Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence

message: Wow, that's uncalled for. If TTN only want to work on one area of the wiki, that's his right, and he's not doing anything wrong by doing that. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: working on generally means adding content. It also generally suggests that you should have a reasonable knowledge of the subject area.Genisock2 (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily.  WP encourages everyone to participate regardless of their level of expertise.  Yes, if you are going to add content, you should be aware of the topic, but there's other things besides adding content, including copyediting, cleanup, peer review and article evaluation, and many more, none which require knowledge of the specific topic.  --MASEM 15:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked over all contributions - no mainspace edits for one whole year apart from his pruning. Everything is focussed on this. What would you call it? Not even looking for the odd ref himself. I mean, if one is so concerned why not add some references for topics you know about? It isn't that hard. This is why I am concerned that for TTN, and possibly some others whose sole contribution appears to be deleting and merging, their interest isn't in 'pedia building but something else.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, if those edits weren't disruptive or contested, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this behavior, and attempting to force any editor to do specific tasks breaks the purposes of being a volunteer work.  Mind you, I don't disagree that TTN's edits are disruptive or contested.  --MASEM 22:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Evidence presented by Casliber 

message: The page says "Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions..." Seeing Ned Scott's evidence, I'm assuming a link to a range of contributions is allowed? --Pixelface (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've used an offset, so it is pointing to specific contributions, and not just a generic contribution link. If desired, I can individually link each and every one of those diffs. -- Ned Scott 05:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think it's fine. If it's okay, I was planning on using such a link myself. --Pixelface (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Contribution range

message: "It is common practice for articles about episodes and fictional characters of notable works to not assert notability".  So are you really saying "We've gotten a free pass in the past, so we get one forever"?  Also, giving the age of an article means little, since Wikipedia has changed quite a bit in the last few years.  I think a good example are two AfDs for the same article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stupid Ninja Game from 2004 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stupid Ninja Game (2nd nomination), which closed recently.  The difference is dramatic, to say the least.  A keep in 2004 is an obvious delete in 2008.  Subjects are not considered notable because nobody has gotten around to nominating it for deletion or a merge.  You need to show that the articles you list are actually considered notable, rather than merely existing. --Phirazo 04:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's true that those episode and characters are considered notable. The fact that the articles have existed for so long suggests to me that they are considered notable. I suppose I could remove "The episode is still considered notable.", "The character is still considered notable.", "yet the episodes are still considered notable." from my evidence if you'd like. --Pixelface (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuttal to Evidence presented by [[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] 

message: I have a question about this statement "Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs..." I've separated my evidence into subsections, but I assume "main evidence" refers to all of the evidence I've presented (and does not count replies to other evidence). My evidence section currently contains 100 diffs (over 40 of them are links to oldid's actually), but I was wondering if I can include more diffs in reply to other evidence? The page says "Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions..." but can I link to a range of my contributions, such as this? --Pixelface (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really a question of courtesy. You should present your case in a succinct manner; to go overboard only increases the likelihood that you will be ignored — or that a clerk will trim it down for you. Oh, presenting oldids rather than diffs won't win you any points, either; you expect anyone to go read 40 old versions of pages and attempt to discern your meaning? Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment Jack. --Pixelface (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Main evidence

message: This page says "Never link to a page history" and I see Sgeureka linked to this page history. --Pixelface (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Evidence presented by sgeureka

message: I don't think it's ok to call someone's edits vandalism, even if you believe that these people are wrong and are being disruptive. We have a rather clear definition of vandalism, and that is acting with the intent of damaging Wikipedia.
However, your second assertion, TTN's actions have caused other users to misinterpret WP:EPISODE brings up very good points. It clearly wasn't TTN or anyone else's intention to have this effect on WP:EPISODE, but these actions, right or wrong, have caused one hell of a backlash, causing users to blindly oppose a rather good guideline. It's frustrating for many of us, but we must find better ways to deal with these situations. Now, a lot of this is unavoidable, and that's not TTN's fault, but there are things we can improve, and for some situations we really need to do that. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Evidence presented by Firsfron 

message: Yeah, it seems there's currently no consensus regarding the rollback policy. I can understand your point, but I expected better from the admins, especially since the admin page warns against using the admin tools in a content dispute. Having said that, I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to get caught up in one of these revert wars, and can understand why the tool was used. I only brought it up because of the warnings on Requests for rollback and WP:ADMIN about using rollback/admin tools in content disputes, and because it had been mentioned in passing on one of the talk pages but not presented as evidence. Kamek (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rollback (response to Ned Scott) 

message: You've presented 6 instances where TTN engaged in useful discussion, compared to the 300 or so diffs presented above in the evidence. Looking more broadly, I see about 2000 edits in January. About 1800 of them are merges, reverts, removal of material or templates from articles and talk pages, or nominations for deletion. How useful his contributions in talk were--as compared to repeated stereotyped defenses of his actions, I leave to others to analyze. I'm just counting.
In the 48 hours just before the injunction, over 200 articles were merged, or redirected. Again, I leave others to speculate.DGG (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Evidence provided by User:Krator