Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FloNight (talk | contribs) at 23:47, 22 October 2008 (→‎Arbitrator views and discussion: ; comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/5/0
Rio Grande 223   19 June 2024 0/3/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 18 June 2024

Current requests

Wizardman's closure of the Ginger Jolie deletion debate

Initiated by The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) at 00:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

The moving party is aware of the request [1]

Wizardman has been notified of the request. [2]

Undoubtedly others will wish to become involved, but there is no practical way to determine who appropriate parties are other than self-selection. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ginger_Jolie

A fundamental issue, the extent to which an individual administrator may disregard the standard requirements for consensus based on individual judgment, necessarily recurs. The alternatives are to wait for a "wheel war" to develop, or to address the matter in a well-defined and conspicuous case, like this one, where the issues are clearly drawn and ripe for resolution.

Statement by The Enchantress Of Florence

During vigorous debate over a controversial issue, Wizardman closed the debate, explicitly citing a standard which does not enjoy consensus support in the community. Wizardman did not even wait until the prescribed 5-day period for comment had expired (the cutoff was approaching, but practice in controversial discussions has been to allow the community to continue in hopes of approaching if not reaching a consensus. Wizardman's close is not based on the conclusions of a neutral observer, but on his own evaluation of some of the substantive issues in the discussion. Since he acknowledges that there is nothing defamatory in the article, and that nothing in WP:BLP calls for this result, he is simply substituting his judgment for the community's. It is also important to note that the subject of the article, and her publicist, asked for deletion of the article not because the subject wishes privacy, but because the subject is seeking greater public exposure through success in the "glamour modeling" industry, and that the subject has asked Wikipedia to provide her with an artificial, nontrivial competitive advantage by helping to make information about her background harder to find -- information that is viewed as highly relevant in that field. There is no reasonable alternative to the Arbitration Committee taking up this case, either to direct that the debate be reopened and allowed to proceed for as long as it takes to determine a rough consensus, or to define the circumstances when an adminstrator may enforce an individual value judgment in lieu of a consensus policy or guideline. Deletion review, in light of the division, would be futile; either the full community process should be reopened, or the underlying issues should be resolved by this committee. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by How do you turn this on

Good grief. We have WP:DRV for a reason – use it if you disagree with the close. Urge rejection by Arbitrators. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shell Kinney

Not withstanding that there was no attempt to discuss the issue with Wizardman nor an attempt at community methods like WP:DRV before skipping straight here, this case is completely without merit and should be quickly declined. Wizardman's close was well within community norms and the additional care given to BLPs; I'm also impressed that he took the time to write such a detailed explanation of his close. Shell babelfish 01:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Minos P. Dautrieve

I strong urge the Committee to accept this case, based on my spouse's sound (if incompletely phrased) analysis. The underlying issues flow from the Committee's decision here [3]. Only the Committee can address them. The case is simple. The community was actively debating an issue of importance in principle, even though the individual subject was not particularly consequential. An administrator short-circuited the debate, found the community positions in equipoise, and invoked his individual evaluation of the issues as a basis to resolve the matter. It should be clear that the "do no harm" maxim cannot resolve the matter. As my spouse incompletely argued, the issue is not whether someone will be harmed Wikipedia's actions. Someone will. The question is whether "Ms Jolie" will be harmed, and her competitors benefited, by Wikipedia's publication of verified, pertinent information, or whether her business competitors will be harmed, and "Ms Jolie" benefited, by its deletion. Someone will be commercially advantaged by the decision here. Someone will be disadvantaged. This is a zero-sum situation. You, the Committee, established the rule that the closer used to resolve the debate. You therefore have the responsibility for deciding whether and how it applies in a zero-sum situation, and whether it justifies taking action not because harm will be avoided, but because the harm will be shifted from an identified to an unidentified party. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Brewcrewer

If the husband and wife tag-team would like to continue their implicit and explicit attacks on Ms. Jolie they should do it at sore-loser review. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Sticky Parkin

Wizardman is a gem for this close which is well in accordance with precedent and policy. Also I agree, if they must take it anywhere WP:DRV would be the venue, but it certainly seems spiteful against the real living person it particularly concerns, who is mentioned in only one reliable source- if you count Penthouse as a reliable source- to justify this treatment. Sticky Parkin 03:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wizardman

It appears many others have already said what I was going to say. If you hated my close that badly, the backlog on RFC is pretty low, as is DRV. A lot of the points the submitter makes I actually refute in my AfD closure. If Arbcom wants to pass a motion of clarification regarding BLP matters then they may, otherwise there's nothing salvageable here. Wizardman 04:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AGK

It was commented to me that the core problem in this matter was that Arbitration Committee's persistent discouragement of wheel warring had created a "climate of fear" amongst administrators, who under that climate had become inherently reluctant to undo an action of their colleague's even when that action is clearly poorly-thought or misplaced. (For reference, recent rulings on wheel warring can be seen: Sarah Palin protection wheel war; Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war; Freestylefrappe.)

I'm inclined to disagree that the Committee's stance on wheel warring is misplaced or incorrect. Whilst it may be true to a small extent that the robust stance it has held on wheel warring has resulted in administrators being especially cautious on undoing others' sysop actions, I believe this to be a Good Thing™.

A misplaced deletion standing for a few days whilst a discussion is held to affirm that the action was poor is, whilst not ideal, acceptable in my mind, when one considers that the alternative is a somewhat chaotic situation in our encyclopedia where the most experienced editors of the project (namely, our sysops) are actively undoing each other liberally and without communication.

No, the Committee's past rulings and ongoing stance on wheel warring is the correct one. It may indeed result in sysops being hesitant at undoing one another freely; but the benefits to the project reaped from that culture are vast. In future incidents like this, the matter should be handled through the procedures we have in place to facilitate the collation of communal consensus on the matter: by presenting the administrator's action at deletion review. (To use this incident as a case study: here we would, after discussing the matter with him, take Wizardman's action to DRV for consideration, discussion, and a final decision.)

And, of course... The Arbitration Committee is not a substitute for DRV. That should go without saying, however.

AGK 19:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

I would echo AGK's thoughts above, and invite the parties to look at the DRV that I opened on Joe the Plumber... which is the way to handle contentious AfD closes (DRV, not ArbCom, etcetera). SirFozzie (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Trusilver

While I was not one-hundred percent in agreement with the rationale behind the close, I certainly understand Wizardman's decision, as well as the reasoning behind making it. Regardless, there is a structured dispute resolution process that has not been followed in this case, the first step in which would be taking this matter to DRV for further review. I would urge the Committee to reject this request. Trusilver 22:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MadScot

I believe that the implications of the decision for policy are great, and that it should be reviewed fully - and I expect it will end up here at some point. I also agree however that there is a process, and right now I consider we're still at "discussion with the closing admin" stage, not even DRV. I believe DRV will occur, and I expect whatever that decision is to come here, because it's such a thorny issue. Thus I request/suggest that this request for arbitration be neither accepted nor rejected, but rather stayed, pending the full process. Which will also, incidentally, allow more opportunity for discussion and even, perhaps, a closer approach to consensus. MadScot (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Minos P. Dautrieve

What seems to be escaping those who argue for the deletion review process is that the governing policy forbids review in a case like this one. The deletion review page/policy statement is quite clear: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions. Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. . . This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented." None of these criteria apply. By policy, as implemented by the Arbitration Committee, the requirements of the deletion process were generally complied with (except that the debate was closed early by a matter of a few hours). That a self-selected administrator is enabled, by policy and under a mandate from this committee, to enforce his individual value judgment, in lieu of any consensus or further attempt to form a consensus, raises issues that this committee needs to address. This matter draws the central issues with reasonable clarity, and provides an appropriate opportunity for the committee to address the consequences, foreseen or unforeseen, of its earlier determinations. I hope the committee will also address the plain violations of civility and plain failures to assume good faith, in the statements of some users above regarding this request. Finally, assuming that the committee takes up this request, I strongly urge it to address in the necessary balance the converse of the current issue. If the inclusion/deletion of an entry in Wikipedia has the potential to substantially affect the life/career of its subject, as this debate is premised on, then the potential for adverse impact should also be taken into account as a consequence of deletion. A staple of AFD discussions is the continued deprecation of the verifiable achievements/professional work of lower-profile subjects, particularly academics, authors, and performers. I note the existence of this unfortunate deletion discussion [4], where the 25-year career of a recognizable working actor is rudely and crudely disrespected. Discussions like that are a daily occurrence here, and the victims of those discussions are far more deserving of community sympathy and solicitude. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Scott MacDonald

Seems to me to be in the range of the closing admin's decision. It can be reviewed at DRV, and providing everyone behaves there, there's little need for arbitration now or later.

I wrote an essay Wikipedia:Borderline biographies some months ago, urging admins to consider doing exactly what's been done here.It may be of interest. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/1)

  • Decline. Wikipedia:Deletion review is the appropriate forum for this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Withdrawing vote for now, and will provide a more detailed response in the next day or two. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, for several reasons. First, the forum for challenging the closure of a deletion debate is Deletion Review, but no request has yet been made. Second, a close of 'no consensus, default to delete' may be a novel concept but it is justifiable in terms of policy in an area where policies are in conflict. Third, even if it wasn't, it would be a justifiable invocation of WP:IAR to avoid harm to a living person. Fourth, Wizardman explained his rationale in detail and has been open for discussion. Fifth, arbitration is the last stage of dispute resolution, and not the first. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject per every point Sam stated. In the past, I have indicated that a close of "no consensus" no longer always means keep if the situation involves a living person. Because I've not reviewed the facts (and I don't intend to at this time as I think it remains a Community matter), I'm not making a judgment in this particular case about the correctness of the close. But I want to emphasis that because the standard for articles about living people are higher and more complex than for other articles, it is within administrator discretion to delete an article about a living person, now, with the understanding that the situation can be reviewed later, if needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/5/0
Rio Grande 223   19 June 2024 0/3/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 18 June 2024


Current requests

Request for clarification : User:Steve_Crossin

Statement by Privatemusings

Background in a nutshell is that a couple of months back, it transpired that Steve, a regular 'non-admin' editor, had logged on to others' administrators accounts, performed some admin work, and also may have forwarded some private IRC logs, and emails around a bit in the broo ha ha which followed. It seems that the arbcom and Steve came to some sort of arrangement that he wouldn't edit for 6 months - previous AN discussion diff.s available on request as well.

Steve remains active in IRC channels, and I believe he'd like to edit again as soon as possible. I wonder if some sort of process (I'd say there are quite a few options short of a formal arb case?) might be possible at this stage? I'm not sure that community members, or Steve have had an opportunity to present evidence and have discussion in the usual way?

Regardless, I think a straightforward arb motion would be sensible to confirm any existing ban - my perception is that there is some uncertaintly as to what the status quo is which shouldn't be too hard to clear up.

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the 'me' side of the conversation is most welcome at my talk page, or perhaps here too, where it may continue. The prevailing wind here is that the situation is actually crystal clear, so I offer my apologies for being slow - I really would just like to see some sort of public certification of Steve's ban, and ideally some sort of organised community process for discussion (some kind of lightweight evidence / workshop etc. thing?). I strongly believe it would be the right thing to do, and would help :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

Knowing Privatemusings's history, I think the proper response is to remind PM that he's supposed to be discussing these things first with his mentors before bringing this up, and if Steve wants to edit sooner then his six months, he can request ArbCom review his restriction privately. I don't really consider this useful. SirFozzie (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

There have already been two arbitration requests for clarification on the matter, and in neither of them did anyone suppose that Steve Crossin's status was unclear. In the unlikely event that it were, then this review which took place less than one month ago ought to have settled it. Now I was as close to Steve as anyone; I still chat with him occasionally. Yet, unfortunately, this proposal compels me to repeat what I stated at Privatemusings' last unblocking proposal: I am fundamentally opposed to the notion that a banned editor (or in this matter a long term blocked editor) is entitled to unlimited numbers of unblock requests. Review is important and useful, in moderation. Two reviews in less than two months is not moderation, particularly when there is no new circumstance or evidence to weigh. I have not discussed this with the other mentors (nor was I aware this request was being raised), so I will say merely for my own part that if these requests continue the net effect of Privatemusings's efforts may be to convince the community to create a formal timetable limiting their frequency, to prevent meritless appeals from interrupting too much necessary business. DurovaCharge! 08:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Vandenberg

Oddly enough I haven't spoken to the other mentors yet about this left-field, poorly researched and frivolous request. If the mentors had of been engaged about this, it looks like Durova would have been able to quickly show Privatemusings that it had been reviewed recently and FloNight had responded there twice.

Steve, rather than hanging around in a channel of a project where you have been temporarily banned from, there are other WMF projects where you can make yourself useful in the interim. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lar

I find myself in complete concurrence with Durova and Jayvdb. This request came as a complete surprise. It's exactly the sort of stirring we've counseled PM not to indulge in, but I have to confess I've been a bit preoccupied the last few days. I urge swift rejection of this (without prejudice to an eventual review when the time is appropriate). ++Lar: t/c 10:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • No need for further action. As noted, this situation has been reviewed and explained several times. PM, I urge you to take the advise of your mentors. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse FloNight's comments in their entirety. The involvement of third parties in this situation is not likely to be beneficial. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for appeal of block to User:ResearchEditor

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

Statement by ResearchEditor

I believe that I have shown at here that the blocking admin Moreschi here had a conflict of interest when blocking me. He had a vested interest in blocking my POV from the SRA page. As per here" Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely toexist....administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools." Also, I have been unable to defend myself in front of the wikpedia community at here which I should have been able to do before such a lengthy block occured.

Further statement by ResearchEditor

In response to the statement by WLU. WLU is hardly an impartial party in this matter. His extremist point of view on the SRA topic is clearly shown here which is a quote from the SRA talk page. This point of view ignores a large portion of the research and promotes the views of a few extremists which is diametrically opposed to mine. The entire point of this and all prior actions was to block a more balanced editing POV on the page, toward the extremist one that now presently exists.

In response to Hersfold, there is no conclusive evidence that I have used alternate accounts. The only "evidence" was geographic proximity, which in a large town could be anyone.

In response to Moreschi, his conflict of interest was obvious and is shown here where numerous quotes of his show that his POV is diametrically opposed to mine. He should have excused himself from any administrative action in this matter, due to his clear conflict of interest.

In conclusion, it is obvious that this and all preceding administrative actions against myself have been about blocking a more balanced POV of being placed on the SRA page, instead of the extremist position backed by only a few researchers that presently exists there. — ResearchEditor 13:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Posted by — Coren (talk)'[reply]

Statement by WLU

Note that Moreschi blocked ResearchEditor for evading a page ban based on this RFCU. ResearchEditor has been banned from editing the satanic ritual abuse and related pages (with the ban was sanctioned here) and though Moreschi started the discussion, many, many other editors weighed in and the consensus was ResearchEditor was a tendentious editor pushing a fringe point of view that was not supported by the mainstream scholarly opinion. The ban is a separate issue from the block, and Moreschi seems completely within his rights to institute a block for evading a community ban through sockpuppeting, confirmed through a RfCU. This block has nothing to do with blocking a POV, and is actually about ResearchEditor evading a community ban. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 00:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "follow-up" statement is completely, completely irrelevant. This is not a content dispute, it's about sockpuppeting to evade a community ban. The POV of Moreschi and myself are irrelevant - Moreschi was basing his block on an independent decision regarding the results of a RFCU. My post was to demonstrate the context and history of the block. Neither have anything to do with our POV or position on satanic ritual abuse. A RCU is always a judgement call; in this case the judgement was that based on geographic similarity of IP addresses and contribution history it was likely ResearchEditor was using a variety of accounts to avoid his/her ban. The only decision I see the arbcom possibly having to make would be regards the correctness of Tiptoety's assessment of the RCU results. This is not a POV dispute. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Hersfold

I am adding myself to this request as an administrator who twice declined ResearchEditor's requests for unblocking. When I reviewed the checkuser case, the terms of the topic ban, and the contributions of all accounts involved, it seemed very clear that this user was repeatedly using alternate accounts in an attempt to circumvent the ban, placed for the reasons WLU has outlines above. ResearchEditor's main argument against the block appears to be the perceived conflict of interest held by blocking administrator Moreschi at the time of the block. However, since three administrators have looked into the situation on ResearchEditor's talk page, and two of those admins (one myself) have declined to unblock him, this would appear to fall under the de facto definition of a community ban, that is, "no administrator is willing to unblock." As I said on ResearchEditor's talk page, if a block is endorsed by another administrator, then he is in effect blocked by all those endorsing the block. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to ResearchEditor: You may not be aware, however Checkuser looks at more information than simply your IP address. Even if your geographic location was similar, the investigation probably would not have been marked as "likely" if several other technical indicators had not also pointed out a relation between you and the other accounts. That's all I can tell you, as I am not a checkuser myself and only know for certain what information the basic tool provides; I believe the checkuser tool here has some features added to increase the usefulness of investigations, and in any event publicly posting what we look at would be a Bad ThingTM in case other sockpuppeteers got wind of it. Furthermore, there is the issue of the similar contribution history, which checkusers and regular admins alike take into consideration as well. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moreschi

ResearchEditor is clearly a tendentious editor. His accusations that I had any sort of conflict of interest here are completely spurious. Tedious months of trying to restrain his grosser excesses, previously as Abuse truth/Abuse t, do not count as having been engaged in a content dispute with this fringe POV-pusher, particularly since I have almost never actually edited the SRA page itself. Please dismiss ASAP so the 1-year block can be reinstated. Moreschi (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

  • Received by email to Clerks, posted on behalf of appellant. — Coren (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The sockpuppetry indicated at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ResearchEditor would generally have been enough for an indefinite ban, regardless of who did the blocking. You are topic-banned from the SRA article, and your use of sockpuppets to get around the ban makes it clear you have no intention of abiding by Wikipedia's policies. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I believe the ban was correct. If you want to establish your usefulness to Wikipedia you might try another project for now, and there demonstrate collegial and neutral editing on a wide range of topics. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the ban. The socking to avoid the prior topic-ban was the trigger for the one year ban. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for extension: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

Involved users

Statement by Phil Sandifer

TTN was banned from deletion activities for six months for his failure to work "collaboratively and constructively with the broader community" on the area of notability and deletion. Since the expiration of his ban, his contributions have been entirely to "merge" content (I say merge because, in fact, he simply redirects pages without discussion), and mass-nominate articles for deletion. For instance, his mass-redirection of articles with identical edit summaries: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] and so on. These edits were unaccompanied by any edits to talk pages to garner consensus. Indeed, even as the very policies he cites as justification are under heavy discussion, including an RFC that got a watchlist notice, TTN has made no contributions towards seeking consensus. None. Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise shows no comments by him.

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

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

In response to some of the comments below, this is not about the accuracy of TTN's deletion nominations. I would vote delete on about half of them myself. The issue is not whether his proposals are within consensus or not - it is on whether he is working collaboratively and constructively with the broader community. That necessarily involves some level of dialogue with said community. As for the suggestion that editors of fiction articles are also working outside of consensus, I do not see extending this remedy as precluding enforcement against other problematic users, and I would be surprised if the arbcom did.
A further piece of evidence as well. I encourage anybody to look at [11]. Those are TTN's talk page contributions. Note that the overwhelming majority of them are redirects or template removals of pages. There are only a handful of cases - once every two or three days - where TTN is discussing his edits. Compare to the 8 edits he has made so far to talk pages making any discussion of his edits in October to the over 250 edits he has made so far to articles either nominating them for deletion or merging them in October. That is in no way, in letter or spirit, complying with the directive to work collaboratively and constructively with other editors. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Protonk, I'm not pillorying TTN over the deletion or merger. But if we don't have a consensus on these issues, and I agree with you that we don't, we need to try to find one. Please explain to me how over 250 merges and deletions in a week with only 8 comments on talk pages about them constitute attempts to find consensus, or to work with other editors. Please explain to me how TTN is in any way complying with the instruction that previous non-compliance with led to a six month ban from these issues. Because otherwise, this seems straightforward - he was previously sanctioned for something. He is doing it again. What's changed? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Bainer's comments, with all due respect, the claim that there is nowhere to discuss these issues except for AfD is absurd. When merging articles, the article talk pages are a fine place to discuss merges. (Or, more accurately, redirects) For the large batch of episodes of the TV show Heroes he recently mass redirected I would think that stopping in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heroes might have been effective.
Were TTN interested in discussion and consensus-building, even with the continued contentiousness of a general guideline for fiction, many opportunities were available to him, not least of which was participating in the RFC to work on the notability issues for fiction. That TTN ignored all of these channels and ignored attempts to build consensus on this issue does not seem to me to be a good thing, and I am, frankly, baffled how you can suggest that AfD was the only channel open to him. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by SirFozzie

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

Statement by sgeureka

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

Statement by CBDunkerson

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

Statement by Protonk (talk)

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

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

Statement by Kww

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

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

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

Statement by Kung Fu Man

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

Statement by nifboy

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

Statement by Black Kite

"As for the suggestion that editors of fiction articles are also working outside of consensus, I do not see extending this remedy as precluding enforcement against other problematic users, and I would be surprised if the arbcom did." This comedic request for clarification would indicate that the current ArbCom actually do think that. In the end, what do we want Wikipedia to be? If we want it to be a free-for-all without regard to independent notability, feel free to reset TTN's sanction. If we want it to be an encyclopedia, he's going about it in the only way possible - there is intrasigence on both sides here and I don't see that concentrating on TTN - yet again - is particularly helpful. Let's face it, he's not exactly doing it for his health [12].Black Kite 22:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG

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

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

Statement by Sjakkalle

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

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

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

Statement by Stifle

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

Statement by MuZemike

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

Statement by CharlotteWebb

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

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

Statement by Randomran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Masem

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

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

Statement by jc37

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Y|yukichigai

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

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

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

Statement by Gazimoff

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Josiah Rowe

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

Statement by Jayron32

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

Statement by Pixelface

TTN is now on a mission to purge the "video game and anime and manga character categories."[13] I brought up videogame characters[14] in the E&C2 Arbcom case [15], 7 days after Newyorkbrad changed the injunction to be only about TV characters [16]. On February 28, Newyorkbrad proposed the remedy that ultimately passed and that restricted TTN concerning articles about TV episodes and characters [17] — which was 3 weeks after I brought up the issue of videogame character articles. Category:Video game characters has 1,166 articles in it according to this tool, and Category:Anime and manga characters has 2,698 articles in it according to the same tool — for a total of 3,864 articles. Evaluating the articles in those categories may actually not be a bad idea. But I think TTN is the last editor who should do it. Is there not a point where a certain number of AFDs per day started by one user becomes disruptive?

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

In November 2007 in E&C1, TTN said[18] "I'm just going to be utilizing AfDs more often rather than revert warring." In E&C2, TTN was placed under editing restrictions for six months. During that time he was blocked twice for violating his restrictions. When those restrictions expired, TTN began (and continues) a mass deletion spree with cut-and-paste nominations, using Twinkle. A remedy proposed in E&C2 prohibiting the use of Twinkle to mass nominate articles for deletion was ignored by arbitrators.[19] If the articles in question are really so egregious that they need to be evaluated now, I'm confident that some other editor (one not involved in E&C1 or E&C2} can do it. For example, WikiProject Anime and manga and WikiProject Video games could be of help. You might say that other people are evaluating the articles, because TTN is nominating them for deletion, and other editors are discussing them, but a robot could make the same cut-and-paste nominations at the speed TTN is making them. There is no deadline, WP:FICT isn't even a guideline anymore, WP:PLOT never had consensus to be policy, and WP:N is in flux. Personally I think TTN has continued to fail to work "collaboratively and constructively with the broader community." I think TTN may have learned some bad habits from the suspected sockpuppet (and troll) Wiki-star at Talk:Majin Buu, the talk page of an article about a Dragonball character.

I have personally never seen TTN add any material with citation to any article (although I would happily welcome some evidence of that). It appears to me that someone, somewhere hurt TTN's feelings. Everything to him is "pointless" or "unnecessary." I don't know how old TTN is, but a troll was calling TTN a "bastard"[20] 7 days into TTN's editing and that may have had a big influence on TTN's future willingness to interact with other editors. I think TTN learned long ago that it was much easier for him to just do whatever he wanted without trying to talk with other editors — this is evident on early archives of his user talk page. So the effect is that of a steamroller. TTN is exhausting the community's patience. Although he does appear to have a handful of supporters.

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

In response to Thebainer, "One has to begin with the observation that the community has failed to produce a notability guideline particularly for either television episodes or fictional characters", then why is TTN is acting like there is one? I've previously suggested that WP:EPISODE be turned into a notability guideline (since TTN was claiming it was anyway) and during E&C2 I asked Newyorkbrad to designate a place for the parties to "develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question." I also asked about mass AFDs in March [21]. There was an RFC on WP:FICT in June and TTN did participate. But FICT failed to achieve consensus, and it was eventually marked an essay and fully protected. From there, Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise was started. Before that, I suggested to Masem that a survey be started at WT:FICT. I've written up a draft of the survey and I still think it's a good idea. At one point, WP:FICT *was* based on AFD precedents, but the guideline gradually mutated into the mess it is now. It may be that Wikipedia needs a better system of creating and modifying policies and guidelines than the current free-for-all. --Pixelface (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fordmadoxfraud

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

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

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

Response to VasileGaburici: Again no one is saying that the creation of redirects or the bringing of articles to AfD are, in themselves, bad things. These are both valuable services to the community at large. The people demurring here seem to be under the impression that people are saying "this guy redirects and deletes stuff", and therefore is bad, which makes the discussion about inclusionism/deletionism, which is an offramp to nowhere that effectively stymies any discussion of the effects of TTN's behavior. This is not the issue.
The issue is that TTN's entire, prolific (or whatever negative proliferation is) mode on Wikipedia is to remove content with a volume and frequency that effectively blocks the interested communities from responding intelligently to the concerns that he raises. If he can be said to be raising concerns at all, as his talkpage contributions are, putting it charitably, minimal. There is no conceivable way in which TTN can be said to be "working with" the interested communities at all. And to the people who demur "but these communities have a vested interest in the material and cannot be counted on to be impartial in these discussions", all I have to say is "duh". That's why communities exist in the first place. That doesn't mean it's okay to utterly ignore discourse with the communities, which is essentially what TTN does. You would be hard pressed to find, in TTN's voluminous contributions, much of any edits made to wikiproject spaces. His monomaniacal devotion to articles of a very narrow subject range and his utter refusal to address the concerns about his behavior made by a number of Wikipedia colleagues, constitute a pattern of continuous disruptive behavior. The fact that his disruption is caused via the processes of merging and deletion is a non-issue. Ford MF (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wizardman

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

Statement by VasileGaburici

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

Statement by How do you turn this on

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

Statement by Carcharoth

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

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

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

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • One has to begin with the observation that the community has failed to produce a notability guideline particularly for either television episodes or fictional characters. The best there is is the general fiction notability guideline. In the absence of any specific guidance, there are really no methods available to seek the input of the community at large about such articles other than deletion debates; indeed, that's the approach envisaged by the general guideline. On what has been presented here, TTN is not repeatedly nominating articles, nor being disruptive within the discussions. The Committee is being asked (again) to remedy the community's failure to produce some coherent approach to these articles by banning someone with a particular point of view about them, and I do not think that is right. --bainer (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re Phil Sandifer, I should emphasise that I was discussing methods for seeking the input of the community at large, as opposed to obtaining what is usually called the "local consensus" (at the article talk page, or in this context also at the WikiProject page). Really the only alternative to attract a broad array of input other than a deletion debate is a request for comment on the article, and that is even less feasible. --bainer (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re Phil's "dismay": yes there have been two cases on this matter before, but you are not correct to say that this request relates to exactly the same issues. The evidence here does not indicate that the same types of behaviours that were at issue in the earlier cases (eg, edit warring) are being repeated, and I have already explained why I am of the view that merely nominating articles for deletion, in this subject area, without anything more, cannot be considered problematic. --bainer (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re Pixelface, I agree. The project does need a better method for developing policies, but per Flo, that method is not de facto development by ArbCom ruling. --bainer (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is primarily a content dispute, so I reject further involvement as the situation now stands. As I noted in my recent comment on this topic on this page, TNN (nor any other user as far as it relates to this current situation) has not violated any policy or conducted himself in a manner that is disruptive. This is a classic case of one side of the dispute seeing disruptive editing where none exists because they have a difference of opinion with the involved editor. Rather I see this as a two sided issue, with some users thinking that loads of non-notable articles are started and that the Community has trouble keeping up with removing them so many AFDs/mergers are needed. Other users think that too many notable articles are being put up for deletion or merger discussion. Both sides in the conflict feel that the situation will be out of control if the other side is allowed to continue unchecked. As pointed out by bainer, since the Community has not reached consensus on a policy/guideline on the topic, we have repeated cycles of the issue causing content disputes. The Community needs to find a way to write this policy and not look to the Committee to do it through Committee ruling that causes a back door policy decision that one side can link to in future discussions. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for extension: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

Involved users

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

Martinphi is under an editing restriction because he " has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior, including, but not limited to, using Wikipedia as a soapbox, threatening disruption of the project, and making deliberately provocative edits" (Finding of Fact #2, sans links). It is becoming increasingly clear that he has not yet learned proper Wikipedia behaviour. and, as the restriction is due to expire in November, I am asking that it be extended a further year.

For instance, here he claims that WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, a part of NPOV policy that has been part of policy since 2001 in nearly the same form as today [22] does not actually have any relevance, and does not apply to articles on Parapsychology. He then attacked everyone who upheld the policy, declared intent to force changes through,[23] then leapt over to the policy page and attempted to delete the phrasing he dislikes.[24]

Here is a recent Arbitration enforcement thread about his editing of policy.

I think that Martinphi's statements in the Paranormal Request for clarification a bit below this one are also relevant. In the face of every arbitrator clearly stating that the finding of fact does not set out an explicit content ruling, but was simply an effort to understand the party's points, he continues to insist that the arbcom, in fact, made a content ruling, and that he should be able to use it to push his point of view.

Martinphi has a very bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which makes him very frustrating to work with. The Arbcom restriction somewhat mediates that, but I don't think he has demonstrated any real improvement in the last year that would justify the restriction's removal. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that he be banned from editing policy. Besides the examples from above, back in April, he specifically admitted to editing WP:CIVIL in order to better use it to attack ScienceApologist. [25] [26]. (Background, abridged: he was adding words he had seen ScienceApologist and other people he disliked using to the Civility policy as "actionable" examples of incivility. [27] [28] [29]) Between this, today's editing of WP:NPOV/FAQ (described above), and the more recent WP:NPOV incident (courtesy duplicate link), I don't think he can be trusted to edit policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Response to below: I quoted a lengthy diff to try and give some background. I then gave several specific diffs that further support my point, for instance, [30], which I discussed above.

I would also encourage the Arbcom to review Martinphi's edits to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view from 29 August to 7 September or so, which should give clear evidence of the patterns of editing I could only hint at in this brief summary.

Statement by Kww

Wanted to concur that MartinPhi does not seem to have learned the lessons that the original editing restriction was intended to convey. It seems to have driven him towards behaviour that is even more damaging: the constant editing of policy pages to slowly transform them into polices that favor his views. I would fully support an extension of the current editing restriction, and I think an editing restriction on policy pages should be considered.—Kww(talk) 17:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by source-verifying Coppertwig

In Shoemaker's Holiday's (SH) statement above, some diffs SH gives do not appear to support the statements SH makes.

SH gives this diff, saying "here he claims that WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience... does not actually have any relevance, and does not apply to articles on Parapsychology." I do not see any such claim, or anything reasonably similar, in that diff. The diff is actually a diff of 7 revisions by more than one editor. In that diff, the words "relevant" and "apply" appear, but only within comments by Shoemaker's holiday that appear in that diff, not in any comments by Martinphi; except where Martinphi says, "Please don't mis-apply it": which seems to me to express clear intentions to support, not discard, policy.

Shoemaker's Holiday then said "He then attacked everyone who upheld the policy, declared intent to force changes through" and gave this diff: [31] I don't see anything in that diff that I would call an attack. I didn't see any statement by Martinphi that he intended to force any particular change through; instead, he was talking about more than one possible outcome of this difficult situation; he also mentioned others "editwar[ring]" and "push[ing]", but did not use those verbs in any statements about his own actions.

I contend that participation in policy discussions by those who openly discuss the way the policy is used at articles they edit is a frequent, accepted and productive part of normal policy discussion. Just to illustrate this, here is a comment in a recent discussion at WT:NOR which appears to be an example of this: [32]

There are difficult questions involved in how to apply policies to fringe topics. I think much discussion will be needed to further develop the policies in this area; it won't be easy, and will require input from editors with a variety of POVs. I commend Martinphi for addressing some of these difficult questions. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ludwigs2

Concur with Coppertwig: the diffs Shoemaker provided simply don't support the argument that Shoemaker is trying to make. I know little about the circumstances that brought these editing restrictions into play, but I see no reason to extend them from what's been given here, and certainly no reason to increase them by imposing Shoemaker's suggestion of a policy editing ban.

It's clear that Martin and Shoemaker disagree about some fundamental points of policy, and it's equally clear that neither is shy about stating his side of the disagreement. That's a good thing: vocal disagreement - so long as it's sincere and well-mannered - can only make better policy. Casting disagreement of this nature as disruptive misses the point of policy discussions entirely. --Ludwigs2 02:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by olive

Concur with Coppertwig: Have I stepped into an alternate universe? I initially decided not to comment here because I couldn't believe that anyone who has been watching Martin's editing in the last few months could take seriously what is being said here. I've met Martinphi on a few of the policy pages where I have been working, and did a little work on Psychic. Here [33] he is obviously working in consort with editors who have multiple views on the topic of NOR. Martin has been clear, measured, intelligent in his comments, and obviously is collaborative in his editing. Yes, he's also strong and forthright, but needs to be given the editing environments on some of these articles. I would say on the policy pages there is very little friction among the editors, and whatever is there isn't coming from Martin. Here, he and OrangeMarlin although apparently in disagreement agree to compromise on Psychic. [34][35]. I understand as Ludwig mentioned that editors can disagree, and may have strong differences of opinion, but as with Martin and OrangeMarlin there are other, less disruptive ways of dealing with it than an Rfa.(olive (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • No further action by the Committee at this time. Thanks you to all the editors for raising their concerns in the proper venue. But for now, I'm not prepared to make or modify editing restrictions based on the information provided. In order for me to add or change the restrictions, I want the input of a broader group of editors as well as the users that regularly are in conflict. I think we will get a better outcome that way. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=247062919"