User talk:A Nobody/Archive 5

Happy Easter!

Hello, I'm the Easter Bunny and I would like to give you this wonderful basket of festively coloured eggs to celebrate...oh, wrong holiday. Hmmm. Well, let's reconnect in April. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 13:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Winter Holiday

Hope you have a wonderful winter holiday. — Realist² 16:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you too! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Hope you had/are having a wonderful Christmas! Have a Happy New Year, as well (I am especially looking forward to 2009)! MuZemike (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I am at least looking forward to Saw V on DVD, Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection for PlayStation 3, SingStar Queen for PlayStation 2, Underworld: Rise of the Lycans, UFC 93: Franklin vs. Henderson on Pay-Per-View, UFC 94: St. Pierre vs. Penn 2, UFC Fight Night 17, UFC 95, and UFC 96. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Christmas wishes

Thank you, A Nobody, for the kind Christmas wish on my talk page the other day. :) That was very kind of you, and I hope you had a nice Christmas. Best wishes. Acalamari 17:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and I hope yours was nice as well! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Re. Incivility by an editor you had previously blocked

Hello AN. Sorry, I have been away and now it wouldn't be adequate for me to take any action against Thuran. Yes, he can be quite uncivil and aggressive sometimes. But I suggest you to report any further incidences of that behavior to another admin, or WP:ANI, as I don't log in to Wikipedia these days as frequently as in the past. Regards, Húsönd 13:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, take care! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

other discussion

Didn't mean to seem curt or evasive at the other talk page, but I hope you understand there's an appropriate time and place for these discussions. I agree with you that some other kind of RFC would be appropriate to handle TTN. We'll see what ArbCom says. But I think the best thing to do, because it isn't clear that TTN is violating a policy or guideline, is to come up with a new policy and guideline about abusing certain processes. I might suggest an RFC at WP:GAME or WP:POINT. (e.g.: "Overwhelming the AFD process with too many nominations is a form of gaming the system. Keep your nominations down to X per day / week / whatever." -- something not unlike the WP:3RR, but for AFDs.) If we assume a little good faith, I think that even TTN will abide by a policy if it's clear what the policy is. We need to have that behavioral policy in place before we start punishing people for it. Randomran (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not move my post; I will not add anything else there and will not edit war with you over it, but in any given discussion on wiki pretty much anyone can chime in if he/she feels like doing so. Anyway, my intent was not to derail your comment, but to offer another insight. I saw FloNight's comment about him not clearly violating any policies and thought it important to note that there may be tendentious editing and point violations. I strongly believe that that needs to be made clear so that we can reach some resolution now so as to prevent more of those requests down the road. I think that if we don't have something clear happen, whether it be Episodes and characters 3 or some kind of expansion of sanction, new editors will keep starting these threads against TTN at ANI and at Arbcom. If the arbitrators simply ignore them now, it will not stop them from happening again in the future. I think given that request, as well as the Rfcs on Pixelface and Gavin, enough of these issues have come to a head again where we really need one localized discussion and that because it is clear that all of us on the various sides of the fiction dispute are not necessarily compromising, we really do need arbitrator intervention again one way or the other. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We already have RFC/U's for Gavin and Pixelface, and I think that's an appropriate way to deal with edit warring. TTN hasn't been edit warring or breaking any clear behavioral policy or guideline. But I could get on board for clarifying how AFDs are meant to be used -- so if TTN crosses the line, we'll know. Randomran (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the same copy and paste nomination post he uses for litterally hundreds of different articles with varying notability is a behaviorial problem, because to be unambiguous, it is dishonest and indiscriminate. The main character of a work of fiction deserves a different nomination rationale than someone who appears in only one scene, but with TTN's nominations we see the same copy and paste rationale for both types of characters. If nothing else shouldn't the community focus on actually reaching a compromise on fictional notability before attempting to enforce one interpretation of how it should be? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, there might be a few ways to prevent perceived abuse of the AFD process. But whatever it is, we'll need to add it with consensus. I think the main issue for people is the volume of AFDs, not the reasoning. But we won't know that until we actually modify/discuss our editing policies/guidelines. Let's see what ArbCom says. But assuming they leave it to us to figure out, we ought to draw a clear policy line for TTN and say "don't cross it". To assume good faith, I think he will abide by whatever line we agree to. Randomran (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I and other article rescuers can usually do something with articles he nominates when we try. I have greatly reduced the number of AfDs I comment in since my name change, but consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auraya of the White, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Quist, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Corvin, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesogog for example. These are the TTN nominated AfDs that I commented in since my renaming (there were a couple other Underworld ones, but I can't remember which off hand, only that they had similar results to the preceding closes), i.e. in ALL of the ones that I commented in that he nominated since my rename and thus since my "new" approach to AfDs, they closed as something other than delete. Thus, I think a good deal of his other nominations, not all, but still a good deal, I could have found sufficient out of universe sources to justify at worst a merge and redirect if not in some cases a keep close. So, yeah, the volume is overwhelming, because on a volunteer site it is ridiculous to arbitrarily expect people to hurry up and improve so many articles in five days or else, but it is also the "reasoning" as well, because the exact same worded nominations can't seriously apply to over four hundred different articles and the fact that some close as delete, some as merge, some as redirect, and some as keep shows that his reasoning does not adequately address the individual articles actual merits. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think most of your concerns are fair, although I disagree with some specifics. These are the kinds of concerns you should bring up when we get around to clarifying our AFD policy, or another general behavioral policy. Let's see if ArbCom will clarify these issues. But if they don't, then we should do it ourselves. Randomran (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think we need to, because the biggest things that get me are the seemingly indiscriminate nature of the nominations, the sometimes inaccurate claims about sourcing that come with copy and paste nominations, and the shear volume. I know I can't save every article, but given a chance, I can save a good deal of them and as you can see with regards to the Underworld characters, I and Magioladitis were happy to work on a merge as a compromise which could and should have been attempted instead of a series of AfDs on characters with significantly different degrees of notability. I think that is what Collectonian's initial complait was after, i.e. instead of working with the wikiproject that was already working on certain articles, just ignoring them altogether and trying to mass delete articles when some could be saved, some merged to a list, and perhaps others deleted, but just trying for one big outcome rather than allowing for a more colloborative and less rushed process. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I might suggest a few pages: WP:GAME (at #Abuse of Process), or maybe WP:DP (we might have to create a new section). But let's wait and see what ArbCom says first. Randomran (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully they will say something, because I really see a lack of decision as keeping the door open for more of these requests there by different editors should the behavior not change. If I can avoid commenting in the number of AfDs I used to, then I do not see why it would be so hard for anyone else to. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, here's an interesting discussion. It shows that there are honest and good faith disagreements about what is or isn't disruptive use of AFD. Maybe we can't agree where the line should be drawn, but we can agree that there should be a line somewhere, for clarity's sake. Something to keep in mind as we build a consensus around this. Randomran (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The difference I see is that I have seen you argue to keep articles just as you can check in my history I have argued to delete. As I said at a recent RfA where another editor was compared to TTN, that editor has actually created numerous articles. Well, you can take people considered inclusionists, such as DGG, and find many many instances in which he actually argued to delete or as an admin deleted himself. You can find someone more inclusionist like me and someone more deletionist like Magioladitis work together on the Underworld character list. Put simply, for a good number of those on the deletion side, these editors have also worked on good and featured articles or compromised just as many on the inclusion side will not blindly argue to keep everything. With TTN, I pretty much only see delete "votes" with incredibly limited effort at article writing or development or any willingness to argue to keep, even in token instances. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on Coren's page.

Please do not mistake you and people who share your viewpoint as the community. As far as I'm concerned, with the percentage of AfD's that have closed with a merge or delete through discussion, he's been well within policy and the norms of expected behavior. You're not going to get ArbCom to stop him, or to change the policies to the more pro-fancruft material. There's other wikis for that kind of stuff. We're an encyclopedia, not a collection of random facts and fancruft regarding pop culture. SirFozzie (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The community, i.e. the thousands of volunteers who write these articles, and the millions who read them think otherwise. They are far more numerous than the vocal minority who want to impose a narrow-minded approach to what is and could continue to be the ultimate comprehensive reference guide. And WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid or academic reason for anything. --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

So, which editors are you actually talking about specifically? Saying the community as a whole shares one viewpoint or another is an empty saying, especially when there is nothing really substantial to back it up. I could say that the community as whole shares a specific viewpoint, but just because I do say that, doesn't make it true. If you said the fans of specific material share that viewpoint, then you might just have an argument, because as I'm sure we all know, a fan of a particular subject will be more inclined to write about, and expand that subject, even to the point where they make pages on every single object in the universe of which they are a fan. Lastly, as someone who refers to this document so often, you should check out WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the community as a whole does not agree on fictional notability and inclusion as there are many different views, which is why there is no consensus and hasn't been any consensus on fictional inclusion standards and why there is no argument that TTN is somehow actually enforcing a page that editors have yet to agree if it should be a policy or a guideline or an essay, although based on the number of fiction articles created, number of edits made to these articles, and numbers of readers of these articles when looking at article traffic statistics, we see a far greater number of article creators, editors, and readers who obviously believe the articles belong here versus the handful who comment for deletion in AfDs. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

2009 time!

To a good 2008 and to an even better 2009. Happy New Year! Acalamari 23:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks same to you! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New year

File:London fireworks.jpg

Hey, A Nobody/Archive 5, Happy New Year! Fairfieldfencer FFF 00:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the uplifting edit! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring?

Please refrain from using a single edit I made three months ago, reverting a change to a part of policy that was under active discussion at the time, a perfectly acceptable move under WP:POLICY, as evidence of edit warring. The revert was made purely on the basis that the section was being discussed, not out of any attempt to take a side in the mess that is the inclusionist vs deletionist discussions that happen within the [[Wikipedia:]] namespace. Such discussions sap all the fun out of Wikipedia, I'd rather steer entirely clear of them. I've had rather amicable relations with you since you came back, but to use that as evidence of alleged edit warring on the talk page of that Pixelface RFC is, put politely, rather unfair. -- Sabre (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! The purpose of citing that and the other diffs is intended to demonstrate that Pixelface is not as some seemed to imply the only editor who has been reverted for removing the Plot section from WP:NOT. You get a sense from some editors' comments as if it is Pixelface all by himself versus everyone, when in actuality from a quick look, I could identify at least four other editors who also removed Plot and were reverted by someone. I certainly would not use one diff as evidence of edit warring by you or to cast any aspersions, but rather merely to point out that Pixelface is being misrepresented as if he is the only editor who attempted to remove that section and was reverted, i.e. that the disagreement over that section extends beyond just one editor (Pixelface) as seems to be how things are being misrepresented. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Ring out the old,
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight

Thanks and same to you! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

looking for common ground

Completely separate from the behavioral issue -- because there are a lot of people who disagree, but do so without violating behavioral policies -- there is definitely the issue of finding a compromise between the inclusionists and the deletionists. I figured I'd share some thoughts in good faith, based on my own observations of the discussion you posted with User:Magioladitis.

Thus far, nobody has come up with anything more agreeable than our current policies. I don't think that's because the current policies are ideal. A lot of people, including myself, are open to changing them. But we're frequently confronted with proposals like "scrap the current policy altogether", or "build the entire article from WP:PRIMARY sources, top to bottom". With a proposal like that, can you really be surprised that people don't want to change our policies or guidelines? And in the face of those proposals, people like me end up on the same side as the deletionists. Trust me when I say that's not what I prefer. To be blunt, the inclusionists have done a poor job of reaching out to the middle. They've missed a real opportunity to peel off our support.

So back to you and User:Magioladitis. I'm not sure how his/her viewpoint would be classified on the spectrum from inclusionist to deletionist. But I think the work on User:A Nobody/Underworld characters shows exactly where the two of you found some common ground. On the more deletion side, there has to be an acknowledgment that lists are held to a different standard than articles. But on the inclusion side, there has to be an acknowledgment that there's still a standard for inclusion: I see you adding reliable third-party sources, and building a section on reception.

The compromise between you and Maglioditis wasn't just about good attitudes or behavior. Nice people can still be polarized. Nice isn't enough. The compromise happened because there were real concessions on both sides. I'm not saying the two of you represent a global compromise. And I'm definitely not saying that this is the only compromise possible. (I happen to think that timing is an issue that is ripe for compromise. Regardless of our standards, I think people across all ideologists are actually more eventualist in enforcing them. ... with the exception of obvious hoaxes and vandalism and such.) But the two of you showed how a compromise was reached in this one case, and the kinds of concessions that are necessary to get us there.

You're closer to that particular discussion: how do you think you (and Maglioditis) found common ground on inclusion principles? Randomran (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't get me wrong, my preferences are Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Non-notability/Essay and Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system, but anyway, while I would not want to speak for Magioladitis, I would say he is more on the deletionist side of the spectrum as his nominations are even similarly worded to TTN's (for example, compare Magioladitis with TTN). Yet, despite our opposing views in general about fictional inclusion standards, I think we could compromise because as you indicated we both were willing to make concessions for the good of the project and we approached each other throughout in a constructive and cordial manner. Perhaps most importantly we both were willing to work together. We both have contributed to the userfied article and after the new year have pledged to renew our efforts on it. I would be willing to support merges and redirects if those calling for them are willing to help in those efforts, i.e. not to just go through redirecting everyone else's work. I have seen you and Magioladitis argue to keep on occasion, just as I have argued to delete. Some may see these deletes as token, but hey, they are a proactive conscious effort to not appear totally partisan and one directional. Those deletionists who are willing to argue to keep show that they don't simply want to delete everything. Those inclusionists who are willing to argue to delete show that they understand that we cannot and should not cover everything. I think we both realized (Magioladitis and I) that we can cover the material in some manner that is at the same time not excessive, i.e. not numerous articles that are mostly plot based, but also that does acknowledge the individual character's relevance to a broad audience by focusing on quick summaries of the fictional histories while also including the relevant out of universe information verified in reliable sources. Thus, because we know people come here for this information and want to contribute to it, we can keep redirects in place, but have those redirects to a list that provides a clear and concise summary of the characters' plot while also including the out of universe information. I think that is a reasonable compromise. Now in some instances, some fictional characters are independently notable. Mario and Sonic have so many appearances in so many diverse media that they merit their own articles. Selene from Underworld might deserve such status as the main character in multiple films and novel, playable character in a video game, as a statue has been made of her, etc. The other characters, perhaps not so much as their notability is really focused within the fictional universe. My generally feeling with regards to notability is characters that appear in multiple media, i.e. have been adapted in say a film as well as a game and comic deserve separate articles, because their numerous appearances as covered in a character article can be used as navigational means of getting to the articles on the main works of fiction. A character who appears in only one work of fiction can be adequately covered in that one work of fiction or in a character list with other characters who are discussed in reviews as a whole. Pierre Bezukhov is a character from just Warh and Peace the novel and its cinematic adaptations, but whole books have been written analyzing just this character. As such, he merits his own article. By contrast Matt Hazard is a titular character; however, he has only one game appearance to date and so is suitably covered in the game article with a redirect. I really think that at worst pretty much everything that isn't a hoax could be redirected (even if protected redirected) somewhere and that outright redlinking for a paperless encyclopedia doesn't make much sense, but the real area where I am willing to concede is not on deletion, but on merging and redirecting and I think that is where deletionists could concede as well, i.e. "okay, I don't think we should have a bunch of independent character articles, but what the heck, why not compromise and have lists with redirects to these list, but only in the instances where we can also have at least a reception and/or development section". For the TTN related nominations, I tend to not comment in those for which they get NO results in Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, Academic Search Complete, Amazon.com, or J-Story (the five searches I usually make before commenting in an AfD) even though I think a redirect is okay in many of those instances, but I couldn't seriously claim such articles should be outright kept as I can't verify them and nor can I improve them. The problem is that Eddie Quist and Prinny among others could be verified and improved and yet had the same copy and paste nominations as those that can't. We inclusionists need to step back from those that get no hits on the five aforementioned searches (with the disclaimer that sometimes published sources exist that don't get Google hits as you may notice me typically adding non-internet sources to articles) just as deletionists need to step back when the sources are available. Not all characters should be kept or deleted and the key is to consider which should and which shouldn't. You'll note that what Magioladitis and I did was look at the individual characters and discuss what made them individual notable or not notable, rather than nominate them all using the same rationale. I think if we consider individual articles for their inidvidual merits, all make good faith efforts to look for sources, and work together to do what we can to improve articles, we'll find our compromises. I won't blindly defend articles I can't really improve and nor should others keep trying to get articles deleted that can be improved. We have to ask ourselves what really is such a bad thing about having or not having these articles? What can we all live with? Sorry to ramble, but I have other things on my mind. If nothing else, remember, “Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?”-President Abraham Lincoln of the United States of America Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's okay to ramble sometimes. I know it's a tough topic. I know you'd prefer scrapping notability altogether, or at least scrapping it for certain kinds of topics. But I'm glad you can look passed your own preferences, in order to find something everyone can live with. And I hope you understand why people disagree with you in good faith: people don't want articles that are basically unverifiable from anything but primary sources (thus failing both WP:V at WP:BURDEN, and WP:OR at WP:PRIMARY). In the case of fiction, it's also an issue of writing style: people expect more than a plot summary for something to really constitute human knowledge, rather than mere imagination. I know that's not what you prefer, but I think it helps explain the underlying interests that precisionists share with the more rational deletionists. (The others, unfortunately, are WP:IHATEIT types.)
• But don't forget there's a lot you've said that I agree with, and I think others would agree with them too. We should be willing to redirect and merge more -- and stop the keep/delete polemics. At a minimum, many topics can be covered in the main fiction article with a couple of sentences. And in "semi-notable" cases (e.g.: less than WP:N, but still more sources than nothing) we should be more willing to use lists. Of course, the fear here is that if one side says "merge", the other side is going to abuse that and push for a hard delete or keep. That's why we're going to need a guideline. If the compromise isn't written down somewhere, there's going to be mistrust on both sides.
• We should be more willing to make use of the userfication process for articles that are borderline, so long as people aren't abusing it. We should seriously think about extending the time for AFDs, give new articles more time (if they're not clear hoaxes or copyright violations or such), and maybe even a hard limit on the number of AFDs someone can put forth per week/day/somethinglikethat.
• I appreciate that you've been willing to understand the value of good research, as that's my main concern (speaking for myself and hopefully other people in the middle). Pierre Bezukhov is definitely worth including, because we can write a ton of reliablely sourced information about his development, reception, interpretation, evaluation, and so on. Matt Hazard is probably not worth including (assuming no sources exist), but then he's important enough that we could have a few sentences about him in the main fiction article even if we source it to primary sources. I also appreciate that you've been willing to delete some stuff, or at least step aside when no sources appear to exist.
• I actually don't think we're that far apart. Isn't that frustrating? I appreciate the Lincoln quote and it's something that I live by. I hope you never considered me an enemy though, because I could sense your frustration in the past. If you did, it was a testament to the climate of Wikipedia over the past year. That maybe cooler heads and good faith efforts to find common ground would work, but the size and frequency of the discussions mean that we're stuck with snappy remarks that cause people to dig in. Randomran (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think of you as an "enemy", Lincoln quote aside. I quoted him more in the sense of people on different viewpoints seeing common ground somehow. I don't really think of anyone here as an enemy, rival, or opponent. I do think a few (not you have unhealthily fixated on me and certain others which is part of why I changed names), but I think they have stepped back a bit and in some cases hope that maybe they too will eventually become at least at an agree to disagree stage or something. There are really only maybe two or three accounts that I see no redeeming qualities in, i.e. that I see no openness to compromise in any manner and deletion to the point of tendentiousness and extremism, but I don't feel like calling anyone out here, plus it's a holiday and all. A couple things that get me about the primary source thing is that the original encyclopedias had articles based entirely on primary sources that only became secondary source based when such sources became available. The philosophes only had so much to work with in a still ongoing age of exploration and all, but nevertheless thought it worth cataloging certain thing. I once posted here some confused "fact" the early Encyclopedia Britannica had about California being a peninsula or island or something or other. Thus, I see no reason why for some articles we can't rely on reliable primary sources (a published novel or theatrically released film is a reliable primary source, whereas if I wrote a novel in my userspace, well, not really worthwhile) under the realistic potential that secondary sources will become available. For characters who appear in blockbuster or major awarding winning films, one can reasonably believe that books and articles might indeed eventually comment on them and so why not start the article now just as the philosophes did in the 1700s? And when we bandy about phrases like original research not being encyclopedic, again, just look at those yearly updates to Britannica that include essays, i.e. primary source driven works with theses. Thus, in some volumes of Britannica, the oft-cited model encyclopedia, you actually have original research and primary sources as the main sources. I am not calling for us to have a bunch of essays, but there seems a lack of real understanding of what "encyclopedic" actually means. Some of what is in Britannica is okay, but not all? For me, anything that appears in any published (you can buy the book) enyclopedia including specialized encyclopedias is encyclopedic and especially for the sake of a paperless encyclopedia with crazy amounts of server space. So what it really gets down to for me is verifiability. So long as it is not made up, really, why not cover it? If someone actually finds encyclopedic value in it, what's it to me if I'd rather we focus on something else? Yet, the reality is only a handful of these fiction articles concern topics I really am trying to come to Wikipedia for, so why get so worked up over certain articles? Well, I do love knowledge. Given my profession, I do not believe in irrelevant or useless knowledge. One man's trivia's another's, well, you get the point. In any event, my ideal list of fictional subjects (characters, weapons, locations, etc.) is NOT just plot. If you see what Magioladitis and I are doing with the Underworld characters or what I did with the Nightmare Before Christmas characters, we added development, marketing, reception sections and the like. I want are lists and individual articles to have this stuff. If it is possible, then I believe we should work together to add it. If it is not possible, then I think we can generally get away with a redirect until more secondary sources become available in the future. I just think redlinking should be reserved for cases when any improvement seems totally unlikely and that we have no real expectation of anyone in good faith doing a search of the term. Anyway, it looks like Pixelface is responding politely to your reaching out to him. If Magioladitis and I can work together if you can reach out to Pixelface and he responds proactively, maybe it will be a good sign of things to come. It is probably unrealistic to hope that everyone will finally concede some points, swallow pride, forgive opponents, etc., but it's a start and is encouraging. There have been some times over the previous really years that have been downright depressing, because of the viciouness, antagonism, etc. and on all sides. I have felt chased off at times and yet even though some have arrogantly dismissed inclusionists, I asked for checkusers and blocks of editors and IPs who harassed and personally attacked deletionists as well. In the past, I felt pretty frustrated in some AfDs. Please realize that when you spend a good amount of time searching for sources on various searches and then even more time incorporating them into the articles and then going back in forth in AfDs with some who no matter what you do either are unwilling to "lose the argument" or don't care what is done, I don't know how that made me feel, especially when you see the old rapid fire per noms across multiple discussions. If you spend so much time writing an article only to see 3 or so per noms in under a minute and you know from your own searches that there is just no way that poster could have actually looked for searches, read the discussion, let alone the articles so fast, you begin to see that some just reflexively see oh it's a fictional character I haven't personally heard of or oh it's a list of characters I don't care about, just delete it. It's like what the heck? It's tiresome. But what can you do? Anyway, it's good that we're taking things in a right direction; I want to believe that people can cooperate, that people can compromise, that people are not just hopeless, that at least with knowledge we can come together for the good of us all and maybe that is something worth working at (I have had a couple of glasses on Champagne, so sorry if I'm all over the place with this one). All the best to you and your family and friends and Happy New Year! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm glad there are no hard feelings. I don't think we're ever going to see a compromise on the primary sources thing. That said, I respect your opinion. And I think some people are a little too harsh on primary sources, and I've always used primary sources to fill in gaps in coverage when I'm working on otherwise notable articles. Even if you look at the discussion between you and Magioladitis you'll see that there wasn't much debate about the use of primary sources: we need them to fill in some information about plot, and we need other kinds of sources to give us a sense of the real-world impact and history. As a precisionist, maybe I'm a little too optimistic about a middle ground. But I believe that if inclusionists such as you are willing to concede that a good fictional list needs to have more than plot and primary sources, I think you'll see many deletionists willing to settle for merges and redirects. When people meet in the middle, it's the extremes that lose, and we have to be ready to make those kinds of people irrelevant. I think people are so divided that you won't see a compromise until we document it in a guideline. I know there are some people who oppose WP:N because they hate guidelines altogether, and they see it as restrictive and bureaucratic. But I think they miss the non-bureaucratic value of writing down a kind of "social contract" between all sides. That's the danger of WP:IAR too often: when one side ignores rules to promote their agenda, the other side begins to ignore them too, and it all devolves into WP:ILIKEIT versus WP:IHATEIT. So I don't think there's much to say until we can write up a guideline. Randomran (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• No need for hard feelings. Life's too short to hold grudges and grudges don't really get us anywhere anyway. I don't know if you ever saw Gremlins 2: The New Batch, but the one guy says something in the beginning about how two people can always agree on something or something to that effect. Well, reasonable people should be able to agree somewhere. There are a few who have made statements that I don't think are really open to compromising or concedeing at all and I'm not sure what to do there? Who do you think is willing to move forward? Do the three threads currently on Gavin.collins, TTN, and Pixelface hinder amicable resolutions or are we better off trying to go with the reaching out approach as on Pixelface's talk page? Also, I might try your email (don't worry nothing bad!). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I see User:Masem as someone who is roughly in the middle, although I can't quite pin down his views. I think User:Protonk considers himself a deletionist, but I think he's guided by quality more than some ideological view about fiction. User:Phil Sandifer is a pretty tough inclusionist, but he's revealed himself to be one of the leading advocates for a compromise. I've had disagreements with all of them, some more heated than others.
• I actually think Pixelface and Gavin's RFC/Us are related, but not in the way you'd expect. Obviously, they don't share the same viewpoint. But I think you'll see some people who have taken a side based purely on partisan lines. (e.g.: one side that will excuse the behavior because they agree with the viewpoint, and the other side turning an RFC about behavior into a full out assault on their viewpoint.) I also think you've seen a lot of people who are willing to cross partisan lines, and at least begin to acknowledge that Pixelface and Gavin both pushed their viewpoint using a disruptive editing style. The people who have crossed over and said "yeah, I agree with their viewpoint, but their behavior crossed the line" -- that indicates someone who is ready to compromise. The others have fallen into a partisan mentality, where the ends justify the means, and a "good" viewpoint can justify any kind of behavior, and a "bad" viewpoint is itself disruptive just for voicing it.
• The value of the RFCs are twofold. First, it can help us separate the realists from the radicals. The people who haven't broken down purely partisan lines are the people who are guided by a principle other than inclusion/deletion. Don't worry about the people at the extremes. If the 75% in the middle agree to something, then it's the 12.5% at either end who lose the most. Secondly, finding common ground on what we all consider *bad behavior* does a lot to begin the search for common ground. I have to say, I'm pretty cynical. So I was a little surprised to see someone as arch-inclusionist as User:Casliber or User:BOZ endorsing my statement on Pixelface. I can see that there is a part of them that wasn't happy to do so, and obviously they don't endorse *every* frivilous WP:COATRACK complaint against Gavin/Pixel. But these moves go a long way to restoring the trust between the different sides of this conflict. Randomran (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think the three you mention in your first paragraph have the potential to be reasonable. I think the two RfC/U are also related to the ArbCom thread in that you do actually see some deletionists acknowledging concerns with TTN and you can see there those who are totally willing to excuse anything he does while being the most antagonistically vocal at Pixelface's RfC/U as the handful that may be unwilling to compromise and will tow the partisan line no matter what. I am not sure what we can do there or if this minority is rendered irrelevant by those on both sides who are tired of all the disputes and recognize the need for some kind of compromise. I think something we should all do is lay out where we're willing to concede, i.e. instead of haggling, just start by being honest and open as to how far we all would be willing to concede on all sides as much as I hate to think of any of us as being on a side rather than all being on the same team as it were. My concern with the RfC/U while exposing those who are purely partisan, they have the potential to make Gavin and Pixelface feel bullied, overwhelmed, etc. and it could disrupt our efforts to reach out to them. There has to be a way to say edit-warring is unacceptable without making it a total pile on. Given Pixelface's conciliatory gestures, continued jumping on his case about things prior to his recent comments to you and I could derail efforts to compromise and come to an understanding with him? In any event, we all need to recognize that we have a lot of subjective and personal opinions, who know's who if anyone is "right". Obviously someone can make a case for just about anything, but we have to look at things practically. We can never make everyone happy, but there has to be some ground where we can all stand on without too many deciding to walk away. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• We're back onto the behavioral issues. The best way to avoid the pile-ons is to focus on a proportional remedy: a remedy that fits the crime. For Gavin, that was a three month moratorium at D&D. For Pixelface, it will likely be a couple of months at policy/guideline pages (although I'd personally compromise on an exception for reverting recent edits he disagrees with) -- and for the record, I think it's a real positive step that he's already volunteering something to that effect. For TTN, I think we straight up need to ask "okay, ArbCom doesn't see a clear policy violation... but can we all agree that there's such a thing as gaming the system through too many AFDs?" I think the other people who were calling for full out bans and blocks will only make themselves look bad, but then, same thing with those who basically say "what they're doing has community support, and that makes it 100% okay". For both groups, I don't think they can have much of a role in crafting a compromise, as I think they'll taint the process with feelings with mistrust. As for building a compromise, I don't think we're going to be able to lay out how far we're all willing to compromise, even among the more trusted members of the community. I think some people *will* act in bad faith and take a hard line, in hopes that the other side makes bigger concessions. I think it's going to take some good old fashioned negotiation, but with a small group of competent, good faith actors, who advocate for their side but aren't too polarizing, and are in decent standing among their peers. ... and maybe a very wide RFC on whatever they put together. Randomran (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• For better or worse, it looks like Episodes and characters 3 is probably going to happen. I wonder if it would be best if it focused on the handful who seem unwilling to concede anything so that those who are willing to compromise and move forward can? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• As I've said since the beginning on the latest iteration of this issue... we really just need to clarify what an appropriate use of the AFD process is. Both sides have their own view. But surely there are some common sense limits we could live with, including TTN. I know I'm repeating myself, but if we draw a clear line, I'm going to assume good faith and say that people won't cross it. The problem up until now is there's been no clear line, like a 3RR, for AFDs. ... the larger fiction issue is probably best handled at WP:FICT. Randomran (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• One thing I find particularly disruptive are renominations for deletion when articles were previously kept. Barring it is suddenly proven the article was a hoax all along, if an article was kept, I find nominating until it is deleted to be pointed and counterproductive. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• You're welcome to propose a rule change at WP:CCC. I'm pretty skeptical about your chances, though. I think you'd be better off looking for things that most people are talking about at arbcom, across partisan lines. I think the volume of AFDs is one of those things, so I proposed a change at WP:GAME. But even there, it's been difficult to build a consensus. Randomran (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I sometimes wonder if it is actually even possible to build a consensus on some of these things due to so many diverse opinions as well as a good deal of obstinancy as well. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• That's why the best way for producing a consensus is the editing process. A few extremes won't really get away with much that isn't supported by the broader community. They can sometimes sneak something passed you, but it usually comes back around. You see consensus change not when everyone likes it, but when everyone can live with it. That's why the partisanship is so foolish: you can't change anything with the quarter at the extreme. You need the middle. Randomran (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Something I was just thinking about our project in general...Waaaaaay too much time is spent doing something other than actually editing articles, i.e. think of how many accounts do little more than tag/template articles, nominate or vote to delete articles they simply do not like or are not interested in, complain about each other on administrator boards, or debate on the ever evolving policy and guideline pages (as you probably already realize, a quick check of the edit history of practically any policy and guideline page shows daily changes...). For one thing, I would much rather we be a collection of articles of disputed notability than a collection of AfD discussions. It is not as if deleting these articles actually transfers into other articles becoming good or featured as a number of those who are AfD regulars do not actually try to improve articles either and every time those of us working to rescue an article within five days has to spend going back and forth with some of the extreme deltion side in AfDs means another edit we are not able to spend adding a reference to an article. Yet, we have to also comment in the discussion lest the changes not be noted. I really do not see how having hordes of discussions somehow makes us more useful and I really think something we need to do is to encourage more actual editing. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• If there's something I've learned at Wikipedia, everyone has a role to play. Some people are good with templates, some people help resolve conflicts, some people add information, and other people add research to support it. Clean-up is just part of the bigger overall picture. I think Wikipedia would be a better place if we all respected each other's different roles, and understood that these roles are going to conflict sometimes. But that we can assume good faith, and that the underlying motives are to do something positive here. Randomran (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• At the same time, we have to be realistic that some are here for malicious reasons. After all, how many thousands of vandals do we have? Just today an IP's sole edit it ever made was to vandalize a page in my userspace (see here). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• That should go without saying. But the problem is we pay too much attention to vandals on both sides. We let them contaminate the discussion, to the point that everyone who shares the vandal's viewpoint is somehow a vandal by association. I think this is a legitimate barrier to communication. If they're vandals, deal with them. Everyone else, assume good faith. It's a cardinal rule of Wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• By the way, what do you make of Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Trial? Will that have any ramifications for the fiction articles? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• No opinion really and I doubt it will have any real impact on how we handle fiction. Randomran (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• I bring it up because I notice some of those involved in the fiction debates are quite passionate about it. See for example this diff. I haven't formed an opinion yet. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey A.N., these words apply to you as well. :) BOZ (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll check it out. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

... By the way, have you seen the discussion I started here? I think there will be a lot of disagreement, but maybe we can focus on a number that we can all agree is disruptive. I'm not trying to canvass you. In fact, I'm pretty busy in January... but I'd hope you might help the discussion by posting a notice at peoples' talk pages to join the discussion -- anyone who's participated in the TTN discussion, just to be fair and balanced. Randomran (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added a comment there. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)