

Come on, that's almost insultingly absurd. You can label this stuff with whatever you want, but the real word for it is trivia (except perhaps for the critical reaction which is hardly grounds for asserting notability per our guidelines). Redirect is the correct call and what is there to merge? Trivial production details? That's called TV.com or the Farscape wikia. This is an encyclopedia. I still cannot understand why people persist in making themselves unhappy here by brushing up against our policies, when wikia can take as much fancruft, trivia, and the like as one likes.

Now that you have pointed out this dross is still around, I think I will go ahead and revert the revert of the revert of the revert of the revert of the revert of the revert of TTN's redirect which remains the right thing to do. Eusebeus 19:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The "redirecters" usually rely on policies and guidelines, which I understand. The article conforms to Wikipedia:Trivia sections as far as I can tell. Which part doesn't? - Peregrine Fisher 01:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying not to get too involved in this case but I do have a comment on this line of thinking: While I agree that the real world information is at best trivial at this point I would like to remind everyone involved here that we are currently under agreement to leave a group of those articles ("I, E.T." included) in tact in order for editors to attempt to improve them as discussed at Talk:List_of_Farscape_episodes#Possible_means_of_resolution This was done to stop the rampant redirecting and unredirecting so could we please just abide by that agreement for the time being and see how things go and then discuss each article individually after some time has passed? I know some people don't want to wait and some people still think every episode is notable without limit but could we please just all stay calm and try the compromise for a couple more weeks? Stardust8212 21:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

True, my bad. Eusebeus 21:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd weigh in again. Some above have stated their belief that Wikia is the best solution, and I wouldn't immediately disagree. However, I do not think the beef of this arbitration case is where the content should go or why the content is being deleted: we can look to existing policy for that. The focus on this case is and should be looking at solutions on how to transfer, redirect, or delete the content. As many have said above, this case should not be setting policy, and I would agree with that. Hopefully editors do not look to arbitration as a Supreme Court but rather just a binding conflict-resolution system. Back to the case at hand, I want to emphasize that the Committee's decision will not rule on modifying WP:N or deem WP:NOT#PLOT relevant to any specific article but rather it will deem editors such as TTN's behavior appropriate or not. I feel the discussion here has strayed from discussion of behavior to policy. Let's say for a minute that TTN has good intentions and his redirects are appropriate (I feel this is true for the most part). Now, do we feel that his sudden redirects and overbearing comments on talk pages are appropriate and civil? I don't. But I hope the discussion can get back to discussing such behavior on Wikipedia and brainstorm solutions that will check and balance inappropriate behavior, perhaps with a new process, rather than discussing how the content should be disposed, as I don't think that matter is as pressing and we already have adequate policy. Happy December. -- Wikipedical 18:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)