Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Request for Comment

RFC: Arbcom's Temporary Injunction Against the Deletion of Television Episode and Character Articles[edit]

History[edit]

On January 19th, Arbcom agreed to hear a request for arbitration here regarding a group of editors who were edit warring back and forth regarding articles involving television series episodes and characters. Arbcom issued a temporary injunction on February 3rd in response to this. However, instead of issuing the injunction against the parties involved, Arbcom applied the injunction to every editor and admin on Wikipedia. The text of the injunction is as follows:

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

Arbcom has been unresponsive to questions regarding the scope of the injunction, however, and how it is to be enforced. It has since been suggested by many editors that the injunction is unnecessarily vague and poorly worded. Several editors, including at least one admin, have also used the injunction in an effort to block AfD discussions regarding articles which are not necessarily covered under the injunction, i.e. they do not concern a television episode or character. Editors have also attempted to block AfD discussion of articles under the injunction, though the injunction does not ban such discussion, only the deletion following the discussion.[1][2][3]

Questions for this RFC[edit]

The questions I would like to ask the community for a consensus on in this RFC, which may expand depending on the discussion, are as follows:

Scope: What is the scope of the injunction? Does it apply only to television series characters, or can it also apply to characters from other venues, such as video games, films, comic books and novels? What about cases where a fictional character originates in another venue but a paragraph on their article concerns their adaptation into other media, such as Superman#In_other_media? Does the injunction refer to anything other than episodes and characters, as in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of resident evil 4?
Deletion Discussions: Is discussion allowed in deletion venues such as AfD and RFD or should articles which fall under the injunction be speedily kept if an editor, either in good or bad faith, brings an article which falls under the injunction to a deletion venue? What should occur with deletion discussions which now fall under the injunction but were opened before the injunction was issued?
Issues Other Than Notability: Concerns have been raised that the injunction hinders efforts to rid Wikipedia of hoaxes and articles which crystal ball. Does the injunction cover only the deletion of articles when it has to do with the notability of an article or is the injunction absolute, i.e. prevents the articles from being deleted under any circumstances?
New Articles: Does the injunction only cover articles which existed at the time the injunction was issued, or does it also cover articles which have been created since the injunction has been put in place?
Right to Issue Such an Injunction: Does Arbcom have the right and authority to issue an injunction such as this one which affects the entire community for a prolonged period of time when only a handful of editors are named in the case? Would the injunction be better off to apply to current editors named in the case and any editors added to the case before it is decided?

RFC endorsed by[edit]

Redfarmer (talk)
(with exception to #5) JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding[edit]

I anticipate this RFC could get complicated. Therefore, I have taken the liberty of setting up sections below which I hope editors will use to sort their comments, lest the RFC become an unreadable mess of comments. Please feel free to add additional sections and sub-sections as needed to keep the discussion easy to follow. Thank you.

General Comments[edit]

This discussion will hopefully become moot quite soon, since Krill has started the proposed decision in the case. I hope the other arbitrators comment soon so the case can be resolved and the injunction is just lifted totally. Davewild (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Dave here. I am very glad to see some movement and am quite hopeful that the case will be closed by the end of the week. Ursasapien (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that whatever decision is reached is decisive enough to prevent a third RfAr and reapted ANI threads as we have seen. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This injunction was great at first, but I'd give it a couple of months before the injunction starts to become the CAUSE of edit wars, with fed up editors citing WP:IAR as their reasons. I personally would not go that far, but this injunction is a process that hinders the encyclopedia and should be repealed except for all editors listed in this case. Sasuke9031 (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like this RFC will soon come to a close seeing as how the case itself will come to a close soon and we can all move on with our lives. It's strange that the ArbCom had to wait until the moment that Bleach English Dub started again, but hey, what can you do, right? Sasuke9031 (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scope[edit]

Yes, it should cover other areas of fiction such as video games characters for example. There is already evidence that some of the involved parties have moved their edit warring to such areas in an effort to "clean up the mess" over there. Without a wide-ranging scope, this kind of lengthy discussion will ultimately be repeated endlessly. Astronaut (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with you here, but could you provide evidence of such edit warring for the record? Redfarmer (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence page provides some pretty clear examples. Astronaut (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I whole heartedly agree that the injunction should include video games, comics, and movies and not just television. The suspect behavior concerning some of the involved parties pertains to fiction articles in general and is by no means limited to television episodes and characters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm coming this with two main concerns.
First is the lack of clarity in the injunction. As it stands we are left wondering if it covers just articles solely or primarily about TV characters or if it applies to articles that contain subsections for TV adaptations. With that, does it also cover splits and merges?
Second, and more worrying, if it is universal, why haven't projects outside of television been apprised of this since it will impact the maintenance of articles outside of the television project?
I can see that this is a huge issue, and one that can devolve into a lot of disruptive an point behavior. It would be nice to know exactly how much is locked down due to this case. - J Greb (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scope should be tightly limited to the exact verbiage of the injunction. As NewYorkBrad stated when he signed the injunction, the terminaology "in a television series" was specifically added to prevent misapplication.JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly Arbcom worded the injunction like they did for a reason. According to discussion before the injunction was issued, Arbcom wanted to focus on the specific group of articles that the accused group were edit waring over. Arbcom did not intend the injunction to cover other venues, such as video games and comic books, nor did they intend for it to cover any article not related to episodes and fictional characters. Whether this was wise or not is an entirely different subject. To change this, I believe a new motion would have to be made at the request for arbitration. More problematic are border cases such as the one I quoted above for Superman (granted, Superman has absolutely no notability issues but I quoted it as a readily available example of what I meant). I believe such articles should be covered under the injunction as they directly relate to fictional characters in a television series. Redfarmer (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if it would have been better for the injunction to be on involved parties instead? Isn't the case more about behavior (alleged unilateralism, incivility, etc. on the part of specific editors) than content? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can see now that there was a serious lack of communications between Arbcom and the community regarding this injunction. They did not make themselves available for clarification and they did not do a good job of notifying the community regarding the injunction I would seriously recommend that,should they feel the need to issue an injunction with community wide implications again, they really need to do both these things or risk causing chaos again. Redfarmer (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Discussions[edit]

If it is determined by an uninvolved administrator, that the AfD/RFD has been raised for the same reason that some would seek to merge it (ie. notability or "I don't like it", etc), then the AfD/RFD discussion should be halted to prevent a rehash of the same old arguments. Otherwise, discussion should continue as normal. Astronaut (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I cannot see why the discussions about deletions or merges should be halted, period. At best (cases where it isn't a pile on to this situation) the discussions can run is course and if it closes as a delete, the page just gets protected until the ArbCom ends instead of deleted. At worst, the closing admin can close it as "no consensus" and direct that it get re-upped after the ArbCom closes. - J Greb (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this. Redfarmer (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The use of Template:FICTWARN seems to be a very reasonable way to handle the AfD's. It allows discussion and allows close as keep (unambiguous, snow, no consensus, speedy keep, renaming) and provides for relisting until the injunction is lifted. It is not causing any rise in the backlog, and has a tidy tracking category included. This should be the mandated manner to handle the XfD's. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see why, as long as they are not being brought disruptively, why AfD nominations should not be allowed to run normally. There is also the problem of what FICTWARN should and shouldn't apply to, as mentioned above. Black Kite 00:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking over the evidence page, it seems that some of the concerns regarding the behavior of the involved parties deals with pointed nominations of articles for deletions or disruptive participation in such discussions, which is why I would imagine the arbitrators apply to injunction to AfDs as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues Other Than Notability[edit]

I'm less sure about this issue. However, one needs to consider there is no real time limit. If a hoax/crystal ball article needs to be deleted, is there any good reason why we cannot wait until the injuction is lifted? - it could be noted somewhere as a target for speedy deletion. Astronaut (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The biggest concern I have here is the credibility of Wikipedia. We're all aware of conflicting reports constantly coming out regarding Wikipedia's credibility and accuracy, and allowing such articles, especially hoaxes, to exist on Wikipedia for even a short period of time seriously damages our credibility, especially if a news outlet were to find such articles and publish a story on Wikipedia's "lack of credibility." I do not believe the injunction should prevent the deletion of hoax and crystal ball articles. Redfarmer (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm all for encyclopedic standards, but I also believe that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress and I would rather see the articles exist so that they can be improved than not exist at all. By the way, something you may find amusing, the first edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica said California was located in "the West Indies. The encyclopedia, published in 1768, also noted that 'it is uncertain whether it be a peninsula or an island.'" See the entry for Friday, January 18, 2008 on 365 Amazing Trivia Facts from Workman Publishing. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The argument is always there and it is a price we pay for letting anybody edit the encyclopedia - it doesn't matter if the journalists choose a popular culture topic or anything else. In the long term, this issue of notability in popular culture articles needs to be resolved. A wide ranging halt to the edit warring is the first step whilst a cast-iron policy is thrashed out to replace the old, weakly worded policy. Perhaps the note as a possible "target of speedy deletion once the injunction is lifted" could be placed prominently on the article itself in the form of a new tag. Hopefully journalists will then appreciate our efforts to put our own house in order and improve our own credibility. Astronaut (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I hope that when the injunction and case ends we don't see a sudden rush or flood of AfDs and redirects! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The issue I have here isn't with factual errors but deliberate hoaxes. I could see your point regarding crystal balling, but if a vandal creates a hoax, it should not fall under the injunction. Redfarmer (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I definitely agree that obvious hoaxes should be deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, notability was the root of the problem that brought the case to arbcom, and so this should be the only protected criteria. Articles that are utter nonsense, copyright violations, crystal balling, POV forks, redundant to another article with a slightly different name, attack articles, coatracks, (insert all other deletion criteria except notability here) should be handled as always. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles[edit]

If new articles were to be excluded from the injunction, the edit war would continue there. Once a new aricle has been created and the original editor has finished their initial copyediting, adding references etc. (ie. we have a basic article), I see no reasons to exclude it from the injunction. Astronaut (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I endorse this statement. Redfarmer (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to exclude new articles. The spirit and intent of the injunction is to prevent edit warring. An arbitrary cutoff date for the protection would promote further warring while the parties could be working here to resolve the core issue. There has been discussion elsewhere over the word "current" in the inunction language. This can be interpreted two different ways. Current at the time the injunction was enacted, or current at the time the future editor applies a tag. I think the latter was intended. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right to Issue Such an Injunction[edit]

The injunction is too broad reaching, in that it applies to all editors including ones not involved in the original dispute. If other areas need to be covered because the involved parties are expanding their disputes, fine. But leave everyone else out of it.--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is some of this reads like a test case: those named are part of the issue, but not the totality. At that, it makes sense to halt all like editing until it can be hashed out. Does it affect uninvolved editors not inclined to pointedly nom or undo? Yes. But I'd rather have that inconvenience than have to repair things after the ArbCom closes. - J Greb (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. Also, the problem with having the injunction apply only to the involved parties, is that some would cry "not fair" or set up sockpuppets to carry on their edit war. Accusations would fly and we would be right back where we started. Having it apply to everyone, makes it easy to stop that kind of activity. So long as Arbcom make their mind up soon, I see no problem with everyone taking a breather and doing something else instead. Astronaut (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Should policy decisions be made, though, on the basis of possible abuse or should they be made solely on the basis of abuse which has already taken place? Redfarmer (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sockpuppets are always a problem (and will be a problem in this case, even after it closes). I do agree that the injunction is not a huge problem if Arbcom comes to a decision soon. When I originally posted it looked like no progress was being made, but now it appears there may be one in the near future. Still, I feel applying an injunction to every editor on wikipedia is like setting fire to your house because you saw a mouse. Yes, it might deal with the problem, but it may not be the best way to go about it.--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I choose not to participate in this section out of fear of retribution. I think this is a dangerous section and should be stricken from the RFC as a steep slippery slope. Answering this question does not address the issues of concern that brought about this rfc, and it can only create a hullabaloo that we do not need right now. I encourage other editors to avoid this section and focus on the above. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added this question to the RFC because of concerns initially before the passage of the injunction which were never satisfactorily addressed. An editor basically asked why Arbcom was applying an injunction to the entire community rather than the group involved and was basically answered, "don't worry, it's only temporary." Even if this section is removed from the current RFC, I think discussion needs to occur regarding such wide reaching injunctions in the future. Redfarmer (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the wide injunction as fully justified, and the broad interpretation justified also. The purpose was to stop things as they were, both to permit edit wars, and also to permit a more orderly disposition of material after the decision. Both are needed. The attempt of one of the people involved to argue that not all types of articles are covered by the injunction & to continue merging show why it was necessary. I do hope we will get some guidance in cleaning up things afterwards in an orderly fashion. Jerry has been one of those reminding people of the injunction, and what he has been doing is totally right and appropriate and necessary. It should be made clear if necessary that arb com endorses his actions. His prompt interventions deserve both applause and --if necessary-- protection. DGG (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - DGG, your interpretation directly contradicts NewYorkBrad's comments upon issuing the injunction. He stated very specifically that the injunction specifically applies only to television series episodes and characters. In response to whether this injunction applied to video games, he specifically said he was only applying the injunction to the specific areas where the group of editors involved in the Arbcom had been edit warring. Your broad interpretation does not seem to have much support in reality when the context of the injunction is read. I say this knowing good and well that you are the person who implied that Weapons of resident evil 4 article was somehow covered, even though the article is neither about television nor about a character or episode as the injunction and NewYorkBrad specifically states. Redfarmer (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whoa, there is apparently a chunk of this conversation missing from this page. This leaves your two comments, taken together, to be misinterpreted. I do not see anywhere in DGG's comments where he suggests that the effect of the injunction should be applied to other kinds of articles. It may well be his position, I do not know that. But this dialogue could be interpreted as Jerry has applied this injunction to other kinds of articles, which I have certainly not done. The only "deviation" that I may have done, (which is just a matter of interpretation), is I apply the injunction's protection to articles that were created after the injunction was enacted. Some admins do not think these articles are covered. But there has been no wheel warring, only brief unentrenched civil dialogue. So please be more specific in your coments here, knowing that some users will only have any knowledge of this situation from reading this page. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 12:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry Jerry. You're right of course. My reply was a bit hasty and left out some things. Some comments by DGG were what got me interested in this case to begin with. He first disputed a PROD I left on Weapons of resident evil 4 on the basis that it could arguably fall under the injunction. Fine, no big deal so I took it to AfD where, after having four editors and myself state that this article does not fall under the injunction in any conceivable way, he comes in with the following vote:

Close as covered by the injunction Consensus at the talk page of the arbcom and at similar afds is that the injuction is to be interpreted broadly. The arguments for deletion here are just the same as the ones being discussed there.

After having looked at some other deletion discussions DGG has made similar comments on, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command Carrier (3rd nomination), DGG's broad interpretation of the injunction seems to imply that any article which is even remotely related to fiction is covered under the injunction. He has yet to return to the Weapons of resident evil 4 deletion discussion to explain how exactly a rifle and a rocket launcher in a video game can be interpreted as fictional characters in a television series. He also implies consensus where there is none--a simple reading of the discussion page for the arbitration request makes this clear and that's why we're here in RFC. The most alarming thing to me about throwing the injunction around like this is, in some cases, it seems to halt discussion all together as other editors who have not done their research take his interpretation at face value.

As is noted above in the scope section, NewYorkBrad made it clear his intention for the injunction was not for it to be interpreted broadly as DGG has. P.S. I did not mean this to apply my comment to you, Jerry; it was simply a coincidence that DGG was responding to your comment.Redfarmer (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken no administrative action on these articles, and i would not take any. (I am too involved in the discussions on these articles.) I gave my opinion at the AfD about what I think ought to be done, as any editor can. I have explained that I think it prudent in these article not to take steps that may turn out to need redoing afterwards. the most recent article where this has arisen has been at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smallville timeline where i think the article is exactly and specifically about the plot and the characters, and still it has been challenged that the injunction doe not apply., given the continued insistence of deleting every possible related article to fiction, perhaps arb com should make clear that an expanded coverage is appropriate. its the only way to end the quibbling. I would have appreciated some notice that my comment were being discussed here; I would have replied earlier. DGG (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you had taken administrative action, but it is extremely improper for you, as an admin, to imply consensus when there is clearly none and to imply the injunction covers articles which it clearly does not. This leads other editors to believe your interpretation is correct and halt discussion. With that said, I do think the Smallville timeline article is one of those borderline cases that I was hoping this RfC would cover, but which only a handful of editors have responded to. Redfarmer (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt know people paid that much attention to me. In this particular case tho, as you said, it did seem reasonably clear. But as the process continues, things do seem to be getting murkier. DGG (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]