[WikiEN-l] WP:EPISODE

[Ned Scott]

It's really not fair to say that such users are unable to work  
together. TTN, everyone, and myself, have continued to follow advice  
about making more time for discussion and trying to help users  
understand why these articles are being removed, rather than just  
forcing the issue. This is one reason I didn't think the case needed  
to be accepted. The real reason this was an arbcom case was because of  
the very large amount of articles that were being redirected, and that  
resulting in a lot of different people getting mad. That's very  
different than trying different means of resolving the dispute. This  
situation is far from hopeless, and despite the impressions you might  
have gotten, no one wants to be at each other's throats.

-- Ned Scott

On Dec 28, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Majdan, Nik wrote:

> Just FYI for everyone, this ArbCom case has closed:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes
> _and_characters
>
> I don't follow ArbCom cases too much but was following this one as a
> frequent editor of the Scrubs TV series articles. I was surprised at  
> the
> lack of an apparent decision in this one. As I stated in AN, telling  
> the
> editors to "work collaboratively and constructively with the broader
> community" seems ridiculous to me. The case made its way to ArbCom
> because the editors were unable to do exactly that. Granted, ArbCom
> doesn't get into content disputes, but telling users to work together
> who obviously can't seems counterproductive to me. There was a  
> reason it
> went to ArbCom in the first place.	
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve  
> Bennett
> Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 6:39 AM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:EPISODE
>
> On 12/24/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>> It puts lie to the whole concept of "consensus" if a decision like
> this can swing permanently one way or the other based on whether it  
> just
> happens to be made during a week when not a lot of people are paying
> attention.
>
> Not really. Consensus is a very loose concept. Previous "consensuses"
> have been struck down on the basis that not enough people were
> involved (notably, the merger of WP:V, WP:RS etc) It wouldn't be
> unreasonable to challenge the consensus later on, if indeed not many
> people were involved.
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> This message (including any attachments) is intended only for
> the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and
> may contain information that is non-public, proprietary,
> privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under
> applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product.
> If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
> communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and
> (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message
> immediately if this is an electronic communication.
>
> Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>