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

message: This is an important principle. Is it from an earlier case? It actually cuts pretty sharply to the way in which at least a number of changes have been 'implemented' in the past. Someone goes and does a whole bunch of stuff, and then rustles up a couple of people to say "oh well, it's done now, see if the Wiki collapses or not". I would give as examples (controversially, perhaps), the switch-off of anon page creation, the initial steps of the userbox wars, the spoiler template debates and to an extent the template redesign at WP:AT Wikipedia:Article message boxes. Thus you are writing a very insightful, and very powerful principle. Be sure you understand just exactly what use it is likely to be put to if you pass it, bearing in mind especially the magnifying effect of declarations from the committee once they find their ways into the hands of certain types of editor/admin. Splash - tk 13:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, it's a new principle (which is to say, I didn't have anything concrete from a former case in mind when I wrote it); it's possible that something of this sort has been adopted in the distant past, but I'm not aware of such. Kirill 13:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be pleased if it passes. I also suspect before ever so long, you'll find it quoted on an evidence page. Splash - tk 14:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The nearest related principle I can find off the top of my head is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk#Sincere disputes are unlikely to be resolved by forcing the issue. Hiding T  17:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: To avoid confusion: I changed the WP:AT link in Splash's message to point directly to "Wikipedia:Article message boxes", since the WP:AT shortcut has been changed to point elsewhere. --David Göthberg (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not underestimate 'fait accompli' principle 

message: I thought the idea was that you wouldn't look at the content, but merely at the conduct. If that was supposed to be the case, doesn't language like in 3.2.2. skirt awfully close to steering through language used? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not intended to be a content ruling by any means; I was merely trying to note that many respected editors believe that TTN was correct in his underlying point.  If you think "arguably correct" is a bad way of putting that, please feel free to propose an alternative wording that would be better. Kirill 13:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, saying that something  "arguably correct" suggests that a reasonable argument can be made on either side of the issue, which seems consistent with the arbitrators' not making a decision on the content dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who uses the phrase "arguably correct" frequently, I can tell you that's both how I use it and how people usually interpret it.  If it's really a sticking point for some people though I would recommend changing it from "is arguably correct" to "may or may not be correct".  -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 20:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as an uninvolved observer, "may or may not be correct" sounds a lot less biased in favor of one side of the argument. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 07:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree here. "arguably correct" can be interpreted as "others might argue its not correct, but we believe otherwise". "may or may not be correct" is far better. CharonX/talk 03:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruling by content via the back door? 

message: "2.1) TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has made disputed changes on a massive scale and in an excessively aggressive manner, causing needless escalation of the dispute ([3], [4])."
I think this gives an incorrect view. TTN has made disputed changes on a massive scale, obviously, but only "sometimes" in an excessively agressive manner", while most of the times his changes were made in a perfectly normal, civil, though perhaps at times a bit robotic manner (not accusing him of using a robot at all, just that at times he should look better at the individual articles). I would urge the members of arbcom to rewrite this finding of fact to make it clear that the "excessively aggresive manner" was not present in all or most of his edits in this dispute, but only in a limited number. Fram (talk) 09:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TTN edit warred if someone attempted to disagree with him.  If no one reverted, then he didn't edit war.  It's part of that fait acompli or whatever we're calling it.  If you make thousands of controversial edits, and hundreds a day, you're bound to wear people out.  If I believed in edit warring on every edit of his I disagreed with, then I'd have 25,000 edits as well, since I've never seen a consensus driven edit that he has carried out.  That's the problem with this arcbom we're doing right now.  It looks like it will say he shouldn't have done what he did, then ignore the fact that 25,000 edits of his should be reverted.  What they deal with is apparently only a small part of what's happened, and the hundreds or thousands of editors that TTN has driven off don't seem to matter.  wWatever, I guess.  We'll pick up the thousand editors somewhere else, or who cares about them, seems to be the current thinking. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or to put it another way, "fans" edit-warred if someone (TTN) brought information in line with existing policies and guidelines after a started merge discussion brought no results. Note that WP:V says, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. It's clear who added or restored material by reverting, and so by reverting the revert, TTN is just applying WP:V, while the others ignore it. If TTN has driven of editors, then that's unfortunate, but if these editors have found a new home where they can build a fansite to their taste instead of what wikipedia aims to be, an encyclopedia with at least some standard, then this is better for both parties. (Note that I'm a fan of fiction, but I am here first and foremost to build a great encyclopedia, as I think should everyone else.) – sgeureka t•c 12:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't found evidence of TTN "edit-warring" at all. He has applied policy vigorously, consistently, and thoroughly. I think it's a real shame that the fan-boy contingent will be able to wave this decision as if opposing them was doing something wrong. It wasn't, and it's a shame that an editor that is objectively applying policy is being undermined. What is lacking in Peregrine Fisher's argument is a recognition that TTN's edits are consensus driven. That's what policy is for ... to encode consensus so that a single editor can apply it without constantly calling for votes.Kww (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, TTN has been edit warring.  More specifically, he's been revert warring.  You can see that with his edits on these history pages here  and especially here  where he violates 3RR at least twice.  I'm planning to add it into evidence once I figure out how to do that. - Superlex (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact 2.1

message: It seems to me that the workshop page has been bypassed on this case. I've seen only one edit there by an arbiter and a number of items have appeared directly on the Proposed decision page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of the workshop page is optional. The key page is the evidence page. Most of the proposals we use are from past cases modified for the present case. As an Arbitrator I read all the case pages, but like most Committee members I do not make comments on all of them. FloNight (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your reply. I can understand the arbiters not wanting to get too deeply involved in the lengthy discussions on Workshop pages. I made my above comment before realizing that this case has had a change of clerks. I would like to see the proposals made on the Proposed decision page posted on the Workshop page where they can be commented on for your reading pleasure. Best, Jack Merridew 15:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No clerk involvement is needed. The workshop page can be edited by any user so you can add them if you think it would be helpful. The proposed decision page can only be edited by arbitrators and clerks because that is where we make our official votes. Hope that helps. FloNight (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds like an invitation to be bold - which I shall be. --Jack Merridew 16:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workshop, anyone? 

message: diff an 'oppose' to Editorial guidelines (5.1)
: Per all Krill, Bauder, FloNight, and Jdforrester. Valid points --Maniwar (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  undone edit by Maniwar 

message: Per proposed remedies: TTN is admonished to avoid overly aggressive campaigns to impose changes on articles, even when he considers those changes to be justified by previous consensus. I find stoats lurking behind this wording. </p>Either the systematic application of consensus policy is a good thing or else it is not. If arbcom tries to find a middle ground, I think nothing is solved here since it simply places us back where we started, with some added guff about civility, building consensus, etc....</p>
While possibly falling against my own personal view, I concede it would be actually be preferable to conclude decisively one way or the other: 
#The systematic redirection of material which fails our prohibition on plot summaries and in-universe perspective should be avoided as disruptive, in which case campaigns of policy enforcement should be generally avoided. Editors who disagree can be directed to this arbcom case to understand why, even when content fails sitewide policy, undertaking policy enforcement in the wake of local resistance is disruptive (or choose a better term). 
#Actions to remedy the existence of content which contravenes consensus-driven policy is generally recommended. (Typically) local editors who disagree with the implementation of that policy can be directed to this arbcom case to find out why the persistence of such material is considered disruptive (or choose a better term).</p>
While this arbcom case focuses on TTN, the fact is that there are a number of editors who share the general view that the proliferation of this content redounds very badly to the reputation of Wikipedia generally, and erodes its credibility as a repository for accurate and encyclopedic information. Thus, the decision by arbcom has wider repercussions and it would be helpful if a clear and direct finding be issued. </p>
I fear this arbcom case will conclude along the lines of: TTN is doing a good thing in a bad way. In fact, in the tens of thousands of edits that have accumulated to TTN's efforts (and add in those of the others who have assisted), the vast majority, and I underline vast, have been civil and in-process, with careful edit summaries that direct editors to the consensus policies that inform the redirect. That occasional edit-wars ensue to make the policy stick is not surprising. But it would be salubrious to have clear finding in this matter, an up-or-down decision on whether campaigns to redirect articles that fail existing policies and guidelines are salutary or not. Eusebeus (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing or redirecting rather than referencing and improving the material only turns away contributors and readers.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I appreciate your comment, I think there is already extensive evidence that editors have strongly divergent views; that is distinct from requesting a clear finding. Eusebeus (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I definitely agree that editors have extremely divergent views, which is why I would much rather err on the side of not discouraging them from working on what they are willing to volunteer time to work on.  I am much more concerned with what those who spend a good deal of time contributing to the project think than the elite media's opinion of Wikipedia and its merits.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Chalk you up behind option (1) then. Eusebeus (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not "share the general view that the proliferation of this content redounds very badly to the reputation of Wikipedia generally, and erodes its credibility as a repository for accurate and encyclopedic information", though my actions on the Friends episode list might have implied that. I just believe that allowing sloppy episode articles that can never be expanded beyond plot and a teensy bit of reception reduces the quality of well-written articles that have loads of info ("The Joy of Sect", for example). Please avoid using my name in these discussions, as I am not planning to join in (the funny section heading attracted me here). Brad (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasels, Stage Right? 

message: I think FloNight's statement is an extremely important clarification and need to be included in the decision if this FoF passes.  I am specifically referring to, "Middle ground can be reached if both sides are willing to listen to each other and seek the input other other users that are less invested in the topic."  I interpret "the topic" as both those interested in a particular fictional work and those interested in a hardline enforcement of a guideline.  Ursasapien (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FoF 3.1

message: I would strongly encourage the arbitration committee to come to an actual conclusion of some kind. "Parties are urged" doesn't remedy anything. Either endorse or oppose TTN's actions, and then constrain one side or the other.Kww (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to join Kww in calling for the committee to make a specific determination regarding editing behavior.  I commend the committee on their wisdom regarding discouraging edit warring and encouraging discussion and consensus-building.  I also understand the committee's role and avoiding content decisions.  Nevertheless, if no comment is made either way on the rabid enforcement of policy vs. the total disregard of policy issue, the war will continue to rage and escalate.  Ursasapien (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: nb: It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors
--Jack Merridew 07:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing with no decision or remedy?