Revision as of 22:57, 23 November 2007

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I've been waiting for this to make it to the Workshop so I could comment without becoming officially a party. I strongly recommend that ARBCOM endorse TTN's activities, and, with minor reservations, his techniques. He is not insulting, derisive, or belittling to his topic. He simply recognizes that run-of-the-mill episodes of Farscape and Hannah Montana cannot be notable by any reasonable definition, and not even by many unreasonable ones. He indicates his intention, and, after not receiving a single argument that is based on policy, proceeds.

He is taking care of a necessary function, and doing it in a reasonable compromise fashion between expediency and politeness. The only better approach would be to make episode summaries that don't meet some objective standard (maybe premiere, finale, or nominated for an Emmy) a Candidate for Speedy Deletion.

We have a huge problem on Misplaced Pages in the pop culture area. Pop culture is fine, but the involved editors frequently lack perspective. Sure, The Rocky Horror Picture Show needs and gets an article. But every song? My Gym Partner's a Monkey needs an article, but every episode? It took a tremendous amount of effort to get to the point that not every Pokemon character had its own article. When these things are nominated for deletion, the fans come up in enormous numbers, and the closing admin tends to go with the count, even though the keep votes are usually based on nothing more than "I like it", and the delete votes are grounded in policy. In some way, we need to get the effort involved in cleaning this stuff out down to a reasonable level, because 300 Disney fans writing articles on every character in every episode of every series on the Disney channel can create more articles in a day than any group of editors can redirect and delete if they have to go to AFD and DRV on each one.Kww (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. 0ne of the problems is the huge discrepancy between the intention of Misplaced Pages (an encyclopedia), and how it is used by many people. When you look at the most popular pages on Misplaced Pages, there are basically three categories: news, sex, and popular culture. Bizarrely, Misplaced Pages is not a news site, not a sex site, and not a fan site... To me, it is the gap between "sticking to the core of Misplaced Pages (which is already wide enough as it is)" and "expanding to include popular subjects, even if they are not strictly notable in the Misplaced Pages sense" which causes all these problems, and which inevitably puts editors on opposite sides of the spectrum on a frontal collision course. More succinctly put, it is the clash between policy and consensus. Fram (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is also not paper and if we have readers interested in episodes and chracters and editors willing to devote their volunteer time to improving factual articles that do not personally attack anyone we shouldn't turn away our readership and potential editors, because of "I don't like it" arguments. As editors work on episodes and characters, they too may edit other aspects of the encyclopedia over time as well. We should improve our project and try to catalog as much of human knowledge as possible rather than systematically destroy verifiable information put up in good faith by hundreds if not thousands of dedicated editors. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the opinion of people in favor of merges really based on "I don't like it", or rather that the articles in question currently violate WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOTABILITY/WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:TRIVIA, WP:QUOTE, etc? Isn't it "improvement" when these articles are brought in line with policies and guidelines by merging, or, in the case that there is nothing to merge, redirecting? What kind of improvement are articles exactly hoping for that simply lack any (secondary) sources? There is also this thing with[REDACTED] trying to be as "free" as possible. While trying to make[REDACTED] void of any unfree content is virtually impossible and also not desirable, there should be at least some care to not declare openhouse for detailed plot "human knowledge", which consensus has agreed is not what[REDACTED] is for anyway. Fortunately, there are other outlets for this purpose, and the longer I think about it, the more I believe that a better collaboration between them and us would be favorable for both sides and all of our sanity. – sgeureka 19:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Then instead of merging articles or nominating them for deletion, look for and add secondary sources. We shouldn't discourage people from editing verifiable stuff that they want to edit and limit our abilities when we have a rare opportunity to go farther than any paper encyclopedia ever has. Plus as many have said to me consensus changes apparently constantly. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said: How can one find secondary sources if there aren't any to begin with? If even fans are unable to find (and/or provide) such sources during "dangerous" merge/redirect/deletion discussions, how is the "cleanup personal" expected to find them? (There is also the issue of WP:V#Burden of evidence.) Someone brought up Isola (fictional city) in a recent discussion. I have never heard of it and frankly doubt its notability, but what's the right thing to do? Let only the people familiar with this topic (i.e. fans) decide what should be done? My impression is they hardly ever recommend merging/deletion (only known exceptions I'm aware of: Kingdom Hearts and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Harry Potter/Notability). And how often have I been asked during my cleanup efforts, "why do you hate fans so much?", when the association of "trim information / delete articles" and "you hate the article contributers" is completely mistaken. This whole thing, as Kww and Fram have already pointed out, is not about what fans want[REDACTED] to be (a fan site), but what wikipeda is (an encyclopedia). If you can cover your favorite subject from a real-world angle backed up with reliable secondary sources, you can cover even the most obscure fictional topic without ever being threatened of deletion, even if that sometimes means you have to cover all of it in one article instead of ten. – sgeureka 20:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There are enough sites like E online IMDB.com, tv.com, etc, that have generally verifiable information for episodes and all anyone has to do is watch an episode to see if what we have in our articles is true. I wholeheartedly agree that hoaxes should not be on Misplaced Pages, but if we operate on consensus then obviously the fact that so many editors are willing to edit episode articles must be proof that we do not have consensus that these articles should not be here. Not all editors want to spend time on AfDs (how many AfDs have a half dozen or so participants versus the scores of editors who actually worked on the article?) or ever-changing policy discussions (it is hard to cite policies and guidelines when they too are edited just about if not every day and their talk pages suggest a constant evolution in opinion and interpretation). We should do our best to fight vandalism and nonsense, but sometimes "primary evidence" is what encyclopedia writers have to turn to. When I get the book of the year from Britannica it will likely have some items on current events issues, for example; well, to a historian a newspaper article can be a primary, not a secondary source, an official government release can be a primary source, etc. Having an article on an episode that is likely to at least have a mention in say Entertainment Weekly and/or TV Guide and which thousands of viewers watch on its original airing, when it is re-run, appears on DVD, etc. gives the episode notability. We need to encourage editors to not shy away from printed sources and we definitely should not diminish our project by only worrying about select articles when our contributors and ready and willing to improve a multitude of topics. Do we really want to just be a repeat of other encyclopedias or do we want to give our readers the real fulfillment of cataloging the sum of human knowledge! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)