Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Edit warring on episodes articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Edit warring on episodes articles 1.1 Sidetrack for a minute here 1.2 Can we just block the resurrectors for a while? 1.3 Barring that, can we take this somewhere else, please? 1.4 Oh boy!

[edit] Edit warring on episodes articles

Pointless meta-debate, the lot of it. Improve the articles, don't edit war. Any edit-warring will not be looked kindly upon. Will ^(talk) 00:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I would say it was pointless to take this to ANI, and I've stopped removing the redirects from Scrubs articles, but I really don't appreciate people trying to stop me from editing articles like this. I've unarchived this thread. If it's decided this thread should be moved to Talk:List of Scrubs episodes later on, so be it. --Pixelface (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface (talk · contribs) is reverting all of TTN (talk · contribs)'s edits. I don't know who's right here, I just know this needs to stop. Corvus cornix_talk 22:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface is wrong. There was a discussion that came out with a unanimous consensus to merge. Will ^(talk) 22:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, not unanimous. Still, there was a discussion about merging. I smell reverting just because TTN edited the page. Will ^(talk) 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know who redirected the Scrubs episodes when I started undoing the reverts. All I knew was that Talk:List of Scrubs episodes showed that there is clearly no consensus for those articles to be redirects. I've stopped undoing the redirects. Can we move this discussion there now instead of clogging up this page? I think it's clear there is no imminent harm to the project. --Pixelface (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TTN made a series of controversial edits over a period of a couple weeks to get rid of articles for individual episodes of TV series. These edits, while well supported by WP:N and WP:RS, have brought out a small but vocal group of editors opposing his actions, and apparently disrupting efforts to build consensus so as to maintain the status quo. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 22:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If either of you took the time to actually read Talk:List of Scrubs episodes, there is no consensus to redirect those episode articles. I will continue to revert those redirects. --Pixelface (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I can count my signature six times in the actual discussion. I have that particular LOE on my watchlist. Try again. Will ^(talk) 22:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so I guess you can count yourself six times? There is no consensus those articles should be redirects. --Pixelface (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You're saying I didn't read the talk page? I just showed you I did. There was a consensus that the vast majority of episodes were non-notable. If you want the episodes back, show a consensus that they are notable per the general notability guideline, not that the articles should not be redirects. Will ^(talk) 22:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There may have been consensus at one time but there isn't consensus now. I don't have to show that the episodes are notable per WP:N. That's not how television episode articles are handled. See Bart the General for proof of that. --Pixelface (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Burden of proof is on those wishing to include. And can you stop bringing up the Simpsons into these arguments every single time? Leniency is given to The Simpsons because it is one of only three shows to have a featured topic (the other two are Lost and Carnivale). Will ^(talk) 23:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. So the Bart the General article is okay because The Joy of Sect is a featured article. It all makes sense now. The information in episode articles is verifiable by watching the episodes. --Pixelface (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You keep on setting up straw men. I said leniency, not immunity. If editors of a WikiProject show that they can make a large number of articles of a good quality, we should assume that they are improving other articles in the project's scope and just haven't got to some yet. And the link to the verifiability policy was supposed to direct you to WP:PROVEIT. Will ^(talk) 23:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's clear from the sub-articles of List of The Simpsons episodes that episode articles do not each have to assert individual notability. You're saying that editors "just haven't gotten" to The Simpsons episode articles yet, articles like Bart the General, the 5th episode of The Simpsons, but why is that same courtesy not extended to editors who work on Scrubs episode articles? WP:PROVEIT does apply here. Eusebeus has to show that there is consensus on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes that the Scrubs articles should be redirects. There isn't. --Pixelface (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons has, by my count, eighty episodes that are GA and above, out of 408 that have aired. Scrubs has one out of about 150. In actual fact, I think Simpsons articles like Bart the General are in the minority here. Will ^(talk) 23:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see, so The Simpsons episodes inherit notability from the Good Articles. Why didn't you just say so? How about Love and Rocket or Smug Alert!? --Pixelface (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the project will do them in time. With Love and Rocket and Smug Alert, fine. I personally think they should be redirected. Will ^(talk) 00:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see, so the project will do The Simpsons episode articles in time, but nobody will ever improve a Scrubs episode article. --Pixelface (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Now Eusebeus (talk · contribs) has reverted Pixelfaces reverts, this is all very juvenile. RMHED (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

They are both edit warring. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Undoing an edit is not edit warring. My edits reflect the consensus at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. There is no consensus there that the episode articles should be redirects. Eusebeus's edits do not reflect consensus. --Pixelface (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Being "right" does not give one a waiver on edit-warring. Cut it out. SirFozzie (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And they've both been warned to stop, but it looks like they are continuing. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• What rot. There has been plenty of discussion back and forth and no-one has suggested that the Scrubs episodes amounted to anything like the standard required by QP:N or QP:RS as elaborated at WP:FICT. I have rv'd some; this is disruptive, pointy and tendentious. Eusebeus (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes that those articles should be redirects. Bart the General doesn't comply to WP:N or WP:RS and it's been around for 4 1/2 years. THAT is the actual consensus among editors who edit episode articles. I'm not being disruptive and I have no axe to grind. There may have been consensus at one time to turn Scrubs episdoe articles into redirects, but there isn't now. Consensus can change. I'm removing redirects from Scrubs episode articles because there is currently no consensus on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes that the episode articles should be redirects. --Pixelface (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Good luck, Pixelface. I tried the same thing with episodes of Kim Possible and one episode of Undergrads, and all episodes of both series were redirected. ----DanTD (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• I have asked Pixelface to stop immediately. Regardless of the pros and cons, this is stalking and edit warring. BLACKKITE 22:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • And the accusation of stalking, which Black Kite explained on my talk page, is totally ridiculous. He claimed I was following an editor's contributions around and undoing their edits. That is false. I went to each Scrubs episode article in order of airdate, ignored the redirect, looked at the history, and undid the redirect — because there is no consensus for those articles to be redirects on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. --Pixelface (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Stalking? That's laughable. Look at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes and tell me there is consensus that the episode articles should be redirects. --Pixelface (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It's still edit-warring. Since then, I've looked at some of the edits you reverted and saw episode articles which violated multiple Wikipedia policies, and I don't think I need to point out that policy trumps consensus every time. Do we really need to go back to ArbCom here? BLACKKITE 22:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry for asking, but which policies do those articles violate? --Pixelface (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
        • What Wikipedia is not – plot summaries. Why don't you just try and add some real-world context to the articles instead of blindly reverting? In fact, I've told you that once today. Will ^(talk) 22:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
        • WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NOR, for a start; notability also seems to be lacking (I know that's a guideline, not a policy, but still). BLACKKITE 22:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
          • The articles contain more than plot summaries so WP:NOT#PLOT doesn't apply. How does WP:NOR apply to those articles? --Pixelface (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
            • An example of NOR would be this one [1]. See the last two paragraphs. And yes, a LOT of those articles are nothing put plot summary. BLACKKITE 23:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
              • If the article contains original research, remove it. If an article has an infobox, it's not a mere plot summary. --Pixelface (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
                • Infobox information does not "cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance". It is appropriate to include, but not does satisfy PLOT. --MASEM 00:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
                  • WP:NOT#INFO says "current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply...plot summaries". An article with an infobox is not simply a plot summary. Infoboxes do provide real-world context. --Pixelface (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
        • This is yet another of my many votes supporting the trim/merge/redirecting of individual episode summaries. I noted on the Scrubs Talk page some excellent examples of notable individiual episodes, including Simpsons and a Friends episode. I do wonder if we can't create a section on WP:EPISODE of examples to follow, and perhaps, rather than merge EPISODE to MoS, create an EMoS ...(or some other name not so likely to be mocked for regular crying about angst) , which would guide people in the dos and don'ts of Episode article writing. I will post this suggestion at that conversation as well. ThuranX (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, given the level of angst over episodes, EMoS would be a perfect name. Will ^(talk) 23:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You're a funny guy. --Pixelface (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I support Pixelface. TTN's has reverted these episodes many times and WP:EPISODE is under dispute. Catchpole (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a stock reply. TTN hasn't even touched half of the episodes. And you're the first to bring up WP:EPISODE - everyone else is using WP:N and WP:NOT. Will ^(talk) 23:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna go out on a bit of a limb, here. This whole drama needs to calm down a notch. This edit warring needs to stop. Boldly redirecting is fine; edit warring to silence objections by brute force is not fine. Send contested redirect candidates to AfD or other forums for discussion, in smallish groups if needed for practicality. Allow for community input and discussion. Stop edit warring when discussion forums are freely available. I am prepared to issue blocks or protections as needed to allow for discussion. Edit warring is bad, period. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've stopped turning Scrubs episode articles into redirects. The question is whether other editors have stopped reverting those edits. There has been discussion at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes and there is no consensus those episode articles should be redirects. That is why I removed the redirects. --Pixelface (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'd agree with the basic point here, though views are so polarised that I have my doubt as to how useful any discussion would be. AfD is probably the best way to go here, but even that may cause problems. (1) AfD isn't really for cleanup. (2) There are a HUGE amount of episode articles that qualify for merging. (3) What happens if different bundles of AfDs get different results? We'd just be back to square 1. BLACKKITE 00:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think you need to look at the arbitration case related to episode articles before you suggest these articles be taken to AfD. The remedy issued by the arbitration committee was "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." I was not a party to that case, but I did edit the Workshop and I have discussed the issue on WT:EPISODE and Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. There is no consensus on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes for those episode articles to be redirects. --Pixelface (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Certainly some views are polarized; I'm hoping a clear forum will invite others to participate, hopefully with clear heads. Agree AfD isn't quite ideal, but barring some really good alternative, it seems to be the port of choice in this situation. The goodness or badness of bundling probably depends on how the bundling is done; going case-by-case isn't necessarily a bad idea, provided there's a clear link between discussions and someplace to mention overarching issues. Mainly I want the edit warring to stop, the other details can be worked out. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've stopped removing the redirects from Scrubs episode articles. The place to discuss Scrubs episode articles is Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. The place for discussion about episode articles in general is probably WT:EPISODE. I do not think AfD is the port of choice in light of the recent arbitration case. --Pixelface (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sidetrack for a minute here

• I haven't been involved in the others but I don't see any discussion of Open All Hours episodes having taken place at AfD or anywhere. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, as I pointed out yesterday, those articles weren't currently encyclopedic, though the sources for them to be so almost certainly exist. BLACKKITE 22:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • OK then, seriously we're bypassing AfD now? In the interests of building an encyclopedia, the best chance any article has of being sourced and improved is by being there in the first place - AfD will give a 7 day timeframe of urgency for this to be done and consensus to be obtained. Removing it and removing links does not allow for this. BK you even said yourself you were surprised by Open All Hours being there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Articles should not be sent to AfD for the sole purpose of cleanup. Will ^(talk) 23:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I should add - a Speedy Deletion tag would be the next step then not just blanket removal. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • CSD does not apply to TV episode articles. Bold redirection is correct here, I think, until those articles are up to scratch. My surprise was only that the articles were so poor given the sources that must be available, unlike many other TV series.BLACKKITE 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Yea, lack of notability should never be a reason to CSD. And I'm trying to get a rewrite of WP:FICT that encourages more discussion and collobration than just throwing the article to the AfD wolves. --MASEM 23:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So someone can write a hoax which gives a few days grace as it is PRODded or AfD but an episode article is different? How does that make sense? This is what unsourced tags are forcheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hang on - AfD and PROD are about deletion. These episode articles have not been deleted but merged. BLACKKITE 23:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, no. An AfD debate is about whether an article stands on its own as such, which is the debate in question here. They are not being merged but changed to redirects which for all intents and purposes deletion.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Disagree - a Delete at AfD is basically saying "this can never be a viable article", whereas Merge/Redirect can mean "this isn't a viable article now, but could be improved to be so". BLACKKITE 00:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Erm (?) ok, to me all merge means is that the article as such has some link to a notable one already in the 'pedia. In which case merged material should be incorporated into a parent article not dropped out of the loop as it were. Reinforced by AfD being a discussion on a single article/page as such. But anyway....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Wrong. AFD is Articles for deletion, as the name says, and as explained to you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Question from a new editor. Uncle G (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Such as thus cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can we just block the resurrectors for a while?

It's become clear to me from watching that if User:White Cat, User:Pixelface, User:VivianDarkbloom, User:Vivian Darkbloom, and a handful of others were blocked for a couple of months, much of the sturm and drang about the redirection would disappear. TTN, Jack Merridew, and Eusebus are pretty resistant to blocking because most editors recognize that they have policy on their side. The others don't.Kww (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break. You think my removal of the redirects from Scrubs episode articles was disruptive? Take a look at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes and tell me there is consensus for those episode articles to be redirects. The idea that users you don't agree with should be blocked is ridiculous. The Scrubs episodes articles do not violate policy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely I would block you, and absolutely the articles that were redirected violate policy. No one in those discussions were able to come up with policy-based reasons to keep the articles, and those are the only reasons that count when judging consensus. Be grateful that I'm not an admin, so I don't have a block button on my screen.Kww (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Block me for what? Those Scrubs articles don't violate policy anymore than Bart the General violates policy. Policy flows from consensus, not the other way around. If you ever make a request for adminship, I'll be sure to oppose since you obviously don't know what blocks are used for. --Pixelface (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Support blocking all three. Been warned enough times. Actual collaboration on the topics would be useful, but those listed just debate for the sake of debating. Will ^(talk) 23:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You support a block of me on what grounds? --Pixelface (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Noise-to-signal ratio is too high. I don't need to tell you a third time in twelve hours to stop blindly reverting. Will ^(talk) 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I stopped removing redirects over 2 hours ago. --Pixelface (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose blocking at this time, but issuing final warnings and blocking after that. Note that User:Pixelface has already issued a threat to re-undo all the redirects ([2]) that he undid earlier, an action I have warned him against, without any sign that the message is getting through. BLACKKITE 00:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a threat. It's to inform the editors on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes that the redirects will be removed from the articles in a week because there is no consensus on that page that those episode articles should be redirects. If you want to block me for editing according to consensus, go ahead. --Pixelface (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you've said that about eight times on this thread now, and it's still wrong, because there isn't consensus for them not to be redirects either - there isn't any consensus at all. Policy, however, would indicate otherwise. BLACKKITE 00:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

But BK, wouldn't you agree it is easier for the community as a whole to come to a consensus if they are visible vs. being invisible? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In general, yes I would; but in the case of community disagreement, we have policies, and what policy says here is that at the moment many (not all) of these episode articles should be merged, until they can be improved. Otherwise we will have a massive problem of notability creep that we are already seeing in the arguments presented above. BLACKKITE 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not wrong that there is no consensus for those articles to be redirects on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. There may have been consensus at one time for those articles to be redirects, but the consensus changed. If there is no consensus for those articles to be redirects, the redirects should be removed, which I did and stopped doing, over 2 hours ago. Policy does not say those articles should be merged. And if policy did say that, it would need to be changed. Policy documents consensus. The article Bart the General has existed for 4 1/2 years and that is the actual consensus among editors. Individual episodes do not have to assert individual notability. And WP:N is a guideline, not a policy. --Pixelface (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose becaus ei think that they have some serious emotional and personal isues that are blocking their reason in this about this issue. it would be better to simply restrict them form edditing the articles in questrion rather than permanently banning them from the internet. i also recomend that someone mediate between the editors ro resolve this issue before it escalates even wrose than it dies now. Smith Jones (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As detailed above, I'm prepared to hand out short blocks to anybody who continues edit warring. I'll be turning a blind eye to whether they're redirecting or restoring. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

its not fair to blcok them because they might have a serious diesgareement and need help to resolve this issu ebefore it blows up into an edit war. 00:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Support, while I don't tend to like the idea of blocking a group of people, the group has cause some insanely huge disruptions among TV articles, in WP:Notability (fiction), and in WP:EPISODE, including actions that are borderline vandalism excused as "being bold" and editing existing guidelines to fit their own views against consensus and with a lack of consensus supporting their changes. Several have stated point blank that they do not care what the existing policies and guidelines are because they disagree with them, they get into frequent edit wars, and some repeatedly push the civility border in dealing with other editors (including making unfounded accusations, using the "deletionist" label as an insult, making personal attacks, etc). Perhaps a block might help them take a much needed breather, though I believe some of them have already been blocked before so maybe it won't. Collectonian (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors are not to be blocked just because you disagree with them. I was not an involved party of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters. I removed 2 edits from WP:EPISODE because those edits did not document current practice. As long as you're painting a group of users with a broad brush, it would help if you specified who you were referring to. The idea that the "resurrectors" should be blocked and not the redirectors as well is ridiculous. --Pixelface (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Block users per Luna Santin. We have plenty of guidance and policies to cover this situation. They are at dispute resolution, consensus, editing policy, civility, assume good faith, verification, neutal point of view, no original research and what we are not. Those are our methods of dealing with these situations. Our methods do not include disruption, gaming the system or edit warring. They do not include instruction creep. Our methods include accepting that sometimes things go against you. They include collaborating. They include compromise, give and take and listening to the other side. they include reaching the best outcome. They include writing an encyclopedia. As the arbitration committee declared, we have plenty of guidance on handling the merging/redirection situation. It's called discussing to reach a mutually acceptable outcome. If that means an article with a lot of citation needed tags in it and a couple of templates on it, then so be it. If that's what the consensus is, then that's what the consensus is. For me, how some people handle the situation of merging/ redirecting shows a lack of respect for WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR. Both sides need to keep talking to other collaborators and to edit the articles with respect to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Tag things as needing citations. Wait a month. If they haven't been cited, remove them. Remove speculation. Remove peacock terms and weasel words. Remember, WP:BRD. Remember, we can be gradual as well as bold. Hiding T 00:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Hiding who summed it up and saved me a few minutes. Let's keep it focussed on articles. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• I'm with Luna. Block whoever's at fault on any given page. However, that means looking at lots and lots of pages, and frankly, policy's on TTN's side, not on the resurrectionists' side. This does effectively mean they'll be blocked first. I don't support long blocks though. 24 hours should be enough to get the point across, and it can go up from there as/if needed. ThuranX (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The idea that the arbitration committee did not find it necessary to issue any blocks but people are discussing potential blocks here like a mob is a little disconcerting. --Pixelface (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Er, right. If you block everyone who opposes your actions, there won't be anyone left opposing your actions, and you can therefore declare consensus. I'm afraid it's not that simple. Can't we all just work on improving the articles, instead of merging them aggressively wherever possible? --Conti|✉ 01:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose - it is hardly fair to block only one side of what has become a bitter and divisive dispute. The aforementioned TTN, Jack Merridew, and Eusebus have employed "tag-team" tactics to achieve their goals without being blocked, so why single out the opposition? (No disrespect intended to Collectonian above, but I think that the description "insanely huge disruptions among TV articles" can also be applied to the methods used to remove episode content.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support blocks and will carry them out myself if necessary. Reinstating these plot renarrations is not just reinstating cruft, it's reinstating copyright infringements. Yes, these removals will, and must, be enforced by brute admin force, unilaterally, just like bad image uploads. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A plot summary isn't a copyright infringement, FP. If it was, Cliffs Notes would be in a lot of trouble. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

From WP:EPISODE (and I understand this is consensus among people who have actually looked at these legal cases:) It has been held in a number of court cases that any work which re-tells original ideas from a fictional source, in sufficient quantity without adding information about that work, or in some way analysing and explaining it, may be construed as a derivative work or a copyright violation...Information about copyright fictional worlds and plots of works of fiction can be provided only under a claim of fair use, and Wikipedia's fair-use policy holds that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible". A true summary that is actually used to support analysis is okay, under fair use, just as fair-use images are. Mere plot renarrations are not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've read WP:EPISODE, a disputed guideline which is supposed to be treated with some common sense. Blocking someone over an obviously disputed guideline doesn't make much sense. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The guideline in its entirety may be disputed, so what? I'm not aware that there is any dispute among well-informed editors about that particular passage (which is actually quoted from elsewhere). Are you disputing the validity of the legal point made, and on what grounds? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, FP, those who agree with your view are "well-informed editors", while those who disagree with you should be blocked. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, instead of making snide remarks you could educate me about what arguments exist that the underlying legal observation is wrong. As long as I'm not aware of any, I have no choice but to act according to my understanding of the policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being snide. You've already convinced yourself that those who agree with you are "well-informed editors" (you've said it multiple times) while those who disagree deserve to be blocked. Nothing I say can change your mind at this point, and I'll be sad when you start issuing blocks over a disputed guideline that you somehow consider "policy". I'll be sad because you'll be doing harm to editors who in good faith disagree with you. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

,ev.Avoid copyright paranoia. If there is a compelling legal reason not to summarise plot, that needs to be confirmed by the foundation's legal counsel. I suggest you contact Mike Godwin and get him to clarify the situation. I'm not saying I disagree with the reading, I'm just saying that it has reached the point in time where the foundation needs to rule on the copyright issues, just as they did with fair use images. Copyright concerns are a matter for the foundation and its counsel. We need to edit with regards to our policies and guidance, and teh legal standpoint you outline has had no consensus everytime it has been discussed at WP:NOT, and the consensus behind WP:EPISODE is currently disputed. Hiding T 10:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The foundation has frequently said they are not going to "micro-manage" these kinds of issues. We are left to our own devices. As long as nobody tells me a good reason why that legal observation should be wrong, I'll act accordingly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The legal observation is wrong because until a court rules on a particular fair use defence, no-one can determine if it is fair use. Until we receive the foundations opinion, and they will give one, because ultimately they will be on the end of a suit, there will not be a consensus on the copyright issue. This has to be a top down issue, just as images were. No-one is asking them to micro-manage. What is being asked for is a resolution similar to this one m:Resolution:Licensing policy which also covers copyrighted text. All that resolution covers is uploaded media. Hiding T 10:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'd be all for blocking for disruption over this issue. It is time to start using a framing hammer here. I for one, will try to cool-out. I will also continue to revert disruptive and harassing edits such as I have done many times recently on D&D "articles". --Jack Merridew 10:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • We're hoping to get a Fiction-related Noticeboard set up as part of the proposed rewrite of WP:FICT which would become the central area for discussing disputes of this nature and developing a consensus on the resolution of such disputes. It's hoped it will take the load off of WP:AN, WP:AFD and WP:MEDIATE, and hopefully prevent arbitration requests. Most people tend to agree that fiction related articles need to be cleaned up, it's the how that is proving problematic. Hiding T 10:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose blocks, quite clearly, because no reason for blocks has been brought up yet. A summary does not constitute copyright violation, and it's not smart to cite WP:FICT or WP:EPISODE, either; these guidelines are in almost always in dispute and subject to change everyday. Articles are not to be deleted/redirect on a whim. If some people are so bold that they would take it upon themselves to decide the fate of the myriad pages they have never contributed to, then it is understandable that they could be reverted by the hard-working content buiders. Bold, revert, discuss, that's how things go around here. For the record, TTN, Jack Merridew, and Eusebus do deserve blocks if they persist on editwarring and refuse discussion. Those episode pages are already there before they turn up and remove all content, so the onus is on them to debate/explain their rationale, not the other party. Discussion is not optional, or else this will turn into a "Bold, revert, revert" situation. - PeaceNT (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support blocks per Luna Satin. Restoring articles contrary to WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOR or WP:NOTE (via WP:EPISODE) should earn a block. Redirecting articles that satisfy WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOR and WP:NOTE (via WP:EPISODE) should also earn a block. One warning should be sufficient at this point since this issue is well-discussed, and everybody edit warring on this issue seems to be versed in the nature of the controversy. This is to benefit Wikipedia by minimizing edit warring, and not to punish. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Luna Santin's idea with edg's additions. Minimising edit warring will be beneficial to wikipedia. Seraphim ^Whipp 14:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose A plot summary is not a copyright violation, and blocking should only be used to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. One could easily argue that removing large amounts of content without discussion is just as much a disturbance as reverting those removals. Per PeaceNT, discussion is not optional. Especially when it concerns a disputed guideline. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are people voting on whether blocks should be issued? This is disgusting. Tim! (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposals of blocks are often dicussed on AN/I to gain consensus (whether to block or not block). Seraphim ^Whipp 18:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussions do not have emboldened "supports" and "opposes" in them ... Tim! (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know...I've seen a lot of discussions like this. There has been so much discussion of this topic, that proposing short blocks for disruption is a good idea, unfortunately. Like I said above, I prefer Luna Santin's idea of blocking whoever is disruptive, not certain users. Block based on the edit not the user. Seraphim ^Whipp 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If blocks are issued they must be issued to all parties in this edit war. Blocking User:TTN, User:Jack Merridew, and User:Eusebus would certainly end the edit war just as well (albeit just for the time of the block). I think an administrator ought to warn all parties, but I hope that the new ArbCom case will settle this matter. Ursasapien (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barring that, can we take this somewhere else, please?

This has dragged out way more than it should have. HalfShadow (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support it if this thread was moved to Talk:List of Scrubs episodes (or even my talk page or a sub-page of my talk page) or I suppose even WT:EPISODE or just archived at this time. I stopped removing redirects from Scrubs episode articles over 2 hours ago so I think it's clear no intervention by administrators is needed. I've been trying to clear my name here. --Pixelface (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Its getting bigger than just scrubs though...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm well aware of that. I helped work on the Workshop at the arbitration case. I see there are at least two other threads on this page related to episode articles and that's quite unfortunate. These things need to be discussed at WT:EPISODE. --Pixelface (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree moving this elsewhere is good, but this is a larger issue than just tv episodes - or more specifically, if something "special" is done for TV episodes that conflicts with PLOT/NOTE/FICT, we're going to have to repeat this whole process for any other serialized work (individual comic books, etc.). I would suggest helping with input at the present revision that is going on at WP:FICT (eg where we've been trying to determine the consensus for a good couple of months now).

Or at least to some degree harmonizing the discussion (I have notified WP:TV of the current version we're trying to get more eyes on and have mentioned such on WT:EPISODE, among other places); I understand the need that WP:EPISODE likely needs further guidance beyond what NOTE/FICT can provide, and thus there are some different issues that come up, but the end result is that language in a possible rewrite of EPISODE has to agree with NOTE/FICT or else we repeat this progress ad nasuem. --MASEM 02:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this issue is not limited to tv episodes; it includes tv characters, video game characters and locations, and D&D characters, modules, locations, spells, deities, hoards and a hundreds of other thangs; all non-notable, of course. Block the disruptive editors after one warning; 24h, a week, a month, a year. --Jack Merridew 14:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify - "tv characters, video game characters and locations, and D&D characters, modules, locations, spells, deities, hoards and a hundreds of other thangs" are "all non-notable" - I don't remember reading any policy or guideline which says that, it sounds to me that you are expressing your own standard(s) there.--Alf ^melmac 16:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Alf, consider who wrote that. This is the same guy who thought that quoting Hitler would calm things down[3] and clarify everything. White Cat and him don't get along, mildly speaking. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Noted. I also note that editors party to the dispute are !voting to have others editors involved in their content dispute blocked. I consider that very bad form.--Alf ^melmac 17:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, what did my post have to do with White Cat? I was noting that this issue is far-reaching and noted a lot of areas that he has nothing to do with - and yet have been seriously disrupted. If you would like me to be clearer, I was thinking Pixelface, and Catchpole re tv, and a whole hoard of D&D sock/anon vandals. --Jack Merridew 08:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I never said I was trying to calm things down; that is not what was needed there. I was trying to clarify things, which I think I succeeded at. --Jack Merridew 13:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Facts-on-wiki; visit an article in one of the domains referred to and you will find a non-notability-establishing article nine times out of ten. --Jack Merridew 12:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification - 9/10 is not "all" - non-notability is an area covered only by guidelines and as I've pointed out in some AfD/VfD discussions, I have created articles that others editors (as yet) have not had an issue with, which fail that guidance - such as this, this and this, all of which techinically fail the general guideline, but I would argue strongly are for inclusion in our encyclopedia. It may well be true that 9 out of 10 articles you refer to will fail those guidleines and also I understand that following the many times you have answered questions on this subject may have had an influence on the words you chose and that I was reading you too literally.--Alf ^melmac 13:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The arguments do get old and I guess on the Nth repetition I get a bit terse. Truth is, most of the good points have been made over and over again; the problem is one of different views on what is encyclopaedic. In the end, I believe most of the pop-culture stuff will find a more amenable home at wikia - this is really part of the tin-god-king's plan to monetize his wiki-fiefdom. I've taken a peek at those links you give and while adding a few tags could be justified, I don't see the subjects as inherently unencyclopaedic and of dubious notability. Yes, such articles should have better sources, but I saw somewhere recently that one quarter of one percent of the articles are "good" or "featured". A much, much larger number of articles suck big-time and have not a snowball's chance of ever amounting to squat. Individual editors' time is limited and I'll focus on the more serious problems I see. --Jack Merridew 13:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

For better sources I would say other sources, as the Dictionary of National Biography is indisputebly one of the best sources around, as is the only book on the sieges (written many years ago and hasn't been re-worked as there is nothing more that can said on the subject). If there were any other sources, believe me I would have found them and used them. That's why, although you and I, using our own judgement can say, "yes those should be for inclusion", if we were to abide by the letter of the guideline, they couldn't be written: hence my reaction to any claims that 'all such and such are whatever'. The reaction from certain parties that I got from getting my first featured article put me off nominating any other articles I've been involved with - I can see what you are saying there about the numbers, but with my own experience in mind, I would not discount that many articles are better than good status but not recognised because of editors being reluctant to put them forward.--Alf ^melmac 16:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I should have said better sourcing, meaning more sources. I did not mean to disparage the source given - by you, presumably. And I will take your word that that is the definitive, reliable source.

I have no doubt that more than 0.25% of the articles here are good by any reasonable, albeit informal, metric. I also suspect that really large fraction amount to unencyclopaedic crap. --Jack Merridew 08:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oh boy!

I do not have a single revert regarding any fiction related content in months. NONE. You want to block me for discussing things? I got news for you: WP:CCC is part of a CORE official policy (Wikipedia:Consensus) which happens to be "Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making". TTN and others have not adequately discussed this matter prior to taking action. TTNs first 20 edits has evidence of blanking content like he is doing now.

"Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it" (Wikipedia:Consensus). Consensus means majority of opinion; a general agreement or concord; harmony if you will. I see no evidence of harmony in what TTN is doing. I want to see at least 100 people in that discussion since this involves thousands of articles, pronto. Make it 50 people. OK how about 25 people? This shouldn't be hard as some people seem to be sure of this consensus. After all smaller matters had greater participation by the community. I want to also see many users including notable wikipedians who had been on wikipedia for a while in that discussion so I know the issue is fully discussed.

How episode articles are currently handled is not in line with that QUOTE from Wikipedia:Consensus in a nutshell. The consensus comes BEFORE the policy. Not the other way around. We lack a consensus that supports episode articles and character articles are to be mass blanked.

This problem had been around for a while now and it will not be resolved so long as the community ignores it.a

-- Cat ^chi? 01:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite follow you but this might have some bearing. There is a major re-write and discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

TTNs mass blankings can only be considered OK per WP:BOLD. They become not OK the second they are reverted. Clearly mass reverting TTNs edits isn't helpful but perhaps those reverts would not have been necesary had TTN participate in discussions and seek a compromise. How many posts did TTN have on the episode RfAr? How many posts did TTN have here? Lets do a little statistic:

TTN
Namespace	Edits	Namespace	Edits
(Main)	21341	Talk	3340
User	113	User talk	1860
Wikipedia	559	Wikipedia talk	767
Image	98	Image talk	0
Template	231	Template talk	24
Category	12	Category talk	0
Move	57	Move Redirect	26

What does that mean? Now I have 40,430 total edits and I had been here for about 3 years. Wow, time flies. Anyways I have 3543 "talk" edits and 8752 "user talk" edits 6642 "wikipedia" edits and 1505 "wikipedia talk" edits. Thats 3,543+8,752+6,642+1,505=20,442 3,543 + 8,752 + 6,642 + 1,505 = 20,442. And I often discuss matters on IRC. 20442 / 12086 = ~1.69... which means for every mainspace edit I made 1.69 average talk page edits and I was a hardcore vandal fighter. Now thats just me.

As for TTN he has a total of [28,345 edits. 3,340 + 1,860 + 559 + 767 = 6,526. 6,526 / 21,341 = ~0.31 which means he has less than half an edit average per namespace edit.

Now I well know its quality not quantity but when you are blanking an article that ought to be at least worth a talk page edit. The rate he is editing is proof that he isn't actually reading the articles he is allegedly merging. I'd think it is difficult to merge an article without ever reading it.

I am sure there are many other interesting statistics that can be derived from the data I linked to on the toolserv. Something to think about before blocking I would hope. Has this guy done anything but mass removing fiction related content?

-- Cat ^chi? 02:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So now it's a penis contest? come off it. The articles have had ample time for improvement, and the content has not been lost, so the opportunity to improve the articles is still there. But in the meantime, why should we have thousands of article of cruft? There's nothing at all in many of these articles that meets ANY of a half dozen policies. We keep saying that, and all the responses amount to 'but I love that fuckin show' and 'Fuck TTN for fuckin my favorite show's episodes, now I can't relive them in my mind by reading the scripts as preserved on Wikipedia'. That's all that's in so many of these articles - fat, blow by blow plots, quotes, trivia, and citations that amount to citing the official fan book, which is sponsored by the show. Circular reasoning. TTN's got policy and plenty of support, and you've got a bigger dick, apparently, and a 'OTHERCRAPEXISTS' and "ILIKEIT' response. TTN is bringing respect to the project by reducing the ratio of episodes:other content. And for the last time, the sports analogy falls on its' face for one reason over all else: Sports are played by real people and have immediate, tangible, real world consequences in local and national economies and related news stories. ThuranX (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Penis contest! What? Oh, you were kidding. Man, don't tempt me out of retirement like that! -- Kendrick7^talk 02:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Penis mightier! I mean pen is mightier. TTN is swinging the sword not the pen. -- Cat ^chi? 17:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Bringing respect to the project"?!? Hardly - TTN might have some support for his end result (if certainly not for the manner in which he goes about doing it) bt there is also a great deal of opposition to it. One only has to talk to people who use Wikipedia (as opposed to those of us who spend more time editing it) to see that many, many people actually appreciate the easy access to information. "Fancruft" and "plot-heavy article" do not mean the same thing, and we'll never accomplish anything if we continually ignore the fact that many users want a "middle ground - detailed coverage in an environment that can ensure the real cruft - speculation, theories, and the like - is filtered out. (I, for one, have no interest in wading through fan theories, which is why I don't read the "fan" sites. For me as a reader, then, information booted off to the ""fan" wikis such as Wikia is information lost. For my use as a resource in editing the information, it is also a loss as I've neither the time nor the interest in cycling through dozens of different sites. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that he WP:NOT section about not being a steaming pile of random facts and indiscriminate information is the policy you're objecting to. So long as it's any fact about he show, we should have it. Well, if we're throwing out both NOT and NOTE, why call it an enecyclopedia at all? ThuranX (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends entirely on your interpretation of WP:NOT & WP:NOTE. TTN's understanding of these policies seems quite questionable to me, given the amount of opposition to his/her stance. And yes, it is an encyclopedia, one that is built by a community, not the place for an individual to impose his or her views on others. - PeaceNT (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bringing respect to the project huh? See, "project respect" is called reputation which in no way dictates our content. Frankly I find this "reputation is more important than content" approach very disturbing. "Project respect" doesn't seem to be a policy either. Let the Wikimedia Foundation worry about our publicity. Also do you have any evidence that Episode articles is a compromise from our "respect"? Britannica is out there you know if you desire a traditional encyclopedia restricted by paper. -- Cat ^chi? 17:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't care how much time one devotes to one area or not. Also, statistics without context do little to help a discussion like this. I always get a kick when I check my own stats, since oh-so-often I'll have a huge number of edits on one page for some very minor reason, and yet some other page I spent a huge amount of time on isn't even listed. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN isn't even bothering to discuss the mater here. What are you talking about? -- Cat ^chi? 15:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me try this one more way: Often the pro-every episode folks seem to throw out the sports analogy. I thought I'd debunked this enough when I pointed out that real people having real impacts on communities is more notable than what Joey and Chandler said to Ross in season five about his shoes. But That isn't enough, so let's try this: If the sports articles included a separate article for each game played, with a play by play, we'd be doing this for them instead. They don't, we aren't. It's the same thing - not every individual game is notable; not every episode is notable. ThuranX (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of other analogies, and plenty of other examples of how redirecting these articles can be disruptive, ThuranX. And they apply to all articles on fiction, not just television episodes and characters. Let's say I want to look up the 1995 Kevin Smith movie Mallrats. During the course of reading the plot summary, I find that Stan Lee, who played himself, as he tends to do on most occasions, coaxed Brodie Bruce into getting back with his girlfriend by using a storyline from The Vulture Soliliquy. Was there ever a "Vulture Soliliquy" in a series of Spider-Man comic books, or any other Marvel comics that may or may not have crossed over with Spider-Man? I don't know, because I don't buy as many comic books as I used to, and really didn't buy as many as I should have to begin with. I could look it up, but somebody decided it's non-notable simply because it's a work of fiction. ----DanTD (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I would like point out that this case is way above what is being discussed here. Please see this centralized discussion as well. There is currently this case, an arbcom case, several RfC's, and various other discussions taking place. A solution needs to be had to fix this and all issues need to be looked at or this will never end and more arbcom, noticeboards, and RfCs will continue to be called. --Maniwar (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)