Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Jack Merridew[edit]

I support TTN's actions and I have participated in a number of discussions of episode articles and have redirected some episode articles. In the course of this, I have encountered disruptive fans - one of whom is a party to this case: White Cat.

"There are two kinds of people on wikipedia" - a comment (03:53, 26 November 2007) to Jimbo by White Cat about grouping editors into two groups. His use of the word "lately" would seem to imply a connection to this case.
Comment

I just noticed the discussion on the workshop page where one of the parties to this case gave a link to WP:V#Burden of evidence - which I don't recall reading before. I believe much of this case revolves around this. Most episode and character articles are unsourced besides the shows themselves and the discussions that have been conducted on whatever talk pages amount to giving editors a chance to provide sources and, if found, save an article from a merge or redirect. In the many cases where nothing has been dredged-up, a redirect amounts to the removal of unsourced content.

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

--Jack Merridew 08:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Ursasapien[edit]

This passionate content dispute has led to an all out edit war

Yukichigai has laid out some of the examples of TTN's part in this battle and his aggressive tatics.

I am certain that many diffs can be presented illustrating an equal amount of passion on the other side of this debate.

TTN's tatics have escalated the war

As I have said before, I am certain TTN is trying to do what is best for the encyclopedia. He is tireless in this pursuit. However, the sheer number of his merge/redirects and his insistence that he be the sole arbitrator of the process has inflamed the issue and made him a "lightning rod" for the conflict. Ursasapien (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe that TTN still sees this arbitration as a content/policy issue and not about his behaviour in applying the policy (as evidenced by this diff). Ursasapien (talk) 07:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by White Cat[edit]

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
  • This is indeed a core pillar of wikipedia articles. The italicized sentence above had always been intended for stuff like personal bands, biographies, and other information no one has ever heard of. In other words to verify the existence of the subject in question as a topic. Anything that fails to meet that isn't worth a discussion generally speaking. If you Google for these individual episodes, or characters you will find plenty of hits. On AFDs for notability a "google test" is generally employed. If something has, I don't know several hundreds of thousand hits, the discussion on weather or not it is notable becomes rather silly - or at the very least are not automatic deletion candidates. Should these articles turn out to be in our top 20 or even top 100 most visited articles a more special care should be given in dealing with them.
  • These episode and character articles are all sourced. If nothing the episode itself is your primary source. The use of primary sources are not banned. Granted episodes and fictional characters are not automatically notable just like how they are also not automatically non-notable. They should be carefully reviewed on a case by case (article by article) basis. Any episode of a popular internationally syndicated TV show has a good chance in being quite notable and special care should be given in establishing their notability. Examples can include series like Star Trek, Doctor Who, The Simpson's. They may not be universally notable, but then again we do not expect that from articles. Wikipedia is not paper.
  • There is absolutely no substitute to collaborative efforts to write articles. None of these users are acting based on a consensus. If I am wrong they can cite a community wide discussion justifying their actions. Users must be working together in resolving disputes at a minimum. There is a WP:DR process which starts with a real discussion. Scripted drumhead discussions obviously do not count as a valid discussion. I'd like to see evidence of steps Jack Merridew, TTN and others have taken in resolving the dispute in question. A discussion doesn't conclude when you get tired of it.
  • How much time do these users spend on an individual merge discussion? How about individual articles? At what capacity do they participate in such discussions? Do these users work in groups to get articles merged per a consensus they import by dominating people who are working on the actual articles?
  • There is a claim that these changes are per wider community discussion even though "fans" disagree with them and that they should be ignored. Wikipedia:Notability (schools) is a policy proposal and on the proposal page I see the sentence "in order to move forward we need guidelines and that will require concessions on both sides" which seems to be a fundamentally different approach than "ignoring the fans". WP:EPISODE never was a community sanctioned policy or a community sanctioned guideline. It is however used like a license for mass deletion currently.
    • Until 16 April 2007 the page was a mere subpage of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion.
    • In that past version weather all episode articles should go or stay was clearly stated to be undecided.
    • The word "notability" was not mentioned in the content at all though it was linked as a "see also", another linked page was Wikipedia:Schools, another heated debate which probably was stale back then. The guideline was more about avoiding a mass number of stubs with no content rather than a ban on all episode articles. In other words it tells you not to create oodles of pages when the main articles themselves are a stub. Which in my view does make sense. But what is been done has not been inline with this.
    • All that was agreed on after a decent amount of discussion. Decent amount of discussion alone is not automatic consensus. Decent amount of discussion can draft a policy or guideline then you bring it to the attention of the entire community and seek its acceptance. Thats exactly what is being done with Wikipedia:Schools after three rejected proposals. No doubt each rejected proposal had a very serious discussion.
Jack Merridew presented a comment of mine as evidence on this very page. At that statement I talk about how users who are here only "to pick fights" are a threat to wikipedia. This comment should only bother people who are here only "to pick fights". It was not related to this case at all. I feel I stated the obvious with my remark on Jimbo's talk page. I just wanted to clarify that.
-- Cat chi? 01:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by sgeureka[edit]

I have not really participated in any of User:TTN's character redirection discussions except for Scrubs (TV series) (and AfDs). I can only really comment on episode articles.

Similar to a negative proof, I cannot offer any evidence that TTN has been doing something wrong. The only episode article (out of the thousands that were reviewed and redirected) that has been brought to attention was All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural). When TTN first redirected it, the article(s) looked like this. [1][2] Until a few days ago, the article still only had not-per-se-reliable (yet third-party) sources for Production and Reception, but the plot was still excessive (WP:NOT#PLOT). User:Peregrine Fisher fixed this by removing all plot, and the article no longer violates any major guidelines (except borderline WP:RS, which is okayish for reception). TTN has not reverted to a redirect since, but has added a usual ((notability)) tag. These actions are (obviously) all in line with guidelines and policies.

I found the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Episodes a good way to determine what sides both parties come from. User:White Cat started an ANI thread (22:02, September 30, 2007), saying that User:TTN was "mass merge taggin articles and later redirectifying them [...] Are episode articles banned?" I'll demonstrate the major disagreements below (Sorry for the length, but the discussion was 28 pages long, and I tried to pick the most relevant statements from both sides of the many...many editors).

Comments from mainly uninvolved editors on TTN's actions

Consensus and wiki-definitions are questioned or not accepted, conspiracy and misuse allegations

Comment

I also (just) realized that there is a disgreement about the purpose of foregoing merge discussions. Are they to establish how many people want to keep the articles "as they are" (fans will almost always !vote keep), or to determine what can be done to bring the articles in line with guidelines and policies? If the keep !voters do nothing to show improvement, then their insistance on keeping the articles has no basis and can be ignored (which is what was happening in the merge process, and in the ANI discussion). – sgeureka t•c 12:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Eusebeus[edit]

Wikipedia has developed over the years several policies that redound to the notability of fictional subjects, including television series episodes and characters. These are explicitly and clearly laid out at WP:FICT & WP:N. We have a further discouragement of using Wikipedia as TV.com explained at WP:NOT#PLOT and we have an extensive discussion of why trivia is not encyclopedic at WP:TRIVIA. Finally, we have a very clear definition of what consensus means when it is used on this site at WP:CON which states in the clearest possible terms that When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it 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 policies.


Editors routinely ignore consensus

TTN's actions can be considered at times abrupt. There may also be instances where insufficient explanation has been offered for the actions taken by TTN. However, in almost no instance has he implemented a redirect on an article that would pass the standards that I have linked to above. It may seem abrupt to other editors to explain such redirects as per WP:FICT, but if they bothered to read the guidelines, they would immediately see why such actions were being taken in the first place.

I'll only bother with one example. The discussion at Talk:List_of_Drawn_Together_episodes#Episode_notability is pretty typical and I think entirely representative of the problem: a total disinterest by many editors in our policies and guidelines and the mistaken belief that local opinion defines consensus.

I note, and thereby incidentally refute all the assertions made by User:White_Cat above, that an active and vigorous debate has been taking place at WP:FICT for quite some time and regardless of the conclusion of this arbcom case against TTN, the fact remains that there has been almost no support for relaxing the policies and guidelines as they relate to fictional topics. This is not the venue for arguing the merits of our policies: that debate is taking place elsewhere and largely supports the actions of editors to impose the standards that have been derived over time.


Evidence presented by Yukichigai[edit]

More than 80% of TTN's edits are an effort to remove content

This one is a little difficult to show with diffs, because it is an evaluation of every contribution TTN has made to Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I think I can make my point. Roughly 3000 edits to Wikipedia is the point at which TTN starts merging and redirecting articles on a large scale basis, though interspersed with some non-removal contributions to articles. (particularly Dragon Ball Z related ones) After 4500 edits however his edits are almost solely merges, redirects, or parts of efforts to accomplish either of the former. (such as AfDs or merge discussions) With his roughly 25000 overall edits (at last count) that means, conservatively, 82% of his edits are those which either remove content or seek to remove content.

I want to make it clear that I am not rallying for (or against) the merit of the articles TTN has merged/redirected. My only point is that with the vast majority of his edits being those which remove content and their number and frequency being so great, his edits have become disruptive rather than helpful.

TTN's attitude towards opposing editors is dismissive and unnecessarily inflammatory

There are countless discussions in which this is demonstrated, but since Eusebeus has already linked to Talk:List_of_Drawn_Together_episodes#Episode_notability (permalinked, just in case), let's start there:

Once the discussion was started, almost immediately TTN implies that he has the power to revert and protect articles if they include information he deems inappropriate, then subsequently suggests that despite starting the discussion there's no real point since the articles are going to be merged "eventually". Later he not only dismisses all previous arguments out of hand, but implies that the decision to merge is a foregone conclusion. (A statement he makes a second time in an even more dismissive manner) The next statement is his often-seen "the only opinions that matter are the ones I say" argument, eventually followed by insults and a large scale assumption of bad faith. After someone closes the discussion with a result TTN finds unfavorable, he "re-closes" it with the "true result", which is promptly undone by a self-described deletionist. After this TTN not only declares his intent to redirect the articles irrespective of "any sort of number consensus", but threatens to AfD the articles if he can't redirect them, then follows that already inflammatory statement with an open declaration of his willingness to engage in a revert war to accomplish his goals.

With the exception of the opening of the discussion and these three edits, the above paragraph details the entirety of TTN's involvement in the discussion.

Evidence presented by Ned Scott[edit]

More to come, just wanted to get this out of the way

Why we ask for other sources

While I probably should post this with the rest of my evidence, I wanted to just point this out real quick. Generally speaking, "other sources" and "real world information" are used interchangeably in many discussions and guidelines. This should not be confused as someone asking for sources for the work of fiction itself. (which is almost never a problem) When we ask for sources for an article, we do so because we want information other than just plot information.

Rebuttal to evidence presented by Hiding

Responding to where User:Hiding wrote "However, the guidance has been revised since that rewrite by a smaller number of editors[4] to the point that it bears little in common with the initial rewrite, established with a wider pool of editors, or the previous version which remained somewhat stable for over two years. It is therefore unclear how widely this rewrite represents the wider communities consensus on what to do with articles on fictional topics."

Since it can be hard to use diffs to see what actually has changed to a page (due to line spacing, embedded refs, etc), I played around with the text in my sandbox to generate a side by side comparison that might be easier to follow. The following two diffs show the bulk of the changes:

Example section turned into refs, but these have been removed so people can see the changes to the visible text.

Evidence presented by CharonX[edit]

TTN acts disruptingly and against policy

While I took a peek at this case I came across the following:
First TTN posted the "Merge notice" concerning Episodes and several editors voiced objected to the merge. Following the closure of the discussion as "do not merge or redirect" he first overturned the closure to add "the true result" (i.e. redirect/merge) (WP:COI anyone?) which in turn was overturned by a 3rd party to the original result.
Following that closure TTN's next statement is I'm just going to go ahead and redirect them when I get the chance. The point of these is to form a discussion to see about potential improvement, rather than to form any sort of number consensus anyways. Either that, or I'll have to place each episode up for deletion. It would have to be one at a time, though, so that would be annoying.
Come again? TTN basically tries to force an outcome of his choice on the merger discussion he started, and when that does not work he states "No matter what you say I'll do what I think is right, and if you try to stop me I'll AfD all the articles". What happened to consensus and why did he start the discussion in the first place if he will disregard its results anyway? Personally I find that kind of behaviour highly disruptive. CharonX/talk 03:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence presented by Hiding[edit]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

WP:FICT was rewritten, and may not reflect community consensus

This evidence has been amended through stikethroughs and [insertions] as detailed in the rebuttal to Ned Scott below, Hiding T 10:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC) WP:FICT is a guideline on what to do with fiction articles, which initially sprang[5] from the check your fiction page,[6] which is now merged into the guideline Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Check your fiction. Radiant rewrote the guidance in 2005,[7] and it remained somewhat stable until July 2007.[8], advocating that minor fictional characters and concepts be folded into lists. During July a rewrite was drafted at User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction), in part to better suit WP:N. However, WP:N is newer than WP:FICT, having been created in September 2006[9] and having become a guideline that same month.[10] The rewrite was advertised on WP:FICT and at the village pump,[11] and the discussion on [[12]] shows a wide-ish pool of editors. However, the guidance has been revised since that rewrite by a smaller number of editors[13] to the point that it bears little in common with away from the initial rewrite, established with a wider pool of editors, or [and to the point that it bears little in common with] the previous version which remained somewhat stable for over two years. It is therefore unclear how widely this rewrite represents the wider communities consensus on what to do with articles on fictional topics. It is further unclear how far WP:N extends to fictional topics. These decisions are not resolved, currently WP:FICT has a disputed tag and no editor should assume there is a consensus for it. I myself have engaged in redirection of comics related articles based on the rewrite of WP:FICT,[14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] and [20] and have similarly met with opposition which gave me pause for thought.Talk:Ambrose Chase#Removed Redirect and plot summary tag, User_talk:Hiding/Archive_2007#Redirects, User_talk:Emperor/Archive_2007#Redirects and User_talk:Basique/Archive_6#Ballistic_.28DC_comics.29 It appears that consensus may not exist in the current form of WP:FICT. However, it is unclear how to get a wider pool of editors involved in discussing the issue, and WP:CONSENSUS states that silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected. There seems to be a flaw in the community somewhere in getting editors to engage to build a consensus that reflects the common ground, something I'm not sure how to solve. But I hope I have shown that WP:FICT was rewritten, and may not reflect community consensus Hiding T 02:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

WP:FICT has roughly 500 edits. Roughly half occur between September 2003 and August 2007. The other half occur since August 2007. I think that shows the degree of stability existing prior to the rewrite, and that consensus may be lacking since the rewrite. Note the numbers are a rough count based on [21]. Hiding T 17:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal to Ned Scott

Ned's corect, it was late for me last night and I was editing my words and I have stated something that was not meant, for which I apologise. I initially wrote "However, the guidance has been revised since that rewrite by a smaller number of editors[22] to the point that it bears little in common with the initial rewrite, established with a wider pool of editors, or the previous version which remained somewhat stable for over two years. It is therefore unclear how widely this rewrite represents the wider communities consensus on what to do with articles on fictional topics." What I meant to say was However, the guidance has been revised since that rewrite by a smaller number of editors[23] away from the initial rewrite, established with a wider pool of editors, and to the point that it bears little in common with the previous version which remained somewhat stable for over two years. It is therefore unclear how widely this rewrite represents the wider communities consensus on what to do with articles on fictional topics. I have amended my evidence above to reflect this and would once agin like to apologise to all involved.

As can be seen in the diff[24] Ned has provided, the guidance has altered:

Evidence presented by Superlex[edit]

TTN engages in edit warring

In looking through the histories of some of the articles TTN has redirected, it looks like he has engaged in edit warring to keep the articles as redirects. The first paragraph of Wikipedia:Edit War says, "Edit warring occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert content edits to a page or subject area. Such hostile behavior is prohibited, and considered a breach of Wikiquette. Since it is an attempt to win a content dispute through brute force, edit warring undermines the consensus-building process that underlies the ideal wiki collaborative spirit." TTN has been edit warring to win these content disputes by brute force instead of working with editors to come to an agreement (through normal dispute resolution).

And here's one where TTN violated WP:3RR in his edit wars (3RR vios are bolded):

In those cases, TTN either didn't discuss his edits in these conflicts or, when he did, he dismissed any opposition and refused to build a consensus. He should have taken the issues to dispute resolution instead of edit warring.

Evidence presented by {your user name}[edit]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.


More