1400:
these mass deletions deprive editors of the ability to help them reach those guidelines. When articles are faced with the threat of deletion, TTN, and people like him keep insisting that we have to have "real world information" and "third party reliable sources" in order to keep the articles alive. The fact is, some of the criteria for "real world information," and "third party reliable sources" are virtually impossible to reach, especially if you intend to use them for characters such as blue-skinned failed scientific megalomaniacs with no positions of political power who seek world conquest, royal family members with genetically mutated appendages, teenagers who can transform into dragons, seasick sea serpents, talking animals, Klingons, Vulcans, Orkans, and other mythical and implausible beings. Supporters of his efforts have showed links to on-line newspaper articles, while failing to realize that these articles aren't permanent, and frequently require registration with each specific paper in order to read. Furthermore, not every episode of a TV show has had an article written about it, giving the appearance that only selected TV episodes can ever be written about. Criteria such as this makes television-related wikipedia projects elitist. To make matters worse, far too often TTN tends to change his mind about acceptable sources. At one point he told me that
1564:
own problem ,and brought it to their attention. It's taken some time and some other incidents to get the WP moving, but there's activity, and it seems there's consensus that the logical order of 'series; season; episode' for determining
Notability is being applied. I would note that DanTD makes TTN's case for him, admitting most of the articles lack any real world coverage, and that fansites are the only, (and he states, best) sources of information. He complains that the WP:RS that TTN refers to may require registration, buying a newspaper, or trips to the library. Those are, if anything, proof that a source should be examined for reliability, not disqualifiers. Notability isn't a matter of 'but I love Zack or Cody or Kim or Whoever and they are my liiiife!", but 'did the New York Times select them as specifically being hard-hit by the writer's strike? Did their
1572:& rit] quarterly, perhaps?) Was the show criticized for language, violence, or slandering penguin painters? Real world coverage is the test of notability. Notability may have a narrower constraint than the widest world range; a surgeon develops a new knot, which helps in WWI, but is later surpassed by a better tie-off(made up example). This is notable to those who like WWI history, and medical history, while to the rest of the world, it's dismissed as a curiosity. However, it probably satisfies notability, given statistics about it's efficacy over the even older knot. Notability, however, should never be narrowed to 'fans of the third season of Kim Possible Love this third season episode of Kim Possible, as evidenced by the KimPossibleThirdSeasonforever.com website!'. We have rules.
1642:-related articles), or simply stalks people and nominates every article they mention or edit. He has been having some friends help him as well, and i've become suspicious that he may be the host of a few sockpuppets (my suspicions come from them complimenting each other, saying they need to "do this more often", meaning mass-nominate articles). It's now come down to revert-warring with me and several other wikipedians on various articles because of his self-imposed proposal to merge all secondary video game articles into one main article.
830:. It's understandable why some fans are upset about TTN's measures and forget civility in the heat of the moment, but as far as I can tell, TTN presents WP's policies and guidelines very calmly to them (compare any thread on his talkpage, although he may sometimes be too detached from what fans want wikipedia to be, and too rational on following/enforcing guidelines). Since TTN does this almost every day, I do also understand why he stayed away from the
1413:. Until that point, I understood why such an effort would be carried out, but I still believe there's a clear enough distinction between "my Pokemon is more notable than yours," and the existance of an episode of a television show, as well as the events within the episode. In the meantime, TTN himself did offer me a redlink to my own sandbox, in hope of using it and others to upgrade the standards of the articles. Despite this, when I finally read the
1576:
overview, not a free hosting fan site. Frankly, overlong plot summaries without real-world response belong on the WiKimpossible.com wikia. (or whatever it's called, that's my TM, get your own.) here, an article about the show ought to be enough. It's not a notable cartoon, really. Flintstones parodied the
Honeymooners, Scooby Doo was on the recieving end of 30 years of marijuana jokes. KimPossible doesn't even do well as selling toys, does it?
1405:
that other users wouldn't be as familiar with. Every effort I've made to point out the benefits of fansites have been ignored, and every efofrt to reveal the damage caused by these deletions have beem dismissed. Every effort to transwiki the articles has failed as well, due partially to some technical problems and the lack of assistance from other users. On Sunday, November 11, 2007, during a break from an all-day heated argument with TTN,
712:
episode or character articles to a related "parent" article, usually with no information from the smaller articles retained in the course of the "merge" and often times with little discussion of the matter. When there is a discussion opened TTN is either absent from the process or completely unmoved by any opinions which do not agree with his own.
1248:
articles generally involve television episodes and characters in fictional works (to include video games). This side believes that all these articles are damaging to the quality of the encyclopedia. They have been looking for various ways to clean out
Knowledge (deletion, redirection to lists, merging information, transferring to wikia, etc.)
1535:
means. Please do not put my name in any more arbitrations unless it's for something directly against my own actions. I probably won't participate in that one either, unless I feel I truly need to defend myself. I hope everyone had a nice
Thanksgiving if you celebrated it, if not, I just hope you have a nice, rest of the weekend. Cheers.
1352:. TTN merges because there isn't real world information, or there is very very little (such as a singular Nielsen rating). Then look for it. How it was made. What reviewers thought of it. Seeing as there's about 50 (maybe more) episode GAs, look at them and model upon them. Don't edit war. It generates unnecessary drama, like this RfAr.
964:, these rules have previously not been (strictly) enforced for fictional topics because there were more pressing issues. But in the end, fiction is just another wikipedia domain where the same (strict) guidelines and policies apply, and it is high time that these are enforced, starting with the articles that least qualify for passing. –
1203:. The process was attacked before it ever got off the ground, but we were able to organize several review discussions. The formality of the process is likely why it stalled, but I think we were still able to learn from it, We do still need a way other than AfD to deal with mass sub-fiction related articles.
1183:
I believe the solution to a lot of these issues is not about having X article on
Knowledge or not, but finding it a proper home. No one likes to see the work they've done, or the work someone else has done, simply "go away". I myself have recently got involved in the first real/mass transwiki project
1142:
TTN is using redirection (under the guise of merging) and slow motion edit warring (make two reverts, wait 24 hours if necessary before making more) to make an end run around AfD. It's because he doesn't like the results there, where he can't control the final decision. He's pretty rude about it as
760:
Irrespective of the nature of the policies and guidelines TTN is upholding, his execution thereof is having a vastly detrimental effect on both the mood of editors and the quality of
Knowledge as a whole. Attempts to reason with him or otherwise convince him to conduct himself in a more pleasant and
1575:
TTN is not inflexible on this stuff, when I approached him, he was calm and cool, and had no problem letting the project handle it. The problem is that fans are rabid, and rabidly defend their show, instead of really thinking about the most encyclopedic way to present it. Knowledge is meant to be an
1563:
I wanted to stop here and state that TTN is doing a great service to
Knowledge. His actions have prompted at least one project to start reviewing its' efforts (WP:HEROES). After seeing his earlier efforts get referenced on AN/I, I went to him and told him that WP:HEROES would like time to handle its
1441:
I've just learned that as of this moment there are new people taking TTN's place as a mass deletionists. We're at the point where we can't mention a single title of a television show without somebody looking to delete all articles connected to it. Unfortunatley, we've been at that point for a while,
1404:
was acceptable, despite past criticism of the site, and later he reverted to saying it wasn't acceptable. Among the so-called "reliable sources" fansites have faced severe rejections. These are in fact the best sources for information, even if they don't provide a NPOV, because they clarify subjects
1399:
have also contained long plot summaries for some episodes, that require whole new pages. While I'm here I'd also like to raise the issue of the criteria for deletion. I have never objected to the idea that any articles should meet, or at least approach any of the guidelines. My grievances are that
1282:
As for TTN's behavior, I have absolutely no doubt that he feels he is doing something incredibly valuble for the encyclopedia. In my honest opinion, wholesale redirection (usually without any merging) is not helping make the encyclopedia better and is only stoking the flames on this massive content
988:
People blanking fiction related articles so far has failed to quote such a discussion that agrees with the mass urgent and indisputable blanking of poorly written (virtually any non-featured fiction related article) fiction related article. Furthermore people ("blankers" I'll reference them here for
984:
I think in core any large scale edits involving a mass number of "articles in general" must be based on a solid consensus. Mere disagreement in personal interpretation of a non-critical guideline is no such consensus. Encyclopedic standards are determined by the entire community as a whole including
834:
where some editors kept ignoring the necessity of following policies and guidelines. The discussion there grew somewhat tiresome and went in circles after a while, and the blame was/is still continuously put solely on TTN although many other people argued reasonably that his actions are supported by
1637:
I've seen that TTN first started off with genuinely good intentions (good faith) and good edits on articles. Then, somewhere along the line, he began mass nominating articles for merge and deletion. I mean by the DOZENS. His talk page alone is a testament to all the people this user has annoyed (to
1463:
If this isn't about space, as you claim, then there's really no point in getting rid of these articles. Improving the bad ones, definitley. But not getting rid of them. The idea that they're not notable is a bold-faced lie. They're only not notable to people who don't like them. And what's worse is
772:
First and foremost, I strongly believe that an article needs to satisfy wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or should at least demonstrate its potential to do so. So, it seems, does TTN. There are some TV shows that have already shown that individual episode articles are not necessary at all, e.g.
1685:
Questions? Has the editor received feedback from an editor conduct RFC? Has a true attempt at mediation of the dispute occurred? If an user's activity is indisputably problematic then the
Community will usually handle it. Is there disagreement in the Community about how to handle the dispute? As a
1314:
I appreciate your commitment to use AfD, but I hope you can quantify "more." I think AfD is slower, but it lends itsself to more reasoned actions and consensus building (and shields you from allegations that you are rashly "deleting" articles). I also like the suggestion on the talk page that an
1247:
deal with the issue of fiction related articles, preferably sooner than later. Two broad groups are focused on this issue and a wiki-war has developed. The one side feel that
Knowledge has too many poor-quality or non-notable articles related to fiction. As the retitled request indicates, these
715:
While on their face these actions are not particularly different than those of many other "passionate" or "strong willed" editors on
Knowledge, TTN's behavior is particularly troubling because of the sheer number of such edits he performs in a given day of editing and his relative inflexibility in
1534:
notable for just existing, nothing is notable for just existing. Like everything else on Knowledge you have to show notability, and that means more than just some bloghound going "I liked the episode". The terms are "SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE". I don't Webster's dictionary anyone on what "significant"
1482:
While I don't really want to make this seem like a personal attack, the way your conduct revert warnings and the procedures for reversions may as well be for AfD's. Having said that, I still appreciate the sandbox you created for me. I will work on the articles when I can, but I doubt any of them
1179:
TTN has taken up a lot of work that no one really wants. I find myself making parallels between the responses people give him with the response people were giving when Betacommandbot started mass tagging. One of the big reasons fiction-related articles have grown so much out of control is because
1529:
I'm only here to say, I'm not getting involved. I have far more important things to worry about in my life, and on Knowledge, that I don't need some long draw out discussion that's basically a "he took away my articles, punish him" debate. There have been countless discussions about TTN and his
1225:
I honestly believe that, more than anything, we need direction and not hand slapping. I believe TTN, myself, and others on both sides of this dispute, will all be glad to find other methods to dealing with these articles that doesn't put us at each other's throats. I don't think we'll find the
711:
has engaged in a pattern of edits performed on various fiction or fiction-related articles which has caused a large amount of discordancy and general unpleasantness on Knowledge. The core of these actions has been a large-scale and often times very hurried blanking and redirecting of numerous
1382:
episodes, I've been equally willing to protect articles on television episodes I either like, don't like, or am indifferent to. Yukichigai, White Cat, and Peregrine Fisher have already covered a great deal of what I wanted to say, but I'd like to add more. The current rampage of deletions
1291:
at mediation. There has also been RfC's on editors in the opposing camp. TTN firmly believes he is in the right and he is often curt and blunt in his responses (skirting the edge of civility in my opinion). Nevertheless, I do not believe any editor can say his behavior is anywhere near
1094:
Although there is a jaw dropping and obvious problem, the community has so far had ignored the issue despite its scale. This may probably be because of its overwhelming scale. Community is uncertain weather or not to allow non-discussion speedy mass removals of content.
1891:
1) The dispute centers on the existence of articles regarding individual episodes or characters from television series, and is part of a broader disagreement regarding the interpretation of notability guidelines with reference to fictional and popular culture topics.
1292:"indisputably problematic." His behavior is disruptive for some editors and heroic to others. I would like to see him slow it down a bit (like 10 redirects a day and only 1 revert per article per day), until we can have the broader discussion in full, but YMMV.
1943:
2) The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.
1778:
1) Knowledge users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to,
1638:
put it lightly) with his "AFD-Everything!" attitude. When confronted or asked to stop, he quickly loses civility and becomes immature, using dubious reasons to nominate things, such as "not in the real world", "gamecruft", or "not notable" (in the case of
1218:. It is a very unfortunate situation, but I don't think it's fair to say that anyone is actually doing something "wrong" here. This is more than likely simply one of those growing pains for Knowledge, as we find a better way to deal with these articles.
1089:
I am not even counting the strain on the system due to this such as the orphanage of mass amount of fair-use images as a result. Their deletion aside, if the mass redirectification was done improperly we do have a serious backlog for undeletion of these
761:
less off-putting manner have met with no success. Based on his unwillingness to participate in the WP:AN/I discussion and several comments on various talk pages I feel that there is no way to persuade him to change his behavior other than Arbitration.
855:
to justify a separate article, or that it is unlikely that this kind of information is ever added if even fans refrain from adding it in the light of losing articles. Out of interest, I tested whether TTN asks for too much, with an average episode of
1063:. I believe the article in question was created by TTN merging and trimming individual articles on fictional characters of the series into a character list. Therefore right now we have no mention of a single character that made an appearance in the
1698:
Accept to look at the conduct of all involved parties. We are not going to make content decisions. If the case is accepted, please focus your evidence and workshop proposals on ways to stop disruption and enhance collaboration on the topic.
993:
An RFC is out of the question because RFCs deal with spesific articles or people which is not the case. The problem involves a broad number of people and a very broad number of articles. This problem is neither a spesific user or spesific
1315:
Article for Merge and Redirect process be developed. I think one of the primary issues is TTN's good faith but aggressive and prolific merging/redirecting. A commitment to using the AfD process is a great step in the right direction.
1209:
Fiction, entertainment, and pop-culture articles often have had situations like this, where when some people start getting strict about policies and guidelines, there are people who will be very upset about it. Other examples include
1417:
episode article, it became clear that is offer was little more than a ruse. In short, I can't help believing that the articles are being deleted just for the sake of doing so. Fewer of us are able to have good faith in his actions.
1915:
and note that there is an article for each episode. An ideal response to such situations would be broader discussion of the guideline among editors with varying editing interest, with consensus achieved prior to widespread changes.
871:), I consider the month-long episode notability & merge discussions completely appropriate. I do however see why fans are so critical of the redirecting (instead of the claimed merging) business. To accomodate fans a little, I
1129:
There is evidence of redirectification/blanking starting with his 11th edit. To my knowledge TTN has not participated in anything else other than removal of fiction related articles through afds, redirectifications and any other
1255:
and editors should be given nearly unlimited time to come up with "real world" information like critical response or cultural significance. These editors contend that a large number of viewers is enough to establish notability.
1506:
This is more of a quick comment, but for my own sanity, I'm just going to be utilizing AfDs more often rather than revert warring. I don't know how much of this case has to do with that, but I may as well just put it out there.
1221:
I don't always agree with everything that TTN does, and there are times when I wish he would be less aggressive. Often I look at my own past actions and wonder why I sometimes get so passionate about some of these things.
77:
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the
1648:. Something needs to be done to tell this user to calm down and stop nominating everything in sight. He also confuses me with opposing offers of being willing to trans-wiki things over to wikia.com, (such as Star Fox,
1579:
I support TTN's efforts, and if hes' being incivil, which I see little of, then He needs to stop that, but it's understandable, as he sees 'but I LLLLOOOOOVVVEEE this episode too much' over and over and over again.
1686:
general rule, starting an Arbitration case against someone instead of following the steps of dispute resolution is not a good idea. Please make it clear why this case should be an exception. I'm not seeing it yet.
1167:
TTN and others (possibly myself) have dealt with these situations, then I can see that, but please take into consideration the sheer amount of ranting and complaints that TTN has had to deal with. (not to say that
1276:
1279:. So, somewhere, we as a broad community need to have the discussion and develop consensus regarding how we will cover fiction related topics and we need to clarify what notability is and how we establish it.
1335:
People not liking what someone is doing isn't vandalism at all. Ever since this came up, I've been constantly voting not to delete (at the start, "merge", to "speedy keep without prejudice to merge" due to
791:. Since fiction is so popular, merging is often necessary to refocus on real-world information (production, writers' inspiration, reception), not blow-by-blow plot summaries that very often tend to violate
1602:
I find his arguments fishy. Most of the people who support him have the same exact coding for their main page. I also see from his records that he doesn't have a clean record also. He also tried to whipe
945:
always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within
94:
1670:
948:. In the absense of reasonable proof that a specific article does not violate existing policies and guidelines (or won't soon anymore), wikipedia has shown that it prefers to err on the safe side (e.g.
1734:
931:(amongst others) for keeping articles should be avoided in deletion discussions (and probably also in merging/redirecting discussion). The same is true for the exact opposite reasoning for deletion.
1680:
851:
Surprisingly, almost no fan adds (or even shows the existence of) this kind of information, actually supporting TTN's view that the episodes are nonnotable / have no significant secondary coverage
1720:
1739:
Accept. I echo Flo's proviso; we are not here to mediate content policy, we are here to look at behavior. Focus your evidence on that, not on whether you are right or the other guy is wrong.
1693:
997:
A mediation isn't possible if people aren't willing to discuss this issue. Several users, even uninvolved ones have tried to resolve the dispute but their concerns were outright ignored (see
1752:
1226:
solution in an arbcom case, but it is likely that the attention we are getting right now is a good starting point for a new batch of discussion that will involve the greater community. --
90:
83:
1206:
In other words, we are trying to find better ways to deal with these situations. It will take some time, and more input from the community, to help make these things go more smoothly.
1054:
1856:
5.1) Editors working to implement guidelines that have wide consensus support within the community need not rehash the discussion of a general guideline each time they apply it.
1676:
Accept. Given the sheer scale of TTN's activity, forcing the parties to go through the motions of preliminary dispute resolution while he continues unabated would be a bad idea.
79:
1082:
is not been observed. Any article below featured class may get redirectified or heavily trimmed (prompting redirectification later on) and even featured or formerly featured (
109:
1826:
is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.
1324:
1660:
1150:
875:
to TTN some days ago to just "dump" all old plot summaries (and add cleanup tags) into the episode lists in the merging process instead of just redirecting, and he replied
868:
1706:
1624:
1391:. Upon reading the episodes "I Want My Mummy", "Arwinstein", "Team Tipton," and some others, the need for separate articles is clear. In the past, episode lists for
831:
1933:
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1871:
6) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind.
1492:
1451:
1301:
1251:
The other side in this content war feel that, as there are no space limitations and no time limit, Knowledge should contain an article on the latest episode of
1230:
1143:
well, with comments like "Please read over WP:3RR, especially the nut shell. Anyways, I'm sure you'll back down before I do. TTN 23:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)"
968:
907:
839:
as TTN. I'd like to highlight that TTN leaves the merge/redirect discussions open for over a month now and clearly states at the beginning that he disregards
1607:
off wikipedia, calling it "not notable", beside the fact that it was an independent movie released. Something isn't right, but I can't put my finger on it.
1589:
1550:
1358:
916:
733:
Furthermore, there is a sense of what can only be described as spite in many dealings with TTN. When responding to editor comments on talk pages TTN has
789:
without a single episode article despite having a huge 18 episode-specific award wins+nominations per 24 episodes ratio to demonstrate episode notability
1430:
1275:. Of course, there is an even broader issue of notability and what that means. There is currently no movement to merge all articles on highways into
819:(other guidelines). I should probably state in this light that I support the enforcement of policies and guidelines but not necessarily TTN's actions.
67:
1388:
1516:
1340:
asking editors not to AFD) on any AFDs that swing by. LOEs are fine, but 60-70 gargantuan plot summaries with trivia aren't. There's the matter of
1035:
720:, and in situations where such edits have been reverted the only edits TTN has subsequently made to that article have either been the addition of
105:
1629:
1284:
1803:—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the
61:
55:
282:
1134:
1288:
848:
He has also repeatedly said that he just wants to see a minimum of notability and would then no longer consider redirecting the article.
1100:
844:
738:
619:
1594:
717:
667:
49:
1866:
1604:
1387:
has forced expansion of plot summaries into lists of episodes that would otherwise have their own articles, as in the case of the
1235:
1172:
of the complaints where that way.) I'm also concerned that the reason this arbitration case was suggested was not to address the
750:
746:
570:
474:
93:. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at
1155:
1259:
There have been allegations on both sides and both sides saying they are using existing Knowledge policies and guidelines like
846:
827:
522:
276:
234:
861:
764:
754:
1045:
378:
1555:
1521:
1330:
1059:
742:
1414:
330:
138:
1656:, and so on), but then goes right back demanding that the articles be merged, or deleted and proceeds with those actions.
1348:
that discourages both. TTN would be fine to be bold on the first redirect, but if people oppose his merges, don't revert,
903:
and co if the huge number of guideline-ignorant (willingly or unwillingly) fans can annul the enforcement of policies. –
613:
1366:
1163:
Using arbcom to handle this situation is probably not the best idea. We don't come here to set policy. If this is about
1836:
1002:
661:
186:
17:
1758:
1902:
1498:
1176:
of anyone, but rather to protect the fiction-related articles themselves from being merged, redirected, or deleted.
887:) Still, my desired outcome of this case (if it should open) would be to strengthen the awareness and acceptance of
564:
468:
426:
1442:
but I keep making the mistake of mentioning other titles, a mistake I didn't make on my TV-related user page. ----
849:
1013:
516:
228:
1022:
872:
734:
306:
1851:
372:
300:
294:
1908:
1780:
1665:
643:
324:
132:
691:
1823:
1804:
1748:
631:
288:
679:
594:
498:
1912:
1800:
1788:
876:
699:
637:
546:
258:
180:
1841:
4) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
1020:. Groups of people who request the redirectification turns out to be the same people. There is also the
582:
486:
402:
1730:
877:"It may work for a couple people here and there, but the rest will just complain about something else."
685:
534:
354:
270:
246:
162:
89:
Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at
1645:
Upon being out-voted on a discussion of merging, he then proceeds to merge anyway, despite concensus.
1006:
390:
1211:
823:
625:
420:
342:
210:
150:
1410:
1193:
1064:
973:
673:
588:
492:
450:
198:
115:
985:"franchise fans" and everyone else and not by an "elite group" of users in support of each other.
607:
540:
438:
252:
1010:
1616:
928:
655:
576:
480:
396:
1726:
1717:
1268:
1147:
1136:
774:
528:
348:
265:
240:
156:
1243:
This case has both broad and narrow implications. First, the broad issue is that Knowledge
1180:
people don't want to put up with all the complaints by the local editors of those articles.
1031:
1886:
1796:
1341:
1320:
1297:
892:
558:
462:
384:
1374:
I've been struggling to work on my statement, which is why I've taken so long to respond.
8:
1881:
1677:
1200:
940:
510:
336:
222:
204:
144:
1817:
1792:
1784:
1703:
1690:
1657:
1653:
1631:
1464:
that this rampage of destruction of articles is going far beyond works of fiction. ----
1027:
1026:
slow-paced revert wars for redirectification. For that particular random pick, I found
943:, which was/is required to create and maintain the guidelines and polices, states that
602:
366:
82:, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at
1144:
836:
835:(1) policies and guidelines, (2) editors who like fiction, (3) editors who are not as
1608:
1596:
1585:
1545:
1337:
1215:
1017:
949:
920:
896:
840:
800:
650:
444:
318:
192:
126:
1822:
2) Knowledge works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The
1744:
1714:
957:
924:
812:
1189:
900:
899:
and the continued review of episode articles. I'd consider it a bad precedent for
792:
1488:
1469:
1447:
1426:
1316:
1293:
1237:
932:
816:
753:. TTN has also indicated numerous times that when it comes to merge discussions
701:
553:
457:
432:
174:
1568:
win for technical something-or-other get reported on by the relevant magazine? (
716:
compromising on his edits. On casual glance I can find several instances where
104:
as needed, but it should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at
1954:
1392:
1260:
1227:
1185:
1157:
1072:
989:
the sake of clarity) have been avoiding any serious discussion on the matter.
975:
888:
864:
is the result of three hours of work of research. I'll let other be the judge.
804:
724:
505:
217:
822:
There are obviously controversies and edit wars between TTN and fans, e.g. at
1938:
1768:
1700:
1687:
1646:
1512:
1406:
1378:
For the record, while I've been more passionate about protecting articles on
1272:
1264:
1050:
998:
965:
961:
953:
904:
808:
796:
787:
articles, which may soon become the first TV show to become a Featured Topic
766:
743:
stated that the number of users who disagree with him "doesn't really matter"
414:
361:
1005:
that goes beyond seeking proper citations and notability standards such as "
1581:
1557:
1536:
1523:
1379:
1354:
1345:
1252:
778:
313:
121:
783:
1926:
1740:
747:
threatened to take articles to AfD if users don't go along with his merge
1569:
1565:
1484:
1465:
1443:
1422:
1368:
1124:
Total/Unique pages ~ 2.18 (user has on average 2 edits per unique page)
1060:"a lack of consensus for deletion" despite somewhat weak keep arguments
1049:
among other things that does not violate the word of but the spirit of
169:
1763:
1283:
war. To answer one of the arbitrators' question, yes there has been
1267:, and the like. Each side has accused the other of votestacking and
1083:
860:(almost none of their articles establish notability at the moment) -
730:
tags or additional reverts to turn the article into a redirect page.
718:
in a ~12-hour period TTN has blanked and redirected over 200 articles
1773:
1639:
1508:
1500:
1309:
708:
409:
1530:
actions, and this is just getting ridiculous. Television episodes
1199:
A few of us attempted to make a review process for TV episodes at
881:
but I would still prefer this approach instead of just redirection
1649:
1401:
1396:
110:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement
106:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification
879:. I can't tell whether he is right with his assessment,
867:
As taking episode articles to AfD is frowned upon (e.g.
739:
openly expressed his intention to engage in a revert war
735:
implied he will achieve his goals by edit war attrition
1671:
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)
1016:) prior to AFDs or merge discussions which violates
917:
Knowledge:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
1409:revealed a past incident on wikipedia known as the
981:Hi, I am here as per notification on my talk page.
1389:List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes
100:Once the case is closed, editors may add to the
1911:is applied inconsistently. For an example, see
1483:will ever meet your apporoval for revival. ----
811:(fiction notability and style guidelines); and
1949:Passed 8 to 0 at 14:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
1921:Passed 8 to 0 at 14:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
1897:Passed 8 to 0 at 14:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
1876:Passed 9 to 0 at 14:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
1861:Passed 6 to 2 at 14:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
1846:Passed 7 to 1 at 14:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
1831:Passed 9 to 0 at 14:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
1812:Passed 9 to 0 at 14:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
1277:List of highways in (State, Province, Country)
1067:video game series (at least I do not see it).
1118:Non-Mainspace & Non-mainspace talk: 3111
937:This policy is not a free pass for inclusion
1421:P.S.; I apologize if this is too long. ----
101:
755:acceptable consensus is what he says it is
86:. Evidence is more useful than comments.
1605:Billy & Mandy's Big Boogie Adventure
1867:Editorial process: consensus can change
108:, and report violations of remedies at
14:
1070:The process of article development of
828:List of 3rd Rock from the Sun episodes
751:effectively called those users stupid
1415:All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural)
1271:. What has developed is an all out
1907:3.1) Like many editing guidelines,
919:states, applying the reasonings of
23:
24:
18:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration
1965:
1837:Role of the Arbitration Committee
1086:) articles aren't immune to this.
707:Over a period of several months
38:on 14:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
30:on 20:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
1184:that I've done, in relation to
1106:First edit: 19:42, 19 June 2006
885:edit: I am neutral on this now.
935:states in bolded letters that
13:
1:
1909:Knowledge:Television episodes
1903:Knowledge:Television episodes
1852:Editorial process: guidelines
1753:09:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
1735:13:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
1721:18:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
1707:15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
1694:12:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1681:21:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
1661:01:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
1625:00:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
1551:15:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
1517:21:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
1493:00:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
1452:06:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
1431:02:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
1359:21:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
1325:10:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
1302:08:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
1231:22:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1151:15:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1001:). There is also evidence of
969:19:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
908:00:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1590:23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
1009:" (other part of the thread
7:
1913:List of South Park episodes
1759:Temporary injunction (none)
10:
1970:
1824:dispute resolution process
1043:There also is evidence of
47:Watchlist all case pages:
1212:Knowledge:Trivia sections
1192:, and hope to apply some
824:List of Farscape episodes
1789:assumptions of bad faith
1053:(IMHO). This is despite
1036:trivial amount of effort
832:AN/I episodes discussion
929:Notability is inherited
102:#Log of blocks and bans
1741:Matthew Brown (Morven)
1459:Reply to Jack Merridew
1046:slow paced revert wars
925:It doesn't do any harm
1666:Preliminary decisions
775:Smallville (season 1)
1331:Statement by Sceptre
1115:Mainspace talk: 2777
1121:Unique pages: 11217
853:by reliable sources
777:(much work done by
1805:appropriate forums
1654:Sonic the Hedgehog
1099:TNN's edit stats:
1076:start class -: -->
599:(initiating party)
95:/Proposed decision
1935:
1818:Editorial process
1801:gaming the system
1630:Statement by the
1548:
1543:
1385:without consensus
1323:
1300:
1216:Knowledge:Spoiler
1146:being typical. -
999:example talk page
962:Assume good faith
799:(both a policy);
74:
1961:
1931:
1887:Locus of dispute
1882:Findings of fact
1781:personal attacks
1727:Charles Matthews
1546:
1541:
1537:
1319:
1296:
1196:for the future.
1148:Peregrine Fisher
1137:Peregrine Fisher
1112:Mainspace: 18566
1062:
1048:
1025:
960:). However, per
729:
723:
695:
668:deleted contribs
647:
620:deleted contribs
598:
571:deleted contribs
550:
523:deleted contribs
502:
475:deleted contribs
454:
427:deleted contribs
406:
379:deleted contribs
358:
331:deleted contribs
310:
283:deleted contribs
266:Peregrine Fisher
262:
235:deleted contribs
214:
187:deleted contribs
166:
139:deleted contribs
116:Involved parties
73:
72:
45:
1969:
1968:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1941:
1929:
1905:
1889:
1884:
1869:
1854:
1839:
1820:
1776:
1771:
1766:
1761:
1673:
1668:
1635:
1600:
1561:
1539:
1527:
1504:
1372:
1350:fix the problem
1333:
1241:
1161:
1140:
1078:ga-class -: -->
1065:Samurai Shodown
1058:
1044:
1021:
979:
837:deletion-minded
770:
727:
721:
705:
653:
605:
556:
508:
460:
412:
364:
316:
268:
220:
172:
124:
118:
75:
48:
46:
39:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1967:
1956:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1940:
1937:
1928:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1904:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1888:
1885:
1883:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1868:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1853:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1838:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1819:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1775:
1772:
1770:
1767:
1765:
1764:Final decision
1762:
1760:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1737:
1723:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1683:
1672:
1669:
1667:
1664:
1634:
1628:
1599:
1593:
1560:
1554:
1526:
1520:
1503:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1480:
1474:
1473:
1461:
1455:
1454:
1439:
1393:Lizzie McGuire
1377:
1371:
1365:
1363:
1332:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1289:other attempts
1269:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1240:
1234:
1160:
1154:
1139:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1126:
1125:
1122:
1119:
1116:
1113:
1110:
1107:
1097:
1092:
1091:
1087:
1080:featured class
1079:a-class -: -->
1077:b-class -: -->
1068:
1040:
1039:
995:
978:
972:
769:
763:
704:
698:
697:
696:
648:
600:
551:
503:
455:
407:
359:
311:
263:
215:
167:
117:
114:
44:
42:
34:
26:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1966:
1950:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1939:Parties urged
1936:
1934:
1922:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1914:
1910:
1898:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1877:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1862:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1847:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1832:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1825:
1813:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1722:
1719:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1705:
1702:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1692:
1689:
1684:
1682:
1679:
1675:
1674:
1663:
1662:
1659:
1658:RingtailedFox
1655:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1641:
1633:
1632:RingtailedFox
1627:
1626:
1623:
1622:
1619:
1615:
1612:
1611:
1606:
1598:
1595:Statement by
1592:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1577:
1573:
1571:
1567:
1559:
1556:Statement by
1553:
1552:
1549:
1544:
1542:
1533:
1525:
1522:Statement by
1519:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1502:
1499:Statement by
1494:
1490:
1486:
1481:
1479:
1476:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1462:
1460:
1457:
1456:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1440:
1438:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1419:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1403:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1381:
1375:
1370:
1367:Statement by
1364:
1361:
1360:
1357:
1356:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1342:WP:COPYRIGHTS
1339:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1313:
1311:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1290:
1286:
1280:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1257:
1254:
1249:
1246:
1239:
1236:Statement by
1233:
1232:
1229:
1223:
1219:
1217:
1213:
1207:
1204:
1202:
1197:
1195:
1191:
1190:wikia:digimon
1187:
1181:
1177:
1175:
1171:
1166:
1159:
1156:Statement by
1153:
1152:
1149:
1145:
1138:
1128:
1127:
1123:
1120:
1117:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:(tool server)
1096:
1088:
1085:
1081:
1074:
1069:
1066:
1061:
1056:
1052:
1047:
1042:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1024:
1019:
1015:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
991:
990:
986:
982:
977:
971:
970:
967:
963:
959:
955:
951:
947:
942:
938:
934:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
909:
906:
902:
898:
894:
893:WP:NOTABILITY
890:
886:
882:
878:
874:
870:
865:
863:
859:
858:Stargate SG-1
854:
850:
847:
845:
842:
838:
833:
829:
825:
820:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
786:
785:
780:
776:
768:
765:Statement by
762:
758:
756:
752:
748:
744:
740:
736:
731:
726:
719:
713:
710:
703:
700:Statement by
693:
690:
687:
684:
681:
678:
675:
672:
669:
666:
663:
660:
657:
652:
649:
645:
642:
639:
636:
633:
630:
627:
624:
621:
618:
615:
612:
609:
604:
603:RingtailedFox
601:
596:
593:
590:
587:
584:
581:
578:
575:
572:
569:
566:
563:
560:
555:
552:
548:
545:
542:
539:
536:
533:
530:
527:
524:
521:
518:
515:
512:
507:
504:
500:
497:
494:
491:
488:
485:
482:
479:
476:
473:
470:
467:
464:
459:
456:
452:
449:
446:
443:
440:
437:
434:
431:
428:
425:
422:
419:
416:
411:
408:
404:
401:
398:
395:
392:
389:
386:
383:
380:
377:
374:
371:
368:
363:
360:
356:
353:
350:
347:
344:
341:
338:
335:
332:
329:
326:
323:
320:
315:
312:
308:
305:
302:
299:
296:
293:
290:
287:
284:
281:
278:
275:
272:
267:
264:
260:
257:
254:
251:
248:
245:
242:
239:
236:
233:
230:
227:
224:
219:
216:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
171:
168:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
128:
123:
120:
119:
113:
111:
107:
103:
98:
96:
92:
87:
85:
81:
71:
70:
65:
64:
59:
58:
53:
52:
43:
40:
37:
32:
29:
19:
1948:
1942:
1932:
1930:
1920:
1906:
1896:
1890:
1875:
1870:
1860:
1855:
1845:
1840:
1830:
1821:
1811:
1777:
1644:
1636:
1620:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1601:
1597:FangzofBlood
1578:
1574:
1562:
1547:(Contact me)
1538:
1531:
1528:
1505:
1478:Reply to TTN
1477:
1458:
1436:
1420:
1411:Pokémon test
1384:
1380:Kim Possible
1376:
1373:
1362:
1353:
1349:
1334:
1307:
1281:
1258:
1253:Kim Possible
1250:
1244:
1242:
1224:
1220:
1208:
1205:
1201:WP:TV-REVIEW
1198:
1182:
1178:
1173:
1169:
1164:
1162:
1141:
1109:Total: 24454
1098:
1093:
1071:
1057:closed with
987:
983:
980:
944:
941:WP:CONSENSUS
936:
912:
911:
884:
880:
866:
857:
852:
821:
788:
782:
779:User:Bignole
771:
759:
732:
714:
706:
688:
682:
676:
670:
664:
658:
651:FangzofBlood
640:
634:
628:
622:
616:
610:
591:
585:
579:
573:
567:
561:
543:
537:
531:
525:
519:
513:
495:
489:
483:
477:
471:
465:
447:
441:
435:
429:
423:
417:
399:
393:
387:
381:
375:
369:
351:
345:
339:
333:
327:
321:
303:
297:
291:
285:
279:
273:
255:
249:
243:
237:
231:
225:
207:
201:
195:
189:
183:
177:
159:
153:
147:
141:
135:
129:
99:
88:
76:
68:
62:
56:
50:
41:
35:
33:
27:
25:
1955:Enforcement
1715:Paul August
1135:Comment by
1032:this source
1028:this source
1023:"ganged up"
974:Comment by
901:WP:NOT#PLOT
793:WP:NOT#PLOT
781:), and the
36:Case Closed
28:Case Opened
1797:harassment
1785:incivility
1769:Principles
1338:WP:EPISODE
1317:Ursasapien
1294:Ursasapien
1238:Ursasapien
1018:WP:CANVASS
1007:ganging up
1003:motivation
950:WP:CRYSTAL
897:WP:EPISODE
841:WP:ILIKEIT
801:WP:EPISODE
702:Yukichigai
686:block user
680:filter log
638:block user
632:filter log
589:block user
583:filter log
554:Yukichigai
541:block user
535:filter log
493:block user
487:filter log
458:Ursasapien
445:block user
439:filter log
397:block user
391:filter log
349:block user
343:filter log
301:block user
295:filter log
253:block user
247:filter log
205:block user
199:filter log
157:block user
151:filter log
1308:Reply to
1228:Ned Scott
1158:Ned Scott
1084:Bulbasaur
976:White Cat
958:WP:SPEEDY
921:I like it
873:suggested
813:WP:TRIVIA
784:Carnivàle
749:and then
692:block log
644:block log
595:block log
547:block log
506:White Cat
499:block log
451:block log
403:block log
355:block log
307:block log
259:block log
218:Ned Scott
211:block log
163:block log
91:/Workshop
84:/Evidence
80:talk page
1927:Remedies
1793:trolling
1725:Accept.
1713:Accept.
1701:FloNight
1688:FloNight
1640:Star Fox
1540:BIGNOLE
1407:sgeureka
1273:edit war
1174:behavior
994:article.
966:sgeureka
946:policies
933:WP:PAPER
905:sgeureka
817:WP:QUOTE
767:sgeureka
662:contribs
614:contribs
565:contribs
517:contribs
469:contribs
421:contribs
373:contribs
362:Sgeureka
325:contribs
277:contribs
229:contribs
181:contribs
133:contribs
1774:Decorum
1650:Digimon
1582:ThuranX
1558:ThuranX
1532:are not
1524:Bignole
1261:WP:BOLD
1186:WP:DIGI
1090:images.
1073:WP:STUB
1034:with a
889:WP:FICT
843:!votes.
805:WP:FICT
314:Sceptre
122:Bignole
1799:, and
1678:Kirill
1437:Update
1402:TV.com
1321:(talk)
1298:(talk)
1285:an RfC
1265:WP:IAR
1130:means.
1075:-: -->
1055:an AFD
1051:policy
954:WP:BLP
809:WP:WAF
797:WP:NOR
1610:Fangz
1570:Grips
1485:DanTD
1466:DanTD
1444:DanTD
1423:DanTD
1397:Daria
1369:DanTD
1346:WP:5P
1194:ideas
913:Added
725:merge
170:DanTD
16:<
1807:.
1731:talk
1586:talk
1566:Emmy
1513:talk
1489:talk
1470:talk
1448:talk
1427:talk
1395:and
1355:Will
1344:and
1287:and
1245:must
1214:and
1188:and
1030:and
927:and
895:and
869:here
862:this
826:and
815:and
807:and
795:and
674:logs
656:talk
626:logs
608:talk
577:logs
559:talk
529:logs
511:talk
481:logs
463:talk
433:logs
415:talk
385:logs
367:talk
337:logs
319:talk
289:logs
271:talk
241:logs
223:talk
193:logs
175:talk
145:logs
127:talk
1704:♥♥♥
1691:♥♥♥
1618:Blo
1614:of
1509:TTN
1501:TTN
1310:TTN
1170:all
1165:how
915:As
709:TTN
410:TTN
97:.
1795:,
1791:,
1787:,
1783:,
1751:)
1733:)
1652:,
1621:od
1588:)
1515:)
1491:)
1450:)
1429:)
1263:,
956:,
952:,
939:.
923:,
803:,
757:.
745:,
741:,
737:,
728:}}
722:{{
112:.
66:,
60:,
54:,
1749:C
1747::
1745:T
1743:(
1729:(
1718:☎
1584:(
1511:(
1487:(
1472:)
1468:(
1446:(
1425:(
1312::
1038:.
1014:2
1011:1
891:/
883:(
694:)
689:·
683:·
677:·
671:·
665:·
659:·
654:(
646:)
641:·
635:·
629:·
623:·
617:·
611:·
606:(
597:)
592:·
586:·
580:·
574:·
568:·
562:·
557:(
549:)
544:·
538:·
532:·
526:·
520:·
514:·
509:(
501:)
496:·
490:·
484:·
478:·
472:·
466:·
461:(
453:)
448:·
442:·
436:·
430:·
424:·
418:·
413:(
405:)
400:·
394:·
388:·
382:·
376:·
370:·
365:(
357:)
352:·
346:·
340:·
334:·
328:·
322:·
317:(
309:)
304:·
298:·
292:·
286:·
280:·
274:·
269:(
261:)
256:·
250:·
244:·
238:·
232:·
226:·
221:(
213:)
208:·
202:·
196:·
190:·
184:·
178:·
173:(
165:)
160:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
136:·
130:·
125:(
69:4
63:3
57:2
51:1
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.