User:Ned Scott/arbcom
User_talk:Pixelface#A word of warning
General
TTN has been pretty much spot on with his deletions though. Empty articles written using a standard template and containing about two lines of useful text being redirected to a main episode list page is policy. Nick 08:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
TTN, the job you're doing is one that needs to be done, but some of the above quotes show you could perhaps be a little kinder? Neil ╦ 12:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Kinder, perhaps, but experience shows that fans will not accept anything less than an article per episode, so sometimes being blunt just saves time. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Pee-wee%27s_Playhouse_episodes#Episode_notability I support TTN's proposed actions. These episodes are definitely non-notable. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Galadree-el [1], [2], [3], [4]
- I think one of the reasons TTN is so aggressive with reverting is because he's mindful of filibustering, as well as less thought out knee-jerk reactions that some editors have when they see such articles redirected. To stop for every revert, even if you just count all episodes in a given group as one, could potentially make the process very time consuming. (which is a partly of why past cleanup wasn't all that successful). This is easy for us to identify on a small scale, but it gets harder when people see it happening to a large group of articles. "Edit warring" is a bad thing, yes, is it edit warring to revert once or twice over a given period of time, when those reverting on the other side have provided no reasonable argument to the original redirection/merge argument? By some definitions, yes, but regardless, the solution is not to say "edit war bad" but to give an alternative. We need guidance on how to assess these situations, on when to stop for discussion, and when to undo those knee-jerk reactions.