| Revision as of 13:53, 23 November 2007 editKww (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers82,486 edits →General discussion: Endorse TTN's behaviour, with minor reservations← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:23, 23 November 2007 edit undoFram (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors248,156 edits →General discussion: I agree. This is, to put it simple, the clash between policy and consensus.Next edit → | ||
| Line 546: | Line 546: | ||
| ::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, ] needs and gets an article. But every song? ] 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.] (]) 13:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC) | ::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, ] needs and gets an article. But every song? ] 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 14:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:23, 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)