Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration‎ | Naming Conventions

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elonka (talk | contribs) at 20:51, 18 December 2006 (→‎Admin Radiant!: - added diffs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Elonka

Yaksha has been engaging in non-consensus page moves

Throughout this process, Yaksha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been escalating tension by engaging in hundreds of page moves, the vast majority of which were without any attempt at RM procedures or any kind of prior notification on the affected pages.

Sockpuppetry concerns: The Yaksha account was being used almost entirely for page moves and engaging in naming discussions, with little other activity [2].

  • November 10, ~50 moves
  • November 11, ~90 moves
  • November 13, ~70 moves
  • November 14, ~65 moves
  • November 17, ~45 moves
  • November 18, ~100 moves
  • November 19, ~95 moves
  • November 20, ~95 moves
  • November 21, ~30 moves
  • November 22, ~60 moves
  • December 6, ~55 moves
  • December 11, ~25 moves

Reminders of procedure and requests to Yaksha to stop moving articles, from:

Yaksha's replies, showing a fundamental misunderstanding of RM procedure:

  • "A complaint doesn't make a move controversial." [5]
  • "I'm not planning to stop." [6]
  • "Not all page moves have to go through Requested Moves" [7]

Other disputants were encouraging Yaksha to continue:

  • December 7, Administrator Radiant posted to Yaksha's talkpage during this process, saying, "Keep up the good work" [8]
  • December 7, Milo H Minderbinder encouraged Yaksha to continue to get the moves done as quickly as possible [9]
  • December 8, Wknight94 praised Yaksha as a potential "future administrator." [10]

Administrator Wknight94 has been engaging in non-consensus page moves

Wknight94 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) moved many articles, most without any type of RM, and some in direct contradiction of a "no consensus" close.

Timeline:

  • September 10, I (Elonka) filed an RM to move Fire + Water to Fire + Water (Lost).[11]
  • September 17, Wknight94 participated in the RM discussion to strongly oppose the move, and threatened that he was "tempted to start going through undoing those unnecessarily disambiguated titles." [12]
  • Two days later, Wknight94 proceeded to engage in multiple such moves, without discussion or any attempt at RM:
    • September 19, approx. 65 moves [13]
    • September 22, approx. 80 moves [14]

Wknight94 and Ned Scott were engaging in a pattern of harassment

Before this naming dispute, I had no areas where my edits and those of Wknight94 overlapped, and the only place where Ned Scott and I overlapped was in television articles. After the dispute at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) started on October 30, Wknight94 and Ned Scott began showing up at multiple places on my watchlist, sometimes with abusive behavior:

  • November 2
    • 03:19, Shortly after I'd posted an unrelated comment, Ned Scott shows up at Centauri's talk page [18]
    • 20:58, Ned Scott shows up at my mother's bio. [19]
    • 21:49 Ned Scott shows up at articles related to a podcast that I'd co-hosted:[20]
    • 21:50 Ned Scott deletes one of the articles by turning it into a redirect [21]
  • November 3
    • 01:50 Wknight94 shows up at pages about my company's products [22][23]
    • 02:09 Wknight94 shows up at unrelated IGDA article: [24]
    • 02:12 Wknight94 shows up at a stub that I created several months ago: [25]
    • 02:18 Wknight94 shows up at my bio: [26][27]
    • 02:24 Ned Scott returns to Centauri's talk page [28]
    • 02:32 Wknight94 shows up at an unrelated AfD that I'd started on Different Spaces: [29]
    • 03:18, I post at Centauri's talkpage about what appears to be stalking. [30]
    • 03:34, Ned Scott deletes my post off Centauri's talkpage and moves it to User talk:Elonka. [31]
  • November 7
    • Ned Scott posts a comment at the Village Pump that I was "distorting reality in order to gain sympathy,"[33] I reply with links to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, stating that Ned's language was unhelpful [34]. Wknight94 then chastises me at my talkpage about not understanding WP:NPA. [35]
  • November 9
    • Wknight94 deletes another of my prod tags at unrelated The Junior Varsity, this time with a less-than-civil edit summary [37]
  • November 13
    • Wknight94 shows up at an unrelated AfD on Chiodos, [38] [39]
    • 02:41, a {{spa}} account nominates my mother's article for deletion (note that this is an article that I've never edited) [40])
    • 04:35, Ned Scott shows up as the first person to vote "Delete". [41]
    • 20:44, Wknight94 shows up.[42]
  • November 14
    • Wknight94 says that I was "wasting everyone's valuable time," that I'd "whipped everyone up into a frenzy" and that I should, "Stop disrupting." [43]
    • In another post, Wknight94 says, "She's accused me and others of sockpuppetry, stalking, admin status abuse, personal attacks, harrassment, poll tampering, and incivility (I probably left out a few) and called almost everyone on that page a "madhouse" - all while returning only long enough to post one inflammatory comment per day and ignore everyone's responses. All of this after moving pages and intentionally blocking move reverting with minor edits... but me calling all of that disruptive is the problem you hone in on?". [44]
  • November 22
    • In a "stir the pot" post, Wknight94 posts a diff to Radiant's talkpage [50], implying that I was talking about Radiant at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy[51]
    • In an example of great irony, Wknight94 posts at Yaksha's talkpage, accusing other people of stalking. [52]
  • November 24
    • A few minutes after I post, Wknight94 shows up at Rebecca's talk page[53]. Note that he tries to cover his behavior with the comment, "I don't know how this got on my watchlist" [54]
    • When I proposed new poll wording at the Naming conventions page, Wknight94 said it would be disruptive and a violation of WP:POINT to ask a question which had "already been covered." [55]. When I told him at his talkpage that repeated accusations towards me could be considered a personal attack, he responded by posting a personal attack warning at my talk page, with the edit summary, "I did not attack therefore your attack is an attack." [56]
  • November 27
  • November 29
    • Wknight94 continues to argue with me about shopping malls, now threatening that he might be adding {{unref}} tags to all the Lost articles unless I change my stance. [59]
  • December 1
    • Wknight94 places a warning on my talkpage that I was threatening people with blocks [60] (this was in response to this post I'd made [61])
  • December 3
    • Wknight94 challenges several articles in my family tree: [62]
  • December 4
    • Wknight94 accuses me of "blatant lies." [63]. In this post he also incorrectly stated that Jimbo had removed a great deal of info from one of my articles, but I would point out that I never edited that article.
  • December 5
    • Wknight94 shows up at another unrelated AfD: Fatlabs [64]
    • Wknight94 gives me a 3RR warning [65] (he issued no such warning to others involved in the same dispute, such as Ace Class Shadow). And yeah, I'm not proud of doing three reverts, but I think a certain amount of frustration at this point is understandable.

Argash's October 30 poll at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) was rendered invalid

The results of a poll have been cited quite often as "proof of consensus." However, both the wording of the poll, and its results, were heavily manipulated. "Votes" were deleted and copy/pasted, the poll's wording was changed multiple times, the number of options was changed back and forth, and multiple complaints were generated that it was changed into a "stacked deck":

October 30

  • October 30, 14:37, RfC started by Argash. It was in good faith, but without prior agreement on wording.
  • 19:49, Argash's RfC changed into a "vote" structure by Izzy Dot.
  • 20:02, Ned Scott indicates confusion and asks for changes
  • 20:14, Elonka makes adjustments[66][67][68]
  • 20:53, TobyRush adds to the poll's list of pro's and con's
  • 22:49 Wknight94 refers to the poll as a "binding vote"
  • 23:24 Nohat adds several more pro's and con's
  • 23:49 Elonka adds to the pro's and con's
  • 23:51 Nohat posts a comment in the middle of the pro's and con's
  • 23:57 Izzy Dot deletes some "oppose" comments

October 31

  • October 31, 00:02 Izzy Dot calls it, "Excessive, wimpy, flip-flop and otherwise bad voting" and suggests that options in the poll be merged.
  • 00:23 Nohat adds more "con's", and posts comments to disagree with more of the "pro's".
  • 00:29 TobyRush comments that Nohat's additions seem to be questionable
  • 00:37 PKtm (who has not participated in the poll) posts that it seems to be becoming slanted, with a "stacked deck" appearance
  • 00:46 Izzy Dot completely removes all the pro's and con's, calling it "deck stacking bias"
  • 00:49 Josiah Rowe rephrases one of the poll options
  • 00:51 Nohat protests the removal of the pro's & con's list
  • 00:55 Argash indicates support to merge some of the poll options
  • 01:00 Elonka recommends that we "stick with the poll as it's structured, rather than making quick course changes"
  • 02:11 Ned Scott changes the wording of the poll options
  • 03:17 SigmaEpsilon posts, and asks in his edit summary, "Please leave time for other editors who can't check WP every hour."
  • 07:59[69] Izzy Dot completely reworks the poll, deleting several votes, and switching it from three options to two, with the edit summary, "this has gotten out of fucking hand!" He says that he has "removed the stupid votes for multiple policies and 'opposition'".
  • 08:07 Ace Class Shadow changes the poll wording (adding the word "always")
  • 08:39 Peregrinefisher protests the way that votes are being moved around
  • 08:43 Ned Scott reverts to an earlier version of the poll, with edit summary, "rv, what the hell?"
  • 08:55 Ned Scott restores a vote by MatthewFenton which Izzy Dot had removed
  • 10:54 Shannernanner pastes in other people's "oppose" votes
  • 18:19 Nohat switches his "oppose" to "support" [70]

November 1

  • November 1, 00:37 Elonka adds examples and tries to clarify section headers by re-adding the numbers that were used at the beginning of the poll
  • 00:46 Josiah Rowe changes poll wording (adding the word "always")
  • 02:29 Chuq protests that his vote is now under an option that he didn't want to vote for
  • 05:28 Ned Scott changes poll wording again, apparently in an attempt to revert to an earlier version. He also removes several "oppose" votes, and then accuses Elonka of being the one to change the poll [71]. He says that if anyone feels strongly enough, "we should restart the whole thing."
  • 06:42 Josiah Rowe admits to possibly adding to the confusion
  • 08:09 Ace Class Shadow tries to untangle how the poll is supposed to be working
  • 08:40[72] Nohat adds more poll wording to "clarify" what support and oppose votes mean.
  • 16:33[73] Josiah Rowe indicates his opinion "based on recent clarification"
  • 16:48 Argash posts that he is confused about the poll, and recommends that it be re-started because changes have been "scewing the vote" on a poll which was "started prematurely anyway before the options were fully discussed"
  • 17:41 TobyRush attempts to clarify the poll wording, and agrees that we "started the poll a little soon"
  • 17:49 Shannernanner agrees that it would have been good to clarify a format for the poll and stuck with it, "instead of changing it so many times, muddling the consistency of the votes. I believe several of the votes for the disambig appendages are meant as oppose votes for the first option."
  • 18:04 Nohat tries to untangle who voted for what and when
  • 20:19 Elonka tries to revert the poll to wording from an earlier version [74]
  • 20:36 Jay32183 complains about the "new" wording
  • 20:56 Ned Scott reverts to an earlier version of the poll
  • 21:00 Ned Scott says there's a "clear consensus."
  • 21:16 Wknight94 objects to restarting the poll, and makes an accusation of a "stalling tactic"
  • 22:47 Nohat reverts the poll wording

November 2


November 3

  • 17:57, Wknight94 starts a section entitled "Consensus?" and suggests concluding the discussion (note that this is only 3 days after the poll was started)
  • 20:52 Josiah Rowe claims "broad consensus", and that the only dissenters are Elonka and Matthew [75]
  • 21:04 Netoholic disagrees

November 6

  • 21:10 Wknight94 starts quoting the poll numbers, saying that the situation is "already resolved 24-7"
  • 21:27 Josiah says that there is broad agreement, with a few vocal opponents "who have not sufficiently justified their arguments" or provided "fully reasoned objections" [76]

November 7

  • 07:07 Elonka suggests archiving the old poll and starting fresh.
  • 07:39 Ned Scott calls the idea "absurd", and says that the poll's results are valid
  • 11:00 Anpony calls the debate "a question of endurance" and claims supermajority
  • 12:27, Wknight94 supports the poll results and calls Elonka "disingenuous"
  • 17:06 Josiah disagrees with the idea of a new poll, saying, "Discussions have been made, opinions have been stated, and all but two active participants have agreed on a solution"

November 9

  • 19:10 Elonka again recommends getting rid of the old poll, and creating a new poll with wording that's agreed on beforehand.
  • 19:49 Peregrinefisher agrees that a new poll that's not confusing is a good idea
  • 20:11 Wknight94 objects to removing the old poll, but says it's okay to start a new poll with new questions
  • 20:43 Chuq disagrees with proposed wording for new poll
  • 21:15 Josiah Rowe thinks a new poll is a waste of time

November 10

  • 09:23 Argash tries to get caught up, and comments that the discussion has "exploded".

List of involved parties

Though only a few names were listed in the ArbCom request, the actual list of involved parties is much longer. As a very rough breakdown of their stands on the naming issue:

  • The "enforce WP:DAB at all costs" group
They tend to post rapidly and multiple times per day, are against any kind of compromise, are mostly against mediation [77], and against running a new poll. They want to "enforce" WP:DAB guidelines to the point of moving thousands of articles, usually without any attempt at RM procedures, and without acknowledging the objections of other editors. They generally refuse to negotiate in good faith, have routinely escalated the conflict with incivility, personal attacks, and non-consensus moves, and argue about nearly every single detail, even disputing whether or not there is a dispute: [78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93]
Wknight94, Ned Scott[94], Ace Class Shadow, Yaksha, Milo H Minderbinder[95], Serge Issakov, BlueSquadronRaven, Jay32183
They feel that disambiguation guidelines should be followed, but are generally able to present their opinions in a civil manner, and in most cases have tended not to engage in the unethical tactics of the above group:
Anþony, Brian Olsen, Josiah Rowe, Chuq, Radiant!, Nohat, Shannernanner, Wikipedical, Fru1tbat
  • The "Let the WikiProjects decide their own guidelines" group:
This group believes that each television series WikiProject (or other group of interested editors in a centralized location) should be able to choose a naming system which makes the most sense for their set of articles.
Elonka, MatthewFenton, Riverbend, Argash, EnsRedShirt, PeregrineFisher, Huntster, TobyRush, JeffStickney, Tango, Cburnett

Note that the above is not a comprehensive list of all editors who have participated in the discussion, and there is probably room for debate as to which group that a few of the names should be in. I have also left off several names (on both sides of the debate) who had only minor participation. But it does give a rough idea of who the major players have been.

Controversial moves were causing disruption in many areas around Wikipedia

The hundreds of non-consensus moves in many different categories were a violation of WP:POINT, and caused edit wars, move wars, and general disruption in several different areas.

(diffs being gathered)

  • Ned Scott claiming that the moves weren't disruptive, but that the people complaining about the moves were the disruptive ones [96]

Improper behavior by administrators (section in process)

Wikipedia admins are expected to set a good example of behavior. They are also expected to take actions to de-escalate disputes, rather than intensify them. However, a few admins in this dispute exhibited very questionable judgment, with routine violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and threats to abuse their admin access to advance their position in the dispute. Some of them also exhibited profound misunderstandings of Wikipedia procedure.

(diffs are in the process of being gathered)

Admin Wknight94

  • Claiming that incivility was proper as a response to "passive incivility" (Wknight94)
  • Incivility and personal attacks against other editors [97]
  • Harassment (see Wknight94 section above)
  • Accusing someone of disruption and violating WP:POINT for trying to run a fair poll, or for even trying to discuss a poll [98][99]
  • Making hundreds of controversial page moves without going through WP:RM, and sometimes even in violation of a "no consensus" close (see Wknight94 section above)

Admin Radiant!

  • Engaging in controversial moves without going through WP:RM [100][101][102][103]
  • After responding to a request at the Village Pump to offer an opinion, and being an active participant in the discussion [104], then tried to make a claim of being an informal (and neutral) mediator [105]
  • Using admin tools to protect/unprotect a page where the admin was actively involved in the discussion [106] [107]
  • Deleting an RfC off of a page [108]
  • Trying to make direct changes to the Wikipedia:Consensus guideline to support his position in both the Naming Convention dispute, and this ArbCom case. [109][110]

(section in process)

  • Putting heavy reliance on a poll that was clearly flawed, rather than just scrapping it and running a clean poll [111]

Evidence presented by Wknight94

Minority engaged in passive incivility (fueling active incivility)

While Elonka's claim of incivility may be true in some cases, it was often caused by passive incivility where she and MatthewFenton (talk · contribs) would flatly ignore well thought out suggestions and counterarguments. A chronological example:

  1. Josiah Rowe (talk · contribs) makes a very nice post summarizing the overall argument for making convention exceptions and why each is flawed [112].
  2. Numerous people commend Josiah for capturing the essence of the dispute and make further comments [113][114][115][116][117][118].
  3. As can be seen here, neither Elonka nor MatthewFenton make a single comment in the section. It is ignored.
  4. Instead, the only posts from Elonka over the next several days allege disruption [119], call for a new poll and deny consensus [120].
  5. Her call for a new poll is again refuted [121][122][123].
  6. Again, the refuting arguments are ignored and discussion drifts into other matters.
  7. Suddenly Elonka reappears and goes past suggesting a new poll and actually proposes wording for the poll as though no one had argued with her in the first place [124].
  8. Maintaining extreme patience, Serge Issakov (talk · contribs) asked for evidence that a new poll was needed [125], Josiah Rowe pointed out that discussion made a new poll unnecessary [126], Ned Scott agreed with Josiah [127], I suggest actively looking for people who feel they were misrepresented [128], Ace Class Shadow (talk · contribs) says he contacted some of them already but got little response [129].
  9. Elonka replied to Serge's call for evidence [130] but nothing else. No reply to Josiah or to my suggestion for how to prove her point. Instead she repeated that the old poll was bad and a new one should be run.
  10. Still ignoring everyone else, Elonka appealed to Serge directly to stop moving pages [131].
  11. It should not be surprising that Serge lost his patience at this point [132], two weeks after the RFC. It immediately became an incivility accusation [133].
  12. I directly repeated my suggestion for proving her case [134] and Serge agreed [135].
  13. We're both ignored. I repeated my suggestion several days later [136]. Again ignored.

This cycle has been repeated in other forms for the last six weeks. Even the MedCab advisor has stated that consensus was reached long ago [137][138][139] but has been thoroughly ignored by Elonka and MatthewFenton.

Lost episode naming guideline was not by consensus and claims otherwise were not retracted

Claims that Lost titles with (Lost) dab tag were the "agreed-upon title, per unanimous mediation..." [140] have proven false. There is no verbiage at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes regarding episode article names. The lack of discussion is confirmed by an editor that agreed with her points in the mediation but disagrees that the episode naming convention was discussed [141] and also disagrees with her stance on this dispute.

Despite this, the false claims of consensus have not been retracted.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles episode naming guideline was not by consensus and claims otherwise were not retracted

Despite multiple claims [142][143] that multiple editors went through multiple iterations to reach the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle episode naming guideline, the evidence [144] shows that a single editor had a preference and made a single edit to indicate the preference with no discussion. Request for confirmation by the consensus claimant [145] has not been answered to date.

Despite this, the false claims of consensus have not been retracted. Instead, the claim at WP:ANI [146] was made just seven minutes after the lack of consensus was known to the claimant [147].

Elonka and MatthewFenton intentionally blocked return moves

Sysop privileges will be needed to see this since the move blocking history has since been deleted

Elonka and MatthewFenton (talk · contribs) were engaged in move wars over Lost articles. For several of the moves, they intentionally made inconsequential edits to the resulting redirect to prevent the moves from being reverted. Worse, some of these are dated after 2006-11-02 when Ned Scott (talk · contribs) brought up the move blocking issue [148] (Ned also blocked page moves but admitted to it without provocation):

Although Elonka's second edits could be construed as legitimate, they appear to be the only examples where she made a second edit that merely added a template. This includes a move done two days earlier [149] and every move since.

MatthewFenton was less subtle about the move blocking making the intention of both very clear. His second edit in Special:Undelete/Whatever the Case May Be from 2006-10-29 was a useless white space change and his two edits to the same page on 2006-11-18 did not include a move so two edits weren't necessary at all. Since then, MatthewFenton has blocked other moves - even some not related to Lost - but I cannot find examples before October so it was apparently learned from Elonka.


Elonka misunderstands harassment guideline (rebuttal)

Elonka's harassment section here [150] is pointless. I readily admit to checking her contributions from time to time. First, she moved the current dispute to so many locations (as Josiah mentioned [151]) that everyone had to watch her contributions so they could keep up (I was often last to catch up so I'm not sure why I'm being singled out). Second, the harassment guideline says:

This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy

...and her edits above show me pointing out various lapses in etiquette and policy on her part and others', WP:NOR (as previously pointed out by Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs)) [152], WP:CSD (not even referring to her) [153], WP:NPA [154], WP:HA (again not even referring to her) [155], WP:3RR [156], WP:PROD [157], {{PRODWarning}} [158] (she has subsequently passed on that knowledge to other users [159]), WP:RS [160], as well as blatant misrepresentation [161], unfounded allegations [162][163], and making intimidating threats of blocking [164]... Frankly, someone claiming they want to be an admin some day [165] showing so many lapses in Wikipedia etiquette, guidelines, and policy in such a short time is quite shocking. Comments made at her RFA, etc. show further issues related to WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and WP:V [166][167][168][169][170] (re: blatant vanity article on Simple [171]). She's drawn the ire of Danny (talk · contribs), longstanding admins Rebecca (talk · contribs) [172] and Radiant! (talk · contribs) [173], and I'm willing to bet Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) removing references at Elonka's mother's article [174][175] isn't a chance encounter. She has even been briefly indefinitely blocked [176] so I would think she'd welcome some guidance. MatthewFenton has also been blocked numerous times for disruption and edit warring [177] so someone may want to assist him as well.

Considering most of her evidence is focused on me when numerous other people were involved in "her articles" [178][179][180][181] (not even counting user talk pages), I wonder if the WP:HA arrow is pointing in the wrong direction. For a better example of WP:HA violation, specifically the "User space harassment" portion, note Elonka's propensity for leaving frivolous warning templates on people's talk pages [182][183][184][185][186].

Evidence presented by BlueSquadronRaven

Elonka provides summary of discussion showing insufficient support.

Elonka provided a summary of the discussion and the positions of those participating. The positions stated show, at best, a consensus to not disambiguate episode article titles needlessly, or at worst, no consensus for going against WP:D, even as an exception granted to a WikiProject. This summary was posted after the supposedly tainted original poll. [187]

Elonka continues to push for a new poll

Despite being well aware of the views held by those in the discussion, Elonka continues to push for a new poll to determine final consensus. [188],[189],[190]

Elonka recruits others to participate in a new poll

Elonka actively recruits those who share her opinions to try and sway any discussions or new poll that comes about, over and above the discussion. [191], [192]

List of involved parties (rebuttal)

In response to Elonka's description of me above, I would challenge her to point out where I have enagged in non-consensus page moves. Also, I object to it being said I am against compromise, as I have actively sought out rational, in depth explanations for the opposing point of view. [193] [194]

Elonka's evidence constitutes incivility.

By painting a swath of editors with a large brush in saying they "refuse to negotiate in good faith", bth here and on her talk page [195], this follows counter to WP:AGF.

Evidence presented by Yaksha

All page moves made to remove unneeded disambiguation were supported by consensus

This poll clearly shows 80% supermajority for disambiguating only when needed.

The following three Request Move show consensus for actively moving articles to correct their naming:

Nearly a dozen editors in this dispute have helped with the article moving at some point, while there are 2-3 editors (including Elonka) who keeps insisting there is no consensus, and even engaging in reverts.

Independant individuals who edit the affected articles have supported the moves [196] [197] [198]. This shows the consensus is not just amoung those involved in this dispute, but that the "Disamgibuate only when needed" is something that is sidespread across wikipedia.

A summary compiled by Elonka herself [199] also supports the existence of this consensus.

The results of the initial poll conducted in the RfC were valid (rebuttal)

The intial poll conducted in the RfC [200] showed an 80% supermajority support for "disambiguate only when needed".

The poll was altered a few times when it was run, leading Elonka to claim that the poll was invalid.

This claim is not true. Wknight94 contacted the other 25 people who voted "support" on the poll [201], and asked them to come and confirm their vote. Almost everyone came and posted onto this talk page section, not a single person said they believed their vote was mis represented. Meaning we did indeed have 26 people voting "support" for "disambiguate only when needed" in the poll.

Claims that there was 'consensus' to deliberately ignore naming conventions have been false

Elonka makes a lot of claims to show her point of view is correct, however, upon further investigation, these claims often turn out to be misleading and/or just incorrect.

  • Elonka claimed "In the case of Star Trek, this is something that's been debated among the Star Trek editors, and they came up with their naming system. I've read their discussions, and I am prepared to respect the decisions that they made" [202]. After some investigation, it turned out the entire Star Trek naming convention of always disambiguating was started by one individual [203]. This one individual later explained his reasoning as "Basically, the majority of episodes do not exist and episode lists have been plagued with pointing to incorrect articles. To save from constantly having to care/worry that a link will point to the wrong article, I posed the naming convention above. This way, the probability of hitting a wrong article is extremely near zero" and "If an article for an episode exists, then I don't have a problem with moving it to remove the "(TLA episode)" provided the redirect stays put so "TITLE (TLA episode)" is still a valid link" ([204]).
  • Elonka claimed that in the case of TMNT episodes, "The naming system for TMNT episodes has gone through multiple iterations, and the editors here arrived at a consensus for the current "consistent suffix" system" [205]. This turned out to be false. The naming system was in fact just one guy who made one edit back in Feb.
  • Elonka claims always disambiguating the LOST episodes was something that was agreed on in the LOST mediation case earlier this year [206]. However, other individuals involved in the LOST mediation have disputed this claim [207]. The mediator himself [208] later confirmed that such a consensus never existed, and the topic of article naming was never even discussed as part of the mediation.

Elonka has been engaging in disruptive and stalling behaviour

Elonka seems to have been attempting to 'stall' by accusing other editors of breaking policies. Almost all of these accusations have been baseless.

  • Elonka asked for me to be blocked for making moves [209] without going through Request Moves. However, after i did take an article move to Request Moves [210], Elonka demanded a speey close [211].
  • Elonka has been actively reverted edits and moves [212] [213] on the claim that they're been made without consensus, and that we're not respecting the wishes/opinions of the local editors on the articles. This is against WP:OWN. Also, the 'local editors' on the articles have been more often than not supportive of the page moves [214] [215] [216]
  • Elonka has been making claims of sockpupptery against a number of individuals in this dispute [217]. This claims have all turned out to be without evidence. For example, her claim against me is based on the fact that "nearly all of your wiki-time has been spent on moving articles and participating in the Naming Discussions issue" [218]. This claim is very misleading, and i'd say Elonka herself knows it. Only a few hundred of my nearly 5000 edits is involved this naming dispute, and i'd already had several thousand edits before this entire dispute begun.
  • She has also been directly threatening people with blocks [219], and has not responded nicely when asked to stop
  • She has been accusing individals of stalking and harrasment [220], even though it's very reasonable for someone involved in the dispute to have all pages relating to the dispute on their watchlist, and would therefore be actively reading them
  • She takes comments out of context and quotes them in misleading ways. This went so far that a member of the MedCom had to personally post onto Elonka's talk page to clarify his comments (which really didn't need any clarification in the first place) [221].

Elonka seems to misunderstand what a consensus is

I wasn't planning to make such a personal accusation...but after this comment, i'm really beginning to believe Elonka misunderstands the concept of consensus. To quote: "In my opinion, if everyone's looking at it, and no one's objecting to it, that implies consensus agreement. Consensus was later confirmed when the naming convention was explicitly pointed out, and again, there was no objection, for weeks."

I'm not sure how factually correct this is, given Elonka's tendency to misrepresent facts. But regardless, this clearly shows a misunderstanding of what constitutes "consensus". Although a lack of objections may suggest that people are not unhappy with something, it certainly doesn't prove there is consensus and agreement for something.

Evidence presented by Ned Scott

Despite poll changes, valid information was taken from it

I went step by step through the edit history of the TV-NC poll and presented the results in an attempt to better understand the poll. [222] This gives a basic idea of what the poll looked like when people voted for it, and if they were aware of changes made. Despite confusion, valid and clear data was able to be taken from the poll.

WikiProjects who did or did not have previous consensus

  • Early on in the discussion it was claimed by Elonka that the episode titling was apart of the mediation case, and that it was backed by a consensus. [223] [224] However, this is not so, as seen in the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes and then confirmed by another party of the mediation case [225] [226] and the mediator himself [227]. Josiah Rowe also looked in the discussion history and could not find where it was discussed. [228]
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate was a WikiProject who previously decided to disambig always. [232] When it was brought up in discussion, participants of the project agreed to change to comply with WP:TV-NC [233] [234] No major objections were raised, and other participants even helped out in the page moves.

Evidence presented by MatthewFenton

WKnight, YakSha, misc, engage in unilateral disruptive moving without going through the Requested moves process

I've presented an example of 1 page move below per user to illustrate.

Assumptions of bad faith made by WKnight

Throughout the discussions lots of bad faith has been thrown around, I've even seen it towards me at this ArbCom.[237]

  • An example of that is me removing speedy deletion tags, these pages where tagged as CSD G6 (Non-controversial maintenance tasks such as temporarily deleting a page in order to merge page histories, performing a non-controversial page move like reversing a redirect, or removing a disambiguation page that only points to a single article.) - it is controversial and hence did not qualify under CSD G6.
  • Highly rude messages: [238]

thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated: 23:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Josiah Rowe

The discussion following the poll resulted in a consensus

Although it is very tempting to point to the 80% majority in the poll as consensus (a trap into which I myself have occasionally fallen), the poll itself did not determine the consensus. It merely indicated that there was fairly widespread support for the guideline. (The much-discussed flaws in the poll are really irrelevant, as pointed out by Yaksha and Ned Scott above.)

The key to the consensus came in the discussion that followed the poll, in particular the discussion of November 2–3. I believe that a close examination of these two days will show that a consensus was in fact reached.

On November 2, Cburnett (talk · contribs) (the originator of the Star Trek episode article naming pattern [239][240]) made a very intelligent compromise solution: encourage redirects at disambiguated titles, whether the disambiguation is strictly needed or not, but place the actual articles at titles in keeping with WP:DAB.[241]. Cburnett was one of the seven "oppose" votes in the initial poll; soon afterwards, Argash, another of the "oppose" votes, said, "This would be a perfect solution."[242] The proposal also gained support from many of the "support" voters who had been active in the conversation, including myself:[243][244][245][246], etc. Elonka was the only editor who did not find this compromise satisfactory; however, her argument was unclear and appeared to be based more on her past conflict with Ned Scott than on Wikipedia policies and guidelines.[247] At this point, her most frequent argument (seen in the diff above) was that the Star Trek article naming pattern looked "clean and professional". This argument was rejected as based solely on aesthetics, not Wikipedia guidelines. [248][249][250][251][252] The discussion was muddied by personal remarks between Elonka and Ned Scott[253][254][255][256], but apart from Elonka there seemed to be fairly wide support for disambiguating only when necessary, if redirects are created at the disambiguated title.

On November 3, Netoholic (talk · contribs) amended the guideline page [257]; he was reverted by TobyRush (talk · contribs)[258], and Netaholic restored his changes saying "(rvt, I read consensus for this addition on talk)"[259]. Attempting to forestall an edit war, wknight94 (talk · contribs) started a new section asking whether consensus had in fact been reached.[260]. (The next comment was a rather bizarre comment by MatthewFenton (talk · contribs)[261] which everyone ignored — I mention it here only because it is an early indication of a pattern of strange contrary-to-fact comments by Matthew which have been less than helpful to the situation [later examples: [262][263] — in each case, the situation is exactly contrary to what Matthew implies[264][265].]) At this point, TobyRush (talk · contribs) made a summary of the arguments to date[266] which Elonka endorsed[267]. Toby's summary indicated what the article naming solution must do, what it would be preferable for it to do, and what would be nice for it to do; he concluded that Cburnett's proposal met all but the "it would be nice" criteria. I stress again that Elonka agreed with this assessment. There was some discussion at this point about the nature of "common sense" exceptions to guidelines[268][269], which appeared to me to be resolved when Toby Rush pointed out that any exceptions should themselves be justified by a consensus of Wikipedia editors, not limited to members of a WikiProject: "In other words, if the Star Trek folks feel that they have a rationale for not following TV:NC, a consensus-building discussion should take place there. And since this is Wikipedia, we're all invited. :)"[270].

At this point, I suggested that Cburnett's suggestion had a broad consensus of support[271], and added it to the page [272]. Many editors then participated in some tweaking of my initial phrasing [273][274][275][276][277][278][279][280], but the support for the guideline was clear. However, Elonka disagreed that a consensus had been reached.[281] I replied, saying "My reading of the discussion is that there is a broad consensus for Cburnett's suggestion, with only a few dissenters (notably, yourself and Matthew Fenton). There comes a time in any policy-building process when one must fish or cut bait; I judged that time to have come."[282] These two comments, I believe, represent the moment from which all the subsequent dispute of "is there a consensus" sprang, and I take responsibility for my part in it. As I acknowledged at the time, the judgement of consensus having been achieved may have been premature, but I believe that it has ultimately been proven correct.

Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus vs. supermajority says:

In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what [consensus] does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it.

It is true that Elonka and Matthew are not the only editors who disagree with the application of "disambiguate only when necessary". Most of the others, I will assert, fall into the categories "disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection" or "don't agree but give low priority to the given issue". Elonka and Matthew appear to be in the category of "vocal and unreconciled folk" or, on occasion, those who "operate 'outside the law'." No one except Matthew has supported Elonka's arguments with any consistency, and all the moves that have gone through WP:RM since demonstrate that these two have no significant support. (See Yaksha's evidence above.)

It is not always possible to reach unanimous support for a guideline. However, if it is clear that the overwhelming support is on one side of the issue and there is no significant support for the arguments being used by the minority, there comes a time when it is appropriate for that minority to yield to the supermajority. That point was passed long ago in this dispute. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Peregrinefisher

The process was not handled correctly

The poll wasn't handled correctly, and then people used its results to run roughshod over the discsussion that followed. I don't really feel like pointing out all the individual edits that caused this, but they happened soon after the poll finished, or maybe during one of its versions. I'm not even sure which Naming conventions (television)/Archive has the original, becuase the whole thing is so convoluted. We should have started over then, and this whole thing would have been resolved long ago. - Peregrinefisher 21:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Wikizach

Findings from Mediator and Compromise Request

After much review of your statements and your links to historic events in this long-ranging dispute, I believe the first poll that was conducted reached consensus under the policy of when consensus is reached-[283]. I believe that since the first vote had a large precentage in the affirmative and while it seems only Elonka wishes to continue this dispute, the poll should be the factor here. While a few others also oppose the poll, another poll would not work, unless...Unless it could be under strict scrutiny of a mediator (not myself). A compromise in this dispute seems very difficult to reach, but it seems that at this level of mediation, we must reach one. And therefore I offer to Elonka and the others who oppose consensus that was reached (note that polls are evil [284]) that since you are in the minority, you cannot proceed this further. All must agree to the consensus, but, but! But if this dispute rages on for another week (which it most likely will) I ask that you allow me to sumbit the following to a mediator I am friends with:

Dear ----, there is currently a dispute that I have dealt with, they wish for an informal mediator to review a Survey that wish to produce. You may find the link here ---,

Cheers, Wikizach WikieZach| talk 22:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence presented by Serge Issakov

Elonka is masterful at WikiLawyering

I've been involved with Wikipedia for over a year now and have probably had more than my share of conflicts, but Elonka takes the cake for her ability to engage in highly disruptive WikiLawyering. I have never encountered anyone who comes even close to her in this respect. I think her statement on this matter and the way she presents the evidence to support it here alone speaks for itself. If time permits I will add a specific list of examples here, but, much of what she has written here and has posted at WT:NC-TV on this issue arguably qualifies as evidence of this assertion. At this point anyone reading this already sees this, or probably never will. --Serge 21:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Anþony

Parties were not "mostly against mediation" (rebuttal to Elonka)

Elonka claims in her evidence that certain editors are "mostly against mediation".[285] This obscures their reasoning for opposing the mediation and implies that they refused to engage in mediation at all or were unwilling to try to resolve the dispute. In fact, all of the editors who ended up opposing the mediation originally supported it.[286] Multiple parties decided to pull out after Elonka attempted to use the existence of the mediation itself as reason to mark the guideline disputed or not applicable[287] [288] [289] [290] and made it clear that she intended to pursue a binding remedy beyond mediation.[291]

Another party to the mediation, Riverbend (talk · contribs) also stated that he intended to oppose page moves because mediation was taking place.[292] In my response to Riverbend,[293] I noted frustration that the dispute resolution process was being used as an excuse not to engage in substantive dicussion and that I was well on my way to pulling out of mediation. However, I was strongly for mediation as soon as it was proposed,[294] because I had hoped it would further a substantitive discussion on fair terms. Instead, it simply gave us more irrelevant issues of procedure to fight over, even resulting in an edit war requiring the mediation page to be protected.[295]

Evidence presented by {your user name}

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions/Evidence&oldid=95163168"