Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision

message: Might I suggest that the halt be extended to cover other fictional material such as books and videogames also. Similar tactics are being used on these as found on the episode articles, and the conclusions here may well have an effect on their status. LinaMishima (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that may be a good idea, but from what I've seen, the edit warring related to those is mostly centered around characters that appear in fiction books and videogames (which the proposed injunction already covers). Although I have seen edit warring on books, like the City of Bones article. --Pixelface (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think at present the injunction really should only apply to television series episodes because the editors on those articles are the ones primarily involved in this case. I've added that clarification to the injunction, although of course the other arbitrators who have voted for it may remove that if they wish. If there is a view that the problem is broader than TV series articles, then evidence to that effect should be presented, and editors on those articles should be given some kind of notice of the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The whole Bulbasaur issue at least shows that there can be "bleed-over". -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the opinion that it should not be TV alone. TTN is running out of TV articles to go after. He's headed for video game articles now.      Unless he's specifically limited from doing anything of the sort, TTN will just dodge avoid the specific series the wording indicates and go for the things he'll believe he can get without incident. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I didn't propose the injunction, but I would imagine that AfD decisions can continue to be implemented, since the aim here is probably to target unilateral and not community consensus decision-making. On the other hand, it might be a good plan not to put contentious articles involved in this dispute up for AfD until the case is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it might be a good idea to adjust the wording to provide for already existing AfDs, since the injunction prohibits deletions of any kind. Otherwise we might have AfDs legitimately closed as delete not being fulfilled and piling up due to this injunction. seresin | wasn't he just...? 06:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree, else we're asking for trouble. Also, what about uncontroversial merges/redirects, where everyone involved is in agreement on what is to be done and how? I have seen that happen, and I don't think it would be good to discourage actions based on genuine consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There we're treading along that fine line just before the slippery slope, to butcher a few metaphors.  Any language which allowed for such situations would either take several weeks to formulate or would leave enough wiggle room for people to abuse it.  There's no reason why the mergers can't wait. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 11:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec) I understand that a point of contention is that some prior mergers have been unanimous, possibly because they have been done in a way which limited input was given (especially from those who would oppose it). The obvious solution would be "any uninvolved administrator" plus "a significant number of contributors in agreement", but then "uninvolved" and "significant number" are open to varied interpretations. Just my $0.02. Daniel (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: AFDs should also be avoided during the duration of the arbcom hearing. Lets stop all deletion and recreation for at least a while. -- Cat chi? 22:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would grudgingly support restricting new AfD nominations until this case is over, but any already in existence should not be restricted. But since the whole point of the injunction is to prevent unilateral, sans-community editorial actions, I don't see the point in restricting new AfDs, which, by definition, have community input. seresin | wasn't he just...? 03:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, with the provision that mass nominations by parties to the case should be restricted regardless of the starting time; we don't want to see someone who's part of the case attempt to "get a bunch in under the wire" by throwing out a whole bunch of mass-AfDs should it become clear that the injunction will pass.  Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Until there is consensus over the matter it will be disruptive to go for mass xfding these pages. Furthermore votestacking and etc will occur as a result of mass nominations. "Stop all activity people" is the intention of the temporary injunction I believe. Tricking the system by avoiding the arbitration remedy to continue the exact behavior arbcom tries to halt is the definition of disruption. -- Cat chi? 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree as a number of AfDs concerning editors involved in these discussions have become quite contentious and may turn off other editors not inolved in this case.  Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, it just passed. So I still request that the arbitrators clarify quickly if this applies to currently existing AfDs, or G4 speedy deletions. (There could be more loopholes that need to be addressed) seresin | wasn't he just...? 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: As the english wikipedia has no issue currently with permastubs, the only reason other than notability I can think of to add merge tags to episode articles and the such would be for MOS and reading clarity. However justified that may be, however, I suspect that editors will find it possible to AGF and not blame notability debates for the duration of this ArbCom and the debates elsewhere, no matter who adds the tags. For now might I suggest that you get involved with the discussions to decide upon the community's view of the content side of this subject, over at WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE? EPISODE's talk page in particular would be a good place for you to let your opinion on this matter known. LinaMishima (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I can't speak for the arbitrators, but I would think that if an editor added a  tag to an article because they believed the topic to be non notable, the tag is related to notability and not allowed while the injunction is in effect. --Pixelface (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  has recently engaged in behavior which I contend amounts to either a technical violation of the injunction, or, at the very least, a concerted effort to thwart its purpose -- please see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#TTN. John254 04:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I assume the language about tagging applies to the templates , , and  — but some clarification from the committee would be appreciated. --Pixelface (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Including video games in the injunction would be a spot on, wise move as a number of the parties involved have also arguably edit-warred or mass nominated for deletion articles concerning video game and not just television characters.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halt to activities proposed injuction 

message: I can tell you that I will not follow this request by arbcom. My tagging and work is in no way close to edit waring or controversial, and the fact that the arbcom didn't even consider such things is a great lapse in their judgement. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to hear any response from arbcom first regarding the points I've made before taking any action. -- Ned Scott 08:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what they are saying is just work in other areas for a few months. Every editor should be able to do that if needed. It will be difficult, and if you see others still doing lots of work in this area despite this injunction, and after being warned, bring it to the attention of the committee. Carcharoth (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The injunction applies to all editors, regardless of whether they're a party to this particular case. Kirill 23:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought as much. Thank you! LinaMishima (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: So, is someone going to go through and leave that same injunction message on the talk page of every last editor?  Because otherwise, how is every editor supposed to know that all of a sudden no one is supposed to do a damn thing, even though several projects are actively working on cleaning up episodes and character articles?  Or will all the individual episode and character articles be protected?  Otherwise, this seems like an overly broad injunection that will just cause even more issues because people will get punished for doing something they now don't even know is wrong. Collectonian (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The injunction requires warnings before any blocks are imposed; any editors that get blocked here will certainly be aware of the matter beforehand. Kirill 00:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I can't comment on the informing process, but I do strongly suspect that it will be applied sensibly and with assumptions of good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary. The injunction also does not prevent the merging of content into another article, only the redirection, deletion or removal of content after this has been completed. LinaMishima (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't comment on the informing process? What does that mean? It says right there in the injunction: "...after being warned of this injunction". It is quite clear that no-one should block without first warning the user in question. And to pre-empt any wikilawyering - it is quite possible to carry on editing after a warning has been left, and to only see the message that has been left for you a few minutes later. Anyone enforcing this - please consider whether specific editors have seen the warning. ie. Don't block someone if they carry out a revert or redirection 5 seconds after you leave a warning telling them not to do this - it is likely they won't have seen the warning yet. Carcharoth (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot comment of the quality of the informing process because I am just a normal editor, and I personally am not sure what to comment with regards to this matter. You are free of course to suggest that this implied policy (of knowing of injunctions) is reviewed. Again, I would have thought that an assumption of good faith would mean that people would generally understand that warnings take time, and allow for one or maybe two edits before assuming the worst. Even then, I doubt that unless there was serious problems that anyone would be blocked with but a single warning. LinaMishima (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, that is a good idea. LinaMishima (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I've added this to  that appears on all these pages, but likely should be a new section entry too. --MASEM 02:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I also agree and think it would be a good idea for you notify anyone whom you deem it appropriate to inform.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that this kind of 'freeze' sets a bad precedent, and a lot more detail is needed, but maybe suggest alternatives and show how the current situation can be managed? Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedias arbitration committee is the ultimate authority traditionally hand picked by Jimmy Wales, the founder of wikipedia. They are the only group of people who can levy any kind of restriction to prevent disruption and assist in dispute resolution. Disregarding arbcoms rulings is probably not the best of all ideas. This is intended to be friendly advice and should be treated as such. You are actually free to disregard arbitration committees decision but you would risk facing the consequences. -- Cat chi? 23:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halt to activities 

message: I'm not quite sure where to ask this, perhaps on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 or Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop or an arbitrator's talk page, but for now I'll ask it here.
Is the following correct?
While this arbitration case is open, if any Wikipedia editor who has been warned of the injunction on their talk page:
#Redirects a television episode article
#Un-redirects a television episode article
#Redirects a television character article
#Un-redirects a television character article
#Adds a  tag to a television episode article
#Removes a  tag from a television episode article
#Adds a  tag to a television character article
#Removes a  tag from a television character article
#Adds a  or  tag to a television episode article because they think the episode is not notable
#Removes a  or  tag from a television episode article
#Adds a  or  tag to a television character article because they think the character is not notable
#Removes a  or  tag from a television character article
#Deletes a television episode article
#Un-deletes a television episode article
#Deletes a television character article
#Un-deletes a television character article
..then administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of the injunction.
If any editor on Wikipedia performs any of those actions, they need to be warned on their talk page of the injunction. (Is there a standard format for this?)
Editors may still:
#Nominate television episode articles/television character articles for deletion
#Trim content from television episode articles/television character articles
#Remove content from television episode articles/television character articles and merge it into List articles
Is that correct? --Pixelface (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably be a good idea to avoid nominating episode or character articles for deletion for the time being as many of those nominated on episodes and characters during this case have become particularly heated if not unconstructive at times.  Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Pixelface, I think you missed out that people can still add summaries to lists (ie. carry out that stage of a merge process), as long as they leave out the final stage (carrying out the redirect). The episode article could then be put in :Category:Episode articles that have been merged and may need redirecting after the Arbcom injunction has been lifted. In other words, I don't think expanding list articles is in any way forbidden - that is, after all, a constructive activity. I now see that this is sort of covered in your point 3, but I disagree that "removing material" is OK. That is in effect allowing people to stub articles, and requiring others to check whether any material has ended up in the list articles. Carcharoth (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing significant amounts of material would likely break the injunction, especially since it has been recommended to be enforced with a broad interpretation (or words to that effect). However performing the merge into a list in indeed most certainly allowed and maybe even encouraged (since other acts relating to notability and major rearrangement of content are prohibited at the moment, leaving only that). LinaMishima (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest everyone to just STOP whatever they are doing or thinking of doing involving the content of fiction related topics. People ought to get consensus first. Otherwise they may be wasting energy as if the consensus turns out to be against what you are doing, your edits will be promptly reverted eventually. This should not be remotely difficult to do unless people are here with a combative mentality. Such combative mentality is frowned up on and on occasions such people have been blocked indefinitely for pushing the communities patience to their limits. This post is not directed at either side of the discussion but instead to both sides. -- Cat chi? 23:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I ask in part because of this thread Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#TTN, where editors discussed TTN, who was removing much content from List of videogame character articles, and since TTN also asked whether merge tags are tags related to notability. From what I've seen, edit-warring has occurred on articles about all fictional characters, not just fictional characters from television. --Pixelface (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "FT2 (Talk | email) 02:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think arbitrators are pretty clear. -- Cat chi? 02:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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.
What's to be said about de-populating and deleting categories which relate specifically to episodes and characters? , ,  , , , , , , etc., etc. While not the letter, I believe this would violate the spirit of the moratorium imposed. — CharlotteWebb 22:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not evidence per se, but at least in two cases, (Gen Hospital and Dexter's Lab) the category was populated, then when the episoded were merged (just prior to this decision).  Of course, once the episodes were merged, the category automatically depopulated, and thus likely lead to the deletion of it.  However, the Death Note merge seems to have happened after the injunction (this edit is dated on the 7th, but it is not by an involved party (User:HadesDragon).  --MASEM 14:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification regarding the injunction

message: :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.
What's to be said about de-populating and deleting categories which relate specifically to episodes and characters? , ,  , , , , , , etc., etc. While not the letter, I believe this would violate the spirit of the moratorium imposed. — CharlotteWebb 22:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not evidence per se, but at least in two cases, (Gen Hospital and Dexter's Lab) the category was populated, then when the episoded were merged (just prior to this decision).  Of course, once the episodes were merged, the category automatically depopulated, and thus likely lead to the deletion of it.  However, the Death Note merge seems to have happened after the injunction (this edit is dated on the 7th, but it is not by an involved party (User:HadesDragon).  --MASEM 14:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Injunction revisited

message: A template (Template:FICTWARN) was created to post in AFDs such as those in Deletion sorting/Fictional characters and Deletion sorting/Television, and I'm wondering about it's wording. I assume that AFDs may still take place and they may end in five days, but the articles may not be redirected or deleted while the injunction is in effect, correct? Some editors are saying speedy keep while the injunction is in effect, but should editors in AFDs just ignore the injunction, argue as usual, with the closing admin waiting to enact any result until this case is closed? The template says the AFDs should continue to be relisted (and I suppose the discussion would go on for as long as this case is open), but if the discussion does not result in a keep, should the AFDs just be closed and perhaps relisted after this case is closed? --Pixelface (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion that led to the template being created can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Bad Too. Davewild (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the template. I just don't know if the AFDs should be continually relisted while this case is open. The AFDs could be continually relisted, they could be relisted after the case is over, any consensus to delete/redirect could be enacted after this case is over, they could be speedy kept, etc. Maybe non-admins could even close them, I don't know. --Pixelface (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The template should probably be added to these AfDs concerning characters that appear on TV shows: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strongarm (Masters of the Universe) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Casey.  Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the template to those AFDs. Davewild (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the fast response!  Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This is ridiculous.  I urge the arbitrators to either allow AfDs to run their course or close them all.  --Phirazo 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is being carried to ridiculous lengths. Editor Jerry tagged Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional barefoot characters with , merely because the list included links to characters which might fall under the injunction. Jerry said it was best to "cast a wide net" without better guidance from ARBcom. This is just plain silly. Under this reasoning, all articles in AfD which link to a character in question would have to have their outcomes delayed. Please stop the insanity! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. That AfD has no bearing on the notability of the articles it lists. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe just closing all non-hoax, non-copy vio, and non-personal ones would be a good idea for the time being, as many of these unnecessary AfDs are just increasing tensions.  Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD limbo

message: I'd just like to hold my hands up and say that I tagged all the character articles of characters from Degrassi: The Next Generation with the notable tag, not knowing about this place, and not realising I wasn't supposed to. Now I read that they can't be removed either. Sorry -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem plenty of users are not going to realise there is an injunction; as the injunction says that 'Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight' I will remove the notability tags you added myself. Davewild (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I messed up. 

message: Should admins remove  templates from television character articles such as this one while the injunction is in effect? --Pixelface (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding such templates now is probably a bad idea.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Prodding

message: I would like some official clarification from the committee on how admins should take this injunction into consideration in light of various ordinary WP:AFD debates on TV episode/character articles.  Specifically, I see three ways of interpreting things:
# AfDs closure should proceed as normal, and administrators implementing the result of an AfD closure may consider themselves exempt from the injunction.  
# AfD closure should proceed as normal, but administrators are not excepted from the injunction and thus should not implement the result of any such closure.   
# AfD debates should not be closed in a way that would require deletion, merging, or redirection, until the injunction is lifted.
Personally, I think the first makes the most sense, but the second also seems like a plausible solution.  The third seems less than ideal to me; I only mention it because it is the initial interpretation some admins have taken; see Template:FICTWARN and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Casey for instance, among others.  I would also like to add that it may be reasonable to interpret the injunction as discouraging even nominations for AfD on this type of article, but it isn't clear on that point.  Mangojuicetalk 18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also like clarification about AFD during the injunction, although you should probably contact the arbitrators on their talk pages because only two active arbitrators have left comments on this talk page, and that was nearly two weeks ago. I appreciate the attention the case has received, but it appears to me this case has largely been ignored, perhaps in favor of "higher profile" cases. --Pixelface (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query regarding temporary injunction and AfD 

message: This case will have its four-week "anniversary" very soon, but there has been no proposal from arbcom so far, so this case is still far from the voting phase and consequently from closure. In comparison, the first Episodes&Characters case had its first proposal after two weeks, and was closed after five weeks. If it wasn't for the injunction, I probably wouldn't say anything, but it is becoming increasingly hard to do even the most non-controversial kind of basic cleanup because no-one wants to violate the vaguely-worded injunction. The workshop discussions seem to have run their course, and the recently rewritten WP:FICT is also on its way to be widely accepted (as far as it can). Is it the time to lift the injunction or at least to resume the decision-making? (I apologize a thousand times for coming across as pushy, but I thought that the first case paved the way so that this case would find a resolution much quicker.) – sgeureka t•c 19:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: unless there is some guidance about how to proceed after the injunction is lifted, I predict an immediate return to chaotic edit-warring.  Indeed, while the injunction was pending, the merges continued until the very last minute--and even afterwards, there have been drastic contents cuts in articles. DGG (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the injunction was helpful in reducing the edit-warring, but I am concerned that the injunction has switched from being a temporary solution to a semi-permanent decision that has de-facto disabled core cleanup. If only the edit-warring is of concern, the injunction could be rewritten into a 1RR deal. If the injunction is however intended to allow arbcom to review all editors's actions in depth, I'd like to know how more time they need so that I can plan my wiki-time accordingly. I like working in a pipeline type of way, but I can't even finish my merge proposals back from December, and I can't start tagging what will be my wiki-work in March/April. – sgeureka t•c 16:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: No, users are actively adding their input to discussion on workshop page,it is not a good idea to rush things here. This arbcom case need not take so little time as the previous one (which is considered  by many a failure in that the same problem continues to exist like no arbcom decision was ever made); the arbitrators are wise and they will know when this case is mature enough to be closed. --PeaceNT (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The workshop discussion had 290kb (50% of the current whole discussion) in its first week, 205kB (35%) in the second week, 48kB (10%) in the third week, and 25kB discussion (5%) in the last/fourth week. There is nothing really new now, and all major parties have said what they had to say. The rewritten WP:FICT has been moved to main space two weeks ago and has had several polishes/copyedits, with only insignificant changes in meaning. A basis for work is clearly there. It's not my intention at all to initiate a rush, but to urge arbcom to make progress in some way, even if it is just a "give us ten more days for reviewing". For all I know, the injunction could be in place for two more months and nothing else from arbcom (which is their right), but that is really not desirable in any way. – sgeureka t•c 17:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may, it appears that the only ArbCom Member who really contributed to ending this case and getting Wikipedia back to running is Kirill Lokshin.  Is it possible that there is a backlog at ArbCom and this case is just too low priority to deal with?  Ever since this injunction, the only edits I have been able to make are vandalism reversion and link fixes to articls made prior to the injunction.  It's been getting under everyone's skin and I think it's time to move on with our lives. Sasuke9031 (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving on? 

message: Link. Black Kite 12:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid your point doesn't come across ( at least to me). I don't see any considerable chaos in the linked AfD, compared to other ones. And is it anything to do with arbcom injunction? --PeaceNT (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is when people are voting Keep because they think that ArbCom have declared that episode articles are notable. Black Kite 17:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one said such thing. --PeaceNT (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: People are saying keep because the article cannot be deleted or redirected while this case is open. --Pixelface (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Injunction causing chaos

message: Are  allowed to be added to episode and character pages at the moment? If not, what is the process for removal? Should they just be removed from the article, does an administrator have to do it, and does the person who put them there be told off on their talk page? Thanks! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The injunction does not prohibit the use of deletion debate process. You may nominate these pages for deletion and use the template notice normally, otherwise most users wouldn't be aware that the AfD exists (which would defeat the point of having a debate, wouldn't it?) It should be note, however, that if the result is anything other than a "keep", then actions may not be taken until the injunction is lifted or modified by the Arbcom. --PeaceNT (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|afd}} ? 

message: On the workshop, it was proposed to create a working group like the one for the Israel/Palestinian case for these issues. I said there, and I will repeat here, given the divisiveness of this issue and the long-standing failure of the community to come to a conclusion, this seems to me an excellent idea, and I hope the committee will consider it here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am starting to warm to this idea myself.  Hiding T  20:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It's an interesting idea, but I would not say that the community has failed to come to a conclusion, far from it. There are growing pains for sure, and some things will always be debated, but as far as the actual issue of "notability" and other inclusion considerations go.. We're doing pretty good. This case is an issue of behavior when in a dispute, and I'd rather that be all that arbcom focuses on. If arbcom, as a group of normal editors, wishes to help us with this proposed work group, I'd welcome that. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Working group

message: Maybe this is just my own feeling, but if TTN is restricted from editing television episode/television character articles, I suspect he'll just move on to videogame character articles (based on this evidence and TTN's edits since the injunction was enacted). TTN also contacted Seresin one day after Seresin became an admin and asked him to revert several television/videogame character articles back to redirects. Here TTN asks Seresin, "video game articles are free game, right?" --Pixelface (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this case and the editors involved really go beyond just television episodes and characters; it is more about editing on popular culture of fictional articles, especially video games as well.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not too concerned with this. If TTN continues his past edit behaviour by simply working around arbcom remedies he will be blocked for good if past decisions of the community and arbcom on such persistent behaviour is any indication. Of course I would welcome modification of the remedy to prevent this. -- Cat chi? 13:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Another reason why this is a poor proposal. As much as some of you might want blood, I think you'd agree that a proposal that limits force, rather than focuses on who and where, is less likely to be gamed. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: anything can be gamed. Even a ban of TTN from WP would still leave the possibility of meatpuppetry -- as in this apparent attempt at it.  DGG (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if TTN decides to  game the system by refocusing his current editing tendencies and style from Episodes to Video Games... We have a policy against this kind of behavior. And seeing as that he would be showing that he is either unable or unwilling to change, I'd think that the third time round he would be shown the door - permanently. CharonX/talk 11:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It still needs to be proven that his current editing "tendencies" are against any kind of policies and guidelines, no matter whether it is about episodes or video games. The only thing he is guilty of is edit-warring, but then again it takes two to edit-war, so both sides should be restricted or neither one. – sgeureka t•c 12:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's edit warring, and then there's edit warring.  TTN's behavior has extended beyond the scope of normal edit warring into a category that warrants action specifically against him, especially because he is a constant in 90% of the related edit wars.  No other editor on any side meets that qualification. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 13:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is reverting to article versions that are inline with policies and guidelines, and there is reverting to article versions that fail a handful of policies and guidelines. TNN does not belong in the second group, and getting him banned is clearly the wrong message if it is our goal to produce a high-quality encyclopedia. Find a solution to stop the edit-warring while still allowing the necessary cleanup. "Getting rid" of TTN will just give you more editors doing exactly the same thing as him (although admittedly slower, but with the same effects). TTN was yesterday; Eusebeus, Jack Merridew and Gavin are today; and I predict I'll be the new scapegoat for tommorow because AfDing a nn-tagged article after four months "is not enough time for improvement". – sgeureka t•c 13:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Torquemada's death did nothing to stop the Spanish Inquisition; the Inquisition had institutional support and the law on its side. Others will step in to pick up the slack, and since purging Wikipedia of excessive plot summary isn't as bad as burning people alive, the excessive plot summary will be purged eventually. Blast Ulna (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying the plot summary stuff shouldn't go, nor am I saying that having other editors pick up the slack would be bad.  What I am saying is that TTN performs these tasks with no tact and without really caring what other editors say.  He decides what is going to happen to any article he edits before starting a discussion on the relevant talk page, and frequently ignores clear-cut evidence that his assumptions about the notability of an article are wrong.  I'm legitimately surprised that any of you (well, maybe not Kww and Euseubeus) are defending him because, quite honestly, he gives you all a bad name; I have little doubt that more than half the resistance you're going to encounter in further cleanup drives will be directly caused by TTN's charming editing habits.  This isn't like taking out Torquemada, it's more like locking up William Calley. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 15:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I cannot agree with that. TTN's manner of editing is a direct consequence of so many editors wilfully ignoring our consensus injunction against lengthy plot summaries, in-universe continuity, trivia and the other guff that he is cleaning up. The claims that five or so people making objections on some local tv series page can outweigh our overall policies is tedious to the extreme and we need a clear decision from arbcom to which these people can be directed in order for them to understand that such disruptive tendencies will result in blocks or other sanctions. TTN is not the problem: the proliferation of unencyclopedic content backed up by small groups of committed defenders who consistently ignore our policies and guidelines and game the system through false appeals to consensus building and AGF is the problem. Eusebeus (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See? Inclusionists take note, the material will be removed eventually. If it will be removed eventually, then why waste time fighting? The deletionists will not go away, and they have been content to allow TTN and others to be their attack dogs. Kill their attack dog, and others will increase their efforts. Blast Ulna (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: All those editors who create those articles on television episodes and fictional characters demonstrate that the actual consensus is for such articles to exist and that there is widespread opinion that such articles do not fail any policies.  We our the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  We are not a paper encyclopedia.  We are a combination of encyclopeedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs.  We are providing the sum total of all human knowledge.  I whole-heartedly agree that excessive in-universe plot summaries can be problematic, but the solution is balancing that out with more reviews and interviews to building up reception and production sections.  Just getting rid of the information altogether and limiting our ability to catalog human knowledge does not make much sense and only alienates our contributors and readers.  What human beings find important varies from person to person and imagine how many sources could have been found or articles rewritten instead of all the time spent attempting to exclude people and their contributions to our project!  The problem is indeed not just TTN, but the handful of "committed defenders" that he has that are vastly outnumbered by others who spend much more time attempting to improve these kinds of articles.  And I have had enough interactions with some of these editors to see that while some are indeed operating in good faith and willing to engage in polite if spirited discussion (and sometimes even willing to be open-minded), an incredibly small but prolific minority of others by contrast do not merely edit-war, but also violate our no incivility and no personal attack polcies.  This case is not so much about content, but about behavior and the behaviorial problem is that the minority of editors bent on limiting Wikipedia's scope typically make unilateral redirects, mass/disruptive nominations for deletions, and insult article writers in some holier than thou "everything you create is 'cruft'" and "only what I think is important matters" tone.  None of those attitudes are conducive to bettering our project or providing for a cooperative environment.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "providing the sum total of all human knowledge", huh? Sounds like a compendium, not an encyclopedia. As for the argument that it is a minority of editors who act to remove material, that is true; but only if you count the mass of newbie editors who (in good faith) add detail to their favorite subjects. Once you get up to the level of editors who actually participate in policy debates, it's about even. Blast Ulna (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales, Slashdot Interview (28 July 2004)  And as our Five pillars state, we are not just an encyclopedia, but also a specialized encyclopedia and almanac, as well as not a paper encyclopedia.  Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the First Pillar speaks for itself. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; Wikipedia is "written for the benefit of its readers.  It includes elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs."  It is therefore not written for a minority of editors and is therefore more than a traditional encyclopedia.  Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come on, you are cherry-picking. It continues, "All articles must follow our no original research policy, and editors must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, arguments or experiences. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory." 23:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is great is that articles on episodes and fictional chracters are hardly "soapboxes" and hardly indiscriminate and hardly personal opinions or experiences.  Moreover, they are easily verfied with primary and secondary evidence and because they don't offer a thesis are not original research.  In other words, they fulfill the entire letter of what you and I both cited and so if editors spent more time helping in the quest for references rather than just attempting to remove stuff, we would better meet these policies.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Easily verified, but not so easily found in the secondary or tertiary literature. I have been unable to find sources for characters on my favorite show, and I'm really pissed that I can't, but until sources are found, I'll survive with the list page. Blast Ulna (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then, what is your favourite show then? You'd be surprised at what is out there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: SpongeBob SquarePants.  Blast Ulna (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That's okay, though, because Wikipedia is a work in progress and the early copies of the Enlightenment era encyclopedias had articles based entirely on primary sources.  So long as there is no thesis expressed in the article, then we make do with the sources we have.  It's much easier to have a stub or article based on primary sources as a place-holder until the secondary sources can be added.  What frustrates me are all the AfDs where editors claim no sources can be found and then I find sources with astonishing ease and the AfD rightfully ends in a keep, but it should have never happened in the first place as an honest search for sources by the nominator would have found the same sources I and others found to cause the article to be kept.  While this dispute concerns behavior, the problematic behavior under question stems from a misunderstanding of what the phrase "encyclopedic content" encompasses.  Per Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia "includes elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." Many published specialized encyclopedias concern television episodes and fictional characters: The Encyclopedia of Fictional People: The Most Important Characters of the 20th Century, Disney's Junior Encyclopedia of Animated Characters, Encyclopedia of Walt Disney's Animated Characters, Comic Book Encyclopedia: The Ultimate Guide to Characters, Graphic Novels, Writers, and Artists in the Comic Book Universe, Mystery Women: An Encyclopedia of Leading Women Characters in Mystery Fiction, Vol.1 (1860-1979) Revised, Doctor Who Encyclopedia, The Burroughs Encyclopaedia: Characters, Places, Fauna, Flora, Technologies, Languages, Ideas and Terminologies Found in the Works of Edgar Rice Burroughs, The Unauthorized X-Cyclopedia: The Definitive Reference Guide to the X-Files, "Star Wars" Encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows, The Encyclopedia of TV Science Fiction, Encyclopedia of Monsters, Encyclopedia Galactica: From the fleet library aboard the Battlestar Galactica, etc. These are not mere fan sites, but published books. Thus, suggesting that episode or character articles are unencyclopedic is not factually accurate or reasonable.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Give me a break. You created the Symphony No. 59 (Haydn) article (and it doesn't contain "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject") and I don't see you complaining about "symphonycruft." Go apply your notability standards to the articles you've created. TTN is clearly on a mission to enforce his POV. He "can't stand laugh tracks", finds sitcoms "annoying", and favors certain shows over others: "Only in the case of a show like the Simpsons do the episodes as a whole receive enough individual coverage to actually matter." The only way TTN has policy on his side are two statements (in WP:V and WP:NOT) both introduced by one user, Hiding. Don't try and say that television character articles are "unencyclopedic" when articles like Baldrick have existed for over six years. --Pixelface (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like me to prove you wrong about the lack of sources for Symphony No. 59? Would you like me to BURY you in sources? Would you like me to make you eat your words, right here and now? Please say yes. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and add them to the article. Or shall I pull a TTN and redirect it to List of symphonies by Joseph Haydn? Maybe I could add merge tags to all of them! Providing sources won't make me eat my words. I realize that WP:N is a guideline, not a policy. I still don't see Eusebeus complaining about "symphonycruft." --Pixelface (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's obvious that those sources exist, but haven't been added yet. The same cannot always be said for other articles relating to episodes or characters. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know Ned...maybe I should cut all those redlinks off List of symphonies by Joseph Haydn. We wouldn't want new contributors thinking that they should create articles and clog up Wikipedia with impossible-to-manage symphonycruft. --Pixelface (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: We are way off topic at this point, but Ned what rationale do you have for this statement, "it's obvious that those sources exist, but haven't been added yet. The same cannot always be said for other articles relating to episodes or characters"?  This is blatant bias.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We're talking about Joseph Haydn. I'm an anime nerd that doesn't know much of anything about classical music, and yet I can see that the parent article has an incredible wealth of sources, indicates the guy had quite the impact on the musical world ("...was one of the most prominent composers of the classical period, and is called by some the "Father of the Symphony" and "Father of the String Quartet"."), and am able to do some basic Google book searches. It's not bias, it's that I actually do look for sources when evaluating examples presented in these discussions. After a few hundred years it is a bit easier to find sources for individual symphonies composed by Joseph Haydn than it is to find sources for last week's episode of NCSI. But if you want to call it bias, ok..  -- Ned Scott 03:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: And take a look at AfD and see if your "zomg over six year" comment means anything. You'll be laughed off the discussion page. Wikipedia not notice something for six years? Are you new here? Do you have any idea how common that is, how many freaking articles we have, and how impossible it is to manage all of them? How many times do we have to prove you wrong, Pixelface? How many times do you continue to make absurd assertions, only to be proven wrong again and again? -- Ned Scott 06:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I've blundered in asking you to apply your strict notability criteria to articles you've created yourself? I don't know Eusebeus, I better redirect the rest of those symphonies to a list article — there's plenty of room to describe them there. Wikipedia is simply straining under all this symphonycruft. I don't know how much more it can take. You know that notability is not inherited Eusebeus. I don't think a biography of Haydn would apply to his symphonies. We simply can't have articles on symphonies that don't assert their notability laying around. People would trip over them. --Pixelface (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When ever you give us an example that you think you are able to compare with most problematic articles, we turn around and fix them very quickly. We prove over and over again, this is not an issue of double standards, but of actual source availability, plain and simple. -- Ned Scott 03:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Coverage does not mean something is worthy of notice. Unless a source says something is notable, the source has nothing to do with notability. If you use a source to advance a position (X is notable) not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research. --Pixelface (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That has nothing to do with what I just said. -- Ned Scott 03:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does. When you talk about source availability, I assume you're talking about WP:N — which is what all the edit-warring by parties in this arbitration case has been about. --Pixelface (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  I add plenty of refs to stuff; I also clean-up refs often, i.e. take a raw url and use cite web which involves reviewing the site linked. And I remove bogus refs when I find them. The burden is not on editors interested in clean-up to find sources; the onus is on those who wish material to exist here. FWIF, I don't have a favorite tv show; I don't watch tv, don't even own one. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ....and have never played RPGs either? In which case if your knowledge of certain areas is so meagre, then how can you decree so authoritatively on their notability or the reliability of sources? Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I have played quite a few such games (not in some time). I have also watched too much television in the past. Live and learn. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps this calls for a new process, Articles for Redirecting, where the time frame is less then Deletion (due to its less serious consequence) and it can be closed by any editor (who isn't involved in the discussion) after that time frame, that way users such as TTN arn't redirecting en mass, but the development required is decided by the community at large (at least those whom are interests). ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 21:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: TTN restricted

message: Does the injunction apply to categories?  More specifically, user categories? See Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians who liked The Waltons.  I would guess no, but just want to make sure. VegaDark (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't apply at all. User categories are not actual content for the readers. -- Ned Scott 18:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the process undertaken by those seeking to merge articles into parent articles, is to remove the project templates and associated categories from the merged article's talk page. I think VegaDark's comment was more about the removal of these categories from articles and the subsequent hiding of the articles from the projects whose members are in a better position to find reliable sources.  Astronaut (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no connection between the articles and this category. No article namespace article would get tagged with these categories, only userpages would. This isn't even a category used for a WikiProject. Now, on another note, I would argue that such categories often get needlessly deleted and can be used for collaboration, but that's a whole other issue. -- Ned Scott 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This is a user category, so no mainspace articles should be included.  The injuction doesn't apply. --Phirazo 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about for regular categories? VegaDark (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's unrelated to the notability of those articles then it doesn't apply. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd be surprised... Will (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ned. I'm happy to be corrected when I'm wrong - I didn't notice the word "user" in VegaDark's comment.  That said, I still think my comment has some value. I have seen project templates removed from the talk pages of merged articles before consensus has been reached as to whether the article should be merged.  Removal of these tags, removes the associated categories and has the effect of hiding the article from the project members.  Astronaut (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I consider one of my bold mergers non-controversial, I immediately remove the talkpage tags, but not because I want to hide my mergers, but because I want to do the cleanup properly and not leave half the work for others afterwards. That said, I can totally see how the tag removal could be interpretated as malicious, but I doubt it is ever intended that way because there are so many other ways to keep track of mergers. – sgeureka t•c 17:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Injunction applied to categories?

message: I've deleted Naruto--Biography as a blatant copyvio. I would presume that the injunction is not intended to prohibit the deletion of blatant copy/pastes from copyrighted sites, but I would like to note here why it was done. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Temporary injunction as applied to copyvios

message: I have a challenge for the arbitrators supporting Desperate Pleading #2 (you may also know it has 'Remedy' #2, but who are we kidding?). I would like to challenge them to find me an examle of a past case where any improvement in the situation can be reasonably attributed to a remedy from this family of remedies, rather than to other, more direct, remedies in the case. I'm willing to be quite flexible about "reasonably attributed". If they do not, or cannot, I would challenge them to explain why they are supporting again this time. Splash - tk 13:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a filler remedy if you ask me. It's one of those doesn't-really-mean-anything-but-sounds-nice proposals. And as I pointed out in the above thread, could be problematic. -- Ned Scott 02:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A challenge to the arbitrators 

message: Could a committee member (or two) please clarify something for me? Where are incidents of violations to be reported? I ask because I would prefer not to have to argue on talk pages and on AfD discussions about whether or not a particular pattern of behavior is in violation of the committee's decision. Such accusations may be abused to swing a debate to one side's or the other's favor, and would not promote Decorum. Blast Ulna (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about reporting 

message: I probably feel as strongly as Ned and Eusebeus about what seems to be the final arbcom decision, but I have been thinking about how to formulate my final pledge for a few days (I will shut up after this). My major concern is that arbcom doesn't explain what TTN is getting "punished" for. I am sure it is not for enforcing policy and guidelines (in fact, this would set a very bad precedent). If it is about his "disruption", I'd like arbcom to consider how often and strong cleanup is fought by local editors. I am generally only editing abandoned fiction (including much merging and redirecting) and have so far rarely encountered opposition, but as soon as still-popular fiction articles (i.e. abandoned-to-be fiction articles) are discussed for cleanup (like what TTN often initiates), cleanup-minded editors all too often face ignorance of WP:BURDEN and the expression of WP:ILIKEIT that in turn prevents the cleanup progress for sometimes many months. See the merge attempts of nn 24 characters which have been going on since late November with heavy resistance but only little progress, the cleanup attempts of Firefly characters since late November with only slightly better "progress", and the deletion attempts of Command Carrier that has no notability established whatsoever since October (to compare, non-notable garage bands are speedied). If, as arbcom says, "the purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia, in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors", I (and I am only speaking for myself) consider this kind of non-productive cleanup-stalling much more disruptive than anything TTN has ever done. I am not trying to excuse TTN's occasional incivility, but I strongly support Ned's proposal to help TTN relearn how to not be deaf to ILIKEITs and GIVEITMORETIMEs anymore, and give TTN the chance to prove that he can contribute to wikipedia's high-quality in less controversial ways. – sgeureka t•c 01:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that so many of these "clean up" efforts would be unnecesary if more editors helped in the referencing and improvement process.  The other thing is that some of the editors (as indicated by the evidence) don't focus on the popular culture material because it has problems, but because it is popular culture material and we end up with a lot of   WP:IDONTLIKEIT nominations, usually by editors who admittedly know nothing about the topic and who are not only unwilling to improve the article through sourcing, but dismiss other editors' efforts to do so, because ultimately it is not for these handful of users about the article's quality, but the article's topic to begin with.  Because Wikipedia does not operate on a deadline, we're better off keeping non-hoax, non-personal attack articles around so that when someone who does have sources comes along, they are in a much better position to add them to a stub article.  Whereas Ned and Sgeureka have proven reasonable, TTN and certain others have not.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Despite ominous warnings to the contrary, I think the injunction and this subsequent ruling has done its job.  As a community, we are working harder, better, and in a more unified way.  My pledge is to continue in this new spirit of cooperation and compromise to balance the goals of comprehensive coverage and high quality articles.  I think Arb Com's intervention has placed the proper emphasis on, not just civil, collegial, and cooperative editing, but on methodical, reasoned, non-rushed approach to change.  Ursasapien (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one will not be adding material to TV articles unless I can reference it now, and I think others will think twice about it too. Life's too short to wallow in AfD debates. Fact is, it took an 2 arbcom debates and a specific ruling to stop TTN 'laying down the law' with vigorous reverts etc. to all and sundry, resulting in alot of acrimony in the past 12 months. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My pledge because two arbcom members are still encouraging comments before moving to close 

message: Wouldn't Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional spoiled brats (2nd nomination) fall under the injunction as it concerns some fictional characters who appear on television?  Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't think so. It's a list about spoiled characters, not a list about a specific series. It's not actually fiction. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that the list includes characters from The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius, Atomic Betty, Bratz (TV series), etc.  Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but again, not about the series as it is about the genre. categorization, etc. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What did you mean by, "It's not actually fiction"?  The article is made up entirely of fictional characters.  Irregardless, this case should wrap up within the week and I think the deletion discussion can continue.  Ursasapien (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion would not be related to the notability of the topics/articles that lists mentions. It's a list of other fictional content, but is not the actual content itself, which is on other articles. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What are we even debating here?  It is a list of fictional characters that illustrate a certain archetypal meme in fiction.  The AfD involves whether identifying these characters in a list is original research.  The AfD began on March 2nd.  The injunction will likely be lifted before any admin will think about closing the discussion.  I clearly looks like it is headed for deletion, but if it survives it will not be the end of the world.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ursasapien (talk • contribs) 07:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, I'm just sayin's is all. -- Ned Scott 07:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible discussion that falls in the injunction category

message: Can the arbitrators now officially lift the injunction? I grow weary of seeing Fictwarn pastered over every fictional topic at AfD (because of what appears to be an overlooked matter of housecleaning. Eusebeus (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should keep the injunction for now as the case does not yet seem to have been closed and to prevent a flood of pointed AfDs.  Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: All of us have survived the past four weeks, and we'll survive the last few days as well without being pushy to arbcom. :-) – sgeureka t•c 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't mean to be pushy. But an injunction of this sort is highly unusual and should be lifted in a timely fashion. Eusebeus (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unusual. But saying you'll act like a proxy for TTN when it appears he's going to be restricted is also unusual. --Pixelface (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If arbcom wishes to impose an injunction against me specifically for my importunate suggestion - that's one thing. Allowing this injunction to persist so fictwarns can be splattered around in a desperate bid to prevent normal AfD procedures from following their course is another matter altogether. Eusebeus (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure they'll take care of it soon enough. Gotta make sure all those random-article hunters don't stumble across those articles which put WP in a bad light. Can always clean up some health or politics articles in the meantime eh? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The injunction persists because the case is still open. If you think the injunction exists so s can be splattered around, I suspect you have no clue why it the injunction was issued in the first place. I know you're chomping at the bit to redirect all the Scrubs episode articles again, but you'll have plenty of time after the case is over. --Pixelface (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HOUSECLEANING - Time to lift the injunction 

message: What happens to the articles TTN redirected/successfully deleted? Would they still be redirected/deleted? I'm planning to improve the Gossip Girl articles so I'd like to know if I'll be violating anything related to this case or not. And don't worry, I'll use real life sources... and as a matter of fact, reading the old versions of the episode articles, it seems they were copied verbatim from Gossip Girl herself, LOL. --Howard the Duck 06:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd wait until the injunction is lifted and then make sure you had 3rd party independent sources...good to hear. Don't worry, it'll be lifted soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, I couldn't find a model article with suitable refs (I tried looking at a random Heroes episode article but it doesn't have refs); as a non-American I dunno where to start so I'm stuck with redirects. --Howard the Duck 08:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many good model articles for episodes at WP:GA and WP:FA, maybe they can help you. DVD commentaries, companion guides, news.google.com, books.google.com, and scholar.google.com will help a lot to get you started. I'd still wait with the unredirecting until this case is over, and some new sources should be added right away then to avoid new editorial conflicts. – sgeureka t•c 10:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm not really planning it on an FA or GA on a specific episode article (my plan is for an FL for the List of Gossip Girl episodes). I've read A Streetcar Named Marge and it was pretty extensive; Gossip Girl doesn't get as much coverage as that. And I won't be doing anything until like a week after this case is over, to be safe. Thanks for the inputs. --Howard the Duck 10:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: He's stopped editing since Feb 25th. I don't know if that means he's never coming back or if he's just going to wait the six months out, but I don't think he'll learn much form not being active at all. This is one of the concerns I had which lead to my proposal that TTN should be restricted when challenged, since it would encourage him to keep active in the project during those six months, thus placing him in the situations that would help him learn what areas need improvement for his methods.
It's his decision to edit or not, so no one can be blamed if he decides to do so (for all I know it could be unrelated to this arbcom case, and is something in his personal life, or whatever), but I still think it's a more than reasonable request given that the main aim of the restriction is to help TTN.
People can comment on this if they want, but I don't mean to start another thread on this (wouldn't do much good as a general discussion topic at this point anyways). This is just one last "please consider" message before the case is closed. Take it for what you will. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully he can find a constructive way to participate within this restriction.  If he's moved on or whatever, I stand in awe at the amount he has been able to mold wikipedia to his own vision.  I don't think any other user has had quite as much impact on WP as TTN. I didn't like what he did, but he did a heck of a job.  He probably removed a hundred thousand hours of editing, all by himself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One last plea for a lesser restriction on TTN 

message: I have a question about the "Parties instructed and warned" remedy. It appears to me that the parties are choosing to duke it out in AFDs. Is that a violation of this remedy or is participation in AFDs encouraged? --Pixelface (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do we draw the line between say "spirited discussion and/or debate" and "disruption"?  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What would a mass nomination of television episode and televison character articles be? --Pixelface (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would call mass nominations of anything disruptive, including what we have seen with the D&D articles.  Anytime AfD is flooded and especially if it's because it's an effort to go after a type of article rather than the article based on its individual merits, there's a problem.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Nothing in the injunction says "absolutely no AfDs" nor does it forbid anyone from participating in those AfDs. Can't speak for the Smallville one, but the other two (which I nominated) were created after the injunction by a known Xenophilic sockpuppet and, by my understanding, because they were created after the injunction, they do not fall under it. Collectonian (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm just wondering if AFD is the proper place in general to "develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question." I'm also wondering if massive AFD nominations (and I'm not referring to anyone in particular) could be seen as "spreading or inflaming this dispute." --Pixelface (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say massive AfD nominations do indeed spread and inflame the dispute and I am deeply concerned based on some of the comments we've seen that once the injunction is lifted, the episode and character AfD floodgates will be opened.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Parties instructed and warned