Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by Elonka

The core of this dispute is about a seemingly trivial matter: Whether television episode articles should be named in strict accordance with WP:DAB, or whether certain series/WikiProjects should be allowed to continue to use slightly different systems which they feel work better for their areas of influence.

The primary focus of this evidence section is to indicate that:

  • There was significant chaos at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) which made it difficult to follow the discussion or determine consensus
  • Multiple editors expressed good faith opposition to the proposed "majority" plan of strict WP:DAB rules, but their concerns were not listened to in a respectful manner
  • Specific editors, such as Ace Class Shadow and Ned Scott, exacerbated the situation with incivility and personal attacks. They should be cautioned to adopt a more collegial standard of behavior
  • Certain administrators, such as Wknight94 and Radiant!, expressed a poor standard of behavior, including harassment. They should be counseled to set a better example of behavior, and avoid negative interactions with users with whom they are involved in a dispute.

[edit] Yaksha has been engaging in controversial page moves

Since November 10, Yaksha (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (aka `/aksha) has been escalating tension by engaging in hundreds of page moves, the vast majority of which were without any attempt at RM procedures nor any kind of prior notification on the affected pages.

Yaksha ignored "stop" requests from multiple users: ^demon, Elonka[2], Jossi[3], Serge Issakov, Thatcher131 Wizardry Dragon

[edit] Controversial moves were causing disruption in many areas around Wikipedia

The hundreds of page moves were a violation of WP:POINT, and caused general disruption in several different areas, including:

See also:

[edit] Television series which already had written guidelines for naming conventions

Many television series were affected by this dispute. The following series in particular had specific written guidelines on how their related episodes were to use a consistent naming system. In nearly all cases, these guidelines were ignored, rejected or simply deleted without discussion by those who have been pushing through with controversial page moves:

  • Buffy the Vampire Slayer (multiple series) [7]
  • Lost [8]
  • Star Trek (multiple series) [9]
  • Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987) [10]
  • Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003) [11]

[edit] Editors who supported alternative methods of naming episode articles

The following editors indicated a preference for either consistent suffixes on television articles, or a deference to WikiProject guidelines. This list disproves the claim that there was a "clear consensus" to force all episode articles into strict adherence with WP:DAB.

Argash, Cburnett , Ckatz, DJChair , EEMeltonIV , Elonka[12], EnsRedShirt[13], Huntster , InnerCityBlues , JeffStickney , JohnnyBGood , Kmsiever , Marky1981 , MatthewFenton , Mnemeson , Netoholic , Oggleboppiter , PeregrineFisher , Psiphiorg, Riverbend , SigmaEpsilon , Tango , Tedius Zanarukando , TobyRush [14]

[edit] Editors who have been opposed to the page moves

The following editors expressed specific opposition to page moves. These disprove the claim that "no one complained about the moves."

[edit] 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 [27][28][29][30][31][32], the poll's wording was changed multiple times[33][34][35][36][37], and multiple complaints were generated that it was changed into a "stacked deck"[38][39][40][41].

Multiple editors called for a clean poll: Elonka, Matthewfenton, Englishrose, Peregrinefisher, PKtm, Argash, Josiah Rowe, Oggleboppiter, Riverbend.

However, attempts to actually start something new were repeatedly deleted off the page[42][43][44].

Timeline and additional diffs available here.

[edit] User conduct

[edit] Other examples of bad faith by Yaksha

  • Launching a major RM during a time when it was known that most of the opposers would be on holiday break [45]
  • Incivility [46][47][48].

[edit] Harassment

[edit] Harassment by Wknight94 and Ned Scott

Before this naming dispute, I (Elonka) 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 October 30, both of them showed up at dozens of pages on my watchlist with retaliatory behavior. Most of the pages had no connection whatsoever with the naming issue. Particularly abusive actions included:

  • Deleting an article by turning it into a redirect [49]
  • Deleting one of my posts off of another user's talkpage[50]
  • Deleting my posts from the guideline talkpage [51][52]
  • Ned Scott posted at the Village Pump that I was "distorting reality in order to gain sympathy,"[53] I reply with links to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, stating that Ned's language was unhelpful [54]. Wknight94 then chastises me at my talkpage about not understanding WP:NPA. [55]
  • After I proposed new poll wording at the Naming conventions talkpage [56], Wknight94 accused me of disruption and violating WP:POINT. [57]. When I told him that repeated accusations towards me could be considered a personal attack[58], he responded by posting a personal attack warning at my talk page, including a threat of a block, with the edit summary, "I did not attack therefore your attack is an attack." [59]

Additional examples of stalking and harassment are available here.

[edit] Revenge AfDs

During this dispute, multiple articles related to members of my (Elonka's) family have been nominated, unsuccessfully, for deletion (regardless of whether or not I had even edited such article). The nominators had never participated in those editing areas before, had never participated on the talk pages, never requested a single citation nor any kind of cleanup, and never attempted a {{prod}} -- they just went straight for AfD. [60][61][62]. In all cases, the noms were either spawned by editors associated with this dispute (such as Leflyman, the Lost editor who nominated Josiah Rowe for adminship [63]), or generated by a sockpuppet (such as Youngster of Germany (talk • contribs) and then garnering immediate participation from individuals in the dispute (such as Ned Scott).

[edit] Izzy Dot was discourteous

  • "This has gotten out of fucking hand!" "I've removed the stupid votes for multiple policies and "opposition".[64]
  • "Fuck no" [65]
  • "Is this guy dense or just retarded?" "Give the fuck up, you lost." [66]
  • "Hey, Elonka! *pelvic thrust* " [67]
  • [68][69][70]

[edit] Ned Scott was discourteous

[edit] Multiple editors had cautioned Ned Scott about civility

Wknight94, Elonka, Fahrenheit451, MatthewFenton, PKtm[83], Piotrus, Josiah Rowe

He usually responded by either deleting the cautions, or including counter-accusations such as:

  • "wikistalking and harassment" [84],
  • "rude and immature" [85]
  • "bullshit" [86]
  • "rm trolling" [87]

[edit] Ace Class Shadow has been discourteous

Ace Class Shadow (talk • contribs) has a long history of personal attacks and incivility, including blocks [88][89]

Other incidents:

  • Implying that sexual harassment was deserved [90]
  • A veiled "the bitch is back"[91][92]
  • "consider the possibility that you may be being paranoid. Put less wordily, I ask, are there men after you? Do the the aliens want to kidnap you?" [93]
  • Other examples: [94][95][96][97][98]

[edit] Multiple editors had cautioned Ace Class Shadow about civility

Users who cautioned Ace Class Shadow about his behavior: "Stop taunting Elonka" Josiah Rowe[99][100], Bissinger, ChrisGriswold, Elliskev, Elonka, EnsRedShirt, Doc glasgow, Ipstenu, John Reid, Kelly Martin, Madchester, Milo H Minderbinder, PKtm, Steve block, Veracious Rey

Ace's general attitude has been to ignore civility warnings as being "just talk" and unenforceable [101][102].

[edit] Improper behavior by administrators

[edit] Admin Wknight94
  • Repeatedly referring to polls as "binding votes" which should be determined by counting the numbers. [103][104][105][106][107]
  • Incivility and personal attacks [108][109][110]
  • Harassment (see Wknight94 section above)
  • Implying that a user with a good faith objections was a troll[111]
  • Issuing inappropriate warnings, including a threat of block[112][113]
  • Misunderstanding Wikipedia:Verifiability, and protesting the removal of unsourced information from an article [114][115]
  • Making false charges of disruption [116][117][118]
  • Accusing Elonka of "blatant lies." [119] while making his own false statements, such as saying that Jimbo had removed a great deal of info from one of Elonka's articles, though she had never edited that article [120].
  • Refusing to participate in mediation: [121][122]

Users who cautioned Wknight94 about his behavior: PKtm, Elonka

Administrator Wknight94 has been engaging in non-consensus page moves

  • September 19, approx. 65 moves [123]
  • September 22, approx. 80 moves [124]
  • September 24, after Administrator tariqabjotu closed an RM as "No consensus."[125], Wknight94 went ahead and moved the articles anyway [126],

[edit] Admin Radiant!

In a previous ArbCom case, Radiant! had already been identified as exacerbating a dispute by deleting a poll [127] . However, this caution has not been effective, and Radiant continues to act in disruptive ways:

  • Deleting an RfC off of a page [128][129]
  • Blocking an established user with whom he was involved in a dispute [130]
  • Posting a misleading explanation of the block at WP:ANI, leaving out the fact that he'd been involved in multiple prior disputes with the user. [131]
  • Canvassing [132]
  • Using admin tools to protect/unprotect a page where he was actively involved in the discussion [133] [134][135]

[edit] Evidence presented by Wknight94

[edit] 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 [136].
  2. Numerous people commend Josiah for capturing the essence of the dispute and make further comments [137][138][139][140][141][142].
  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 [143], call for a new poll and deny consensus [144].
  5. Her call for a new poll is again refuted [145][146][147].
  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 [148].
  8. Maintaining extreme patience, Serge Issakov (talk • contribs) asked for evidence that a new poll was needed [149], Josiah Rowe pointed out that discussion made a new poll unnecessary [150], Ned Scott agreed with Josiah [151], I suggest actively looking for people who feel they were misrepresented [152], Ace Class Shadow (talk • contribs) says he contacted some of them already but got little response [153].
  9. Elonka replied to Serge's call for evidence [154] 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 [155].
  11. It should not be surprising that Serge lost his patience at this point [156], two weeks after the RFC. It immediately became an incivility accusation [157].
  12. I directly repeated my suggestion for proving her case [158] and Serge agreed [159].
  13. We're both ignored. I repeated my suggestion several days later [160]. 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 [161][162][163] but has been thoroughly ignored by Elonka and MatthewFenton.

[edit] 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..." [164] (also [165][166]) 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 the mediator there [167] as well as an editor that agreed with her points in the mediation but disagrees that the episode naming convention was discussed [168].

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

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

Despite multiple claims [169][170] that multiple editors went through multiple iterations to reach the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle episode naming guideline, the evidence [171] 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 [172] has not been answered to date.

Despite this, the false claims of consensus have not been retracted. Instead, the claim at WP:ANI [173] was made just seven minutes after the lack of consensus was known to the claimant [174].

[edit] 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 [175] (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 [176] 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.


[edit] Elonka misunderstands harassment guideline (rebuttal)

Elonka's harassment section here [177] 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 [178]) 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)) [179], WP:CSD (not even referring to her) [180], WP:NPA [181], WP:HA (again not even referring to her) [182], WP:3RR [183], WP:PROD [184], {{PRODWarning}} [185] (she has subsequently passed on that knowledge to other users [186]), WP:RS [187], as well as blatant misrepresentation [188], unfounded allegations [189][190], and making intimidating threats of blocking [191]... Frankly, someone claiming they want to be an admin some day [192] 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 [193][194][195][196][197] (re: blatant vanity article on Simple [198]). She's drawn the ire of Danny (talk • contribs), longstanding admins Rebecca (talk • contribs) [199] and Radiant! (talk • contribs) [200], and I'm willing to bet Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) removing references at Elonka's mother's article [201][202] isn't a chance encounter. She has even been briefly indefinitely blocked [203] so I would think she'd welcome some guidance. MatthewFenton has also been blocked numerous times for disruption and edit warring [204] so someone may want to assist him as well.

For other lapses in judgment, note Elonka's removal of an AFD tag [205], edit warring at mediation removing Radiant!'s name [206][207][208]; at WP:TV-NC re: Star Trek exception [209][210][211][212]; at WP:TV-NC re: dispute tag (with MatthewFenton) [213][214][215][216][217][218][219][220][221][222][223][224][225]; at WP:CON claiming the barely-related addition by Radiant! was calculated to relate to this dispute [226][227][228]; at WT:TV-NC re: unarchiving an inflammatory unhelpful section that she herself had just archived [229][230][231][232]; also marking an extremely notable band as non-notable [233].

Considering most of her evidence is focused on me when numerous other people were involved in "her articles" [234][235][236][237] (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 [238][239][240][241][242].

[edit] Followup to Yaksha's sockpuppetry evidence

Per #Elonka has been engaging in disruptive and stalling behaviour and other statements [243][244] (including some borderline harrasing ones [245][246][247][248] and alluding to "backchannel requests for a checkuser" [249]), Elonka and MatthewFenton have made unfounded sockpuppetry claims. Additionally, I advised her to simply check my user creation log which is public record [250] which shows that I'm not hiding a secondary account. Despite that, she made the same mistake with Yaksha shortly thereafter [251] even though his user creation log shows his secondary account as well.

[edit] List of editors who support the current TV-NC guideline (rebuttal to Elonka's "Editors who supported alternative methods of naming episode articles")

Suddenly Elonka's score of 20-0 in her favor becomes a list closer to 44-16 in the other direction.

[edit] More of Elonka's campaigning

(Addendum to Radiant!'s #Elonka engages in talk page spamming) More edits to user talk pages, etc., where Elonka blatantly asks people to add to discussions, usually when their opinion or affiliation is known or is apparent. Some of these are multiple posts to the same person, increasing the disruptive nature:

[edit] Evidence presented by BlueSquadronRaven

[edit] Elonka began with a non-consensus addition to WP:TV-NC

Ned Scott initially removed a section from the guideline page regarding an exemption for episodes of the various Star Trek series, on the grounds that it should not form part of the guideline itself. [302] Elonka subsequently re-added the paragraph on the exception. [303] A brief edit war ensued. [304] [305] [306] [307] [308] Finally, Elonka added both the exception for Star Trek, plus the assertion of the same for episodes of Lost, along with a advisement to follow the conventions of other similar articles for a given series, without discussion on the guideline talk page, or consensus. [309]

[edit] 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. [310]

[edit] 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. [311],[312],[313]

[edit] 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. [314], [315]

[edit] 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. [316] [317]

Furthermore, in response to the moves alluded to of various episode articles related to Battlestar Galactica, I would point out that all were done long before this dispute got out of hand, before Elonka started talking about "non-consensus page moves", and after I had both consulted the existing wording of WP:TV-NC (to which I was referred when I was challenged on my article naming) and WP:TVE (which is quoted as a guideline for starting articles on episodes and the poll which showed a more than clear direction on how to proceed on all series, except, apparently, Lost. Almost all moved articles of Battlestar Galactica episodes were created by me, and moved after an aforementioned challenge to my use of incorrect naming conventions, and the wording of three different guidelines, all of which said essentially the same thing.

[edit] Elonka's evidence constitutes incivility.

By painting a swath of editors with a large brush in saying they "refuse to negotiate in good faith", both here and on her talk page [318], this follows counter to WP:AGF.

[edit] Evidence presented by Yaksha

[edit] 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 [319] [320] [321]. Outside parties have also shown up at WT:TV-NC with expressing similar views [322] [323]. 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 [324] also supports the existence of this consensus.

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

The intial poll conducted in the RfC [325] 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 [326], 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.

[edit] 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" [327]. After some investigation, it turned out the entire Star Trek naming convention of always disambiguating was started by one individual [328]. 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" ([329]).
  • 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" [330]. 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 [331]. However, other individuals involved in the LOST mediation have disputed this claim [332]. The mediator himself [333] later confirmed that such a consensus never existed, and the topic of article naming was never even discussed as part of the mediation.

[edit] 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 [334] without going through Request Moves. However, after i did take an article move to Request Moves [335], Elonka demanded a speey close [336].
  • Elonka has been actively reverted edits and moves [337] [338] 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 [339] [340] [341]
  • Elonka has been making claims of sockpupptery against a number of individuals in this dispute [342]. 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" [343]. 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 [344], and has not responded nicely when asked to stop
  • She has been accusing individals of stalking and harrasment [345], 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) [346].

[edit] No evidence page moves were disruptive (rebuttal to Elonka)

Elonka claims that the page moves "caused edit wars, move wars, and general disruption in several different areas."

To back up this claim, she cites three pieces of (flawed) evidence:

1. The discussion about TMNT articles - this was indeed a long discussion. However, a closer look shows that 30 out of the 36 edits made to this discussion were from people ALREADY INVOLVED in this disbate. Of the three people not from this debate - one did the initial moving, another changed their mind after reading the discussion on WP:TV-NC, and the third basically said he didn't care and tried to diffuse the situation by explaining that it really wasn't important. Elonka started the only edit war here, she also started the only move war (the page she move-reverted was placed in Request Moves, which resulted in supermajority support for move). I see no general disruption. The huge long discussion was...between the same bunch of people who are now here.

2. Discussion about WIRE articles - I don't even know how this is an example of disruptive behaviour. There where no move wars or edit wars. Instead, we had one long Request Move, which resulted in six times as many support votes as oppose votes. The closing admin then came and moved the pages. The debate on that page is once again, started by Elonka, and joined by me, wknight, milo and anþony.

3. Discussion about LOST articles - this is a great example of how Elonka likes to mislead people by taking evidence out of context. This discussion about LOST articles occured BEFORE our current dispute. It therefore shows NOTHING about the effects of the page moves, which occured AFTER this discussion.

Not to mention, this is all against very solid evidence that the page moves have been helpful [347], and that they've been supported by outside editos on affected articles [348] [349].

[edit] Evidence presented by Ned Scott

[edit] 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. [350] 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.

[edit] 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. [351] [352] 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 [353] [354] and the mediator himself [355]. Josiah Rowe also looked in the discussion history and could not find where it was discussed. [356]
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate was a WikiProject who previously decided to disambig always. [360] When it was brought up in discussion, participants of the project agreed to change to comply with WP:TV-NC [361] [362] No major objections were raised, and other participants even helped out in the page moves.

[edit] Versions of Evidence page

Not saying that this is a good or bad thing, I would simply like to note what this evidence page looked like at certain dates. Much of the discussion was in response or related to a version of this page that was different, so I would like to avoid possible confusion from those who may look at this case later on (for example, some other evidence sections are rebuttals to Elonka's earlier version of her evidence).

  • January 13th 2007, Elonka's first change after coming back from her holiday wikibreak. In this change there are only additions.
  • January 19th 2007, the version of this page at the time I write this message (not including my additional section which notes the different versions). In this version Elonka has reorganized much of her evidence, removing some, adding some, etc.

[edit] Evidence presented by MatthewFenton

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.[365]

  • 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: [366]

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

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

[edit] Evidence presented by Josiah Rowe

[edit] 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 [367][368]) 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.[369]. 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."[370] The proposal also gained support from many of the "support" voters who had been active in the conversation, including myself:[371][372][373][374], 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.[375] 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. [376][377][378][379][380] The discussion was muddied by personal remarks between Elonka and Ned Scott[381][382][383][384], 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 [385]; he was reverted by TobyRush (talk • contribs)[386], and Netaholic restored his changes saying "(rvt, I read consensus for this addition on talk)"[387]. Attempting to forestall an edit war, wknight94 (talk • contribs) started a new section asking whether consensus had in fact been reached.[388]. (The next comment was a rather bizarre comment by MatthewFenton (talk • contribs)[389] 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: [390][391] — in each case, the situation is exactly contrary to what Matthew implies[392][393].]) At this point, TobyRush (talk • contribs) made a summary of the arguments to date[394] which Elonka endorsed[395]. 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[396][397], 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. :)"[398].

At this point, I suggested that Cburnett's suggestion had a broad consensus of support[399], and added it to the page [400]. Many editors then participated in some tweaking of my initial phrasing [401][402][403][404][405][406][407][408], but the support for the guideline was clear. However, Elonka disagreed that a consensus had been reached.[409] 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."[410] 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)

[edit] Update

For further evidence that the guideline is not seriously in dispute, see the results of the recent Star Trek episode move request [411], and the closing admin's comments [412]. This move request was advertised on the Star Trek WikiProject's talk page [413], as well as on the talk page of each Star Trek series' list of episodes [414][415][416][417][418][419]. Even allowing for decreased editor participation over Christmas, the results of the move request are clear, and indicate that the staunch resistance of Elonka and company was misplaced at best. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuttal of Elonka's allegations of incivility

Elonka suggests that I have been incivil during this debate.[420] I will accept the judgment of my fellow editors on this; however, I would like to provide some context for each of the diffs Elonka objects to.

A satirical song
  • [421] — this was merely an attempt to lighten the mood on the TV-NC discussion page with a little humor. Wknight94 had sent out a message to the participants in the poll under the heading "Tainted poll?"[422]. The discussion at TV-NC had become quite acrimonious, and I felt that the intensity of emotion on display was disproportionate to the importance of the issue. "Tainted poll" made me think of the Soft Cell song Tainted Love, and I wrote a little satire of the situation, in which I made gentle fun of the entire debate. I intended to satirize myself as much as anyone, and when Elonka complained [423][424] I told her as much [425][426]. That she's bringing this trivial matter up in the arbitration even after I explained my motives shows her failure to assume good faith, as well as her lack of perspective.
A frustrated response to Matthew
  • [427] — This comment, I admit, comes from a place of frustration, but it also comes from the honest bafflement I indicate in the comment itself. After the extensive discussion of this matter on WT:TV-NC and elsewhere, I was flabbergasted that MatthewFenton would say something as outrageous as "What case?"[428]. The tone of my questions betrays my astonishment, but I maintain that the comment is not a violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA — indeed, the two alternatives I present (misplaced humor or obtuseness) still seem like the most likely options to explain Matthew's comment (which might itself be considered incivil, but did not provoke a WP:CIVIL warning from Elonka). I also point the arbitrators to this comment by the uninvolved editor Leflyman, and the discussion which followed on Elonka's talk page at User talk:Elonka#Re: NPA claim against Josiah Rowe.
An attempt to encourage civility(!)
  • [429] — This comment was a response to some overly combative and dismissive comments by Ace Class Shadow at WT:TV-NC.[430][431][432][433] My comment about Mattthew's "snide remarks" was descriptive of the behavior mentioned above; "pulling an Elonka" was a description of Elonka's self-admitted[434] tendency to "distribute civility and NPA warnings on the spot" at the slightest provocation, a tendency to which I and others [435][436][437][438][439][440][441][442] have objected.
The "sabotage" comment
  • [443] — I had filed a request for mediation [444] in an effort to resolve the situation. In the first hour after the filing, Elonka edited the RfM page six times.[445][446][447][448][449][450] (One of these edits ([451]) was to the "issues to be mediated" section, even though Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a Request for Mediation says, "Do not, under any circumstances, edit the "Issues to mediate" section unless you are the party who filed the request. If you feel that an issue has been incorrectly stated, restate it in your section with a simple note at the end of the line such as "(Restatement of second issue by User:Example).") She also made several edits [452][453][454][455][456] indicating that she was following edits to the RfM page closely. Given that level of attention, I thought that it was peculiar that Elonka had not signed on to the mediation herself. Indeed, she continued to edit the RfM page [457], including removing other editors' comments[458][459][460][461], all without agreeing to the mediation. Although "sabotage" may have been a poor choice of words, I think in this context the sentiment behind my comment was fair.
Elonka's edits to the RfM page included the removal of the line "Informal mediation by Radiant!"[462]: Ned Scott restored the line[463], Elonka removed it again[464], Radiant! himself restored it[465], Elonka removed it again[466], Wknight94 restored it[467] and Elonka removed it again.[468] Any experienced Wikipedian would describe this sequence of action as an edit war, and ^demon, a MedCom member, agreed[469] and had the page protected [470]. While the page was protected, there was extensive bickering on the RfM talk page, which meant that by the time the page was unprotected, some parties were no longer willing to participate in mediation, and the mediation request was rejected.
In the comment to which Elonka objects, I intimated that she was more interested in framing the argument "her way" than in actually pursuing the dispute resolution process. Her edit warring on the RfM page, which indirectly led to the mediation being rejected, would seem to indicate that my fears were well-founded. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum

After I posted the above, Elonka added this as another diff of my supposed incivility. I'm not even certain what in that diff she's objecting to, unless it's my use of the word "fetishize".

Once again, let me point out the context. This is just about my first comment on TV-NC. I had followed an RfC to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines, where I found comments like this:

It looks terrible (IMHO) to have a list-of-epiodes page with ABC (Lost), DEF (Lost), XYZ. The non-suffix articles break the pattern and create inconsistency, which looks terrible. In the interest of keeping the professional appearance of Wikipedia intact, I believe it is highly important to keep things consistent.[471]

It was in response to that comment that I said, "Let's not fetishize consistency"[472]. Around this time, I followed a link from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines to TV-NC, where I found the wider discussion, largely dominated (at that point) by participants in the Lost debate.

At this point in the discussion, the "consistency" argument was one of the most prominent (e.g. Elonka saying "it looks "cleaner" to have everything consistent."[473] This was an aesthetic judgement without support in Wikipedia guidelines or policy. Wiktionary gives as one definition of "fetish", "an irrational, or abnormal, fixation or preoccupation." Since the focus on "consistency" did not appear to have any rational basis, "fetish" was an appropriate word to use. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elonka's list of editors is misleading

I trust that the arbitrators will examine all the evidence for themselves, and not rely on the interpretations being placed on it by parties here. I believe, for example, that Elonka's list of #Editors who supported alternative methods of naming episode articles is quite misleading. To take a few examples at random:

    • Cburnett [474] — In this edit, Cburnett says, "Always having "Title (series episode)" whether it is the actual article or a redirect is the best choice from the perspective of a reader. ... So, as long as "Title (series episode)" gets me to the correct article...I don't care what is decided above." His suggestion of redirects was incorporated into the guideline.
    • Argash agreed to Cburnett's compromise proposal, to name articles in keeping with WP:D and create redirects with suffixes.[475]
    • TobyRush [476] — This edit is a summary of the discussion to date, not a statement of any position. Indeed, Toby had previously stated a position supporting the guideline [477] — in this diff he also says that individual programs may make exceptions, but these exceptions do not belong on the guideline page.
    • Jeff Stickney withdrew his opposition to the TV-NC guideline [478].

Many of the other names in that list are of editors who expressed their opinion in one or two edits and then disappeared. I don't call that significant opposition.

It's also worth noting that when Elonka refers to 'the claim that "there were only two people objecting." ', she is putting up a straw man. If anyone ever said that, it was shorthand for saying that there were only two people who have consistently objected to the guideline. Passing comments unsupported by any argument other than "I prefer it this way"[479] are not meaningful objections.

I could make up a list of all the editors who have expressed support for the guideline, but doing so would miss the point. Wikipedia guidelines are not formed by numbers — they're formed by discussion, supported by arguments and reason. The small minority opposing the TV-NC guideline have not presented arguments that have been convincing to the supermajority; indeed, all of their arguments have been shown to be faulty and/or unsupported. This, not the poll or the number of supporters, is the reason why the TV-NC guideline has a consensus. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Peregrinefisher

[edit] 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)

[edit] Evidence presented by Wikizach

[edit] 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-[480]. 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 [481]) 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)


[edit] Evidence presented by Serge Issakov

[edit] 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)

  • Any one bullet in Josiah's Rebuttal of Elonka's allegations of incivility section above on this page is substantial evidence of this allegation being true. It needs to be made clear to Elonka, and to anyone who ever engages in similar antics, in no uncertain terms, that this kind of wikilawyering behavor is highly disruptive to, and unacceptable in, Wikipedia. The amount of time and energy so many people are pouring into this is very disruptive. --Serge 17:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia naming convention guidelines with respect to Use the most common name are conflicted and cause conflict

The root of this dispute lies in the lack of clarity given by the guidelines. After all, this is all about whether a specific guideline that applies to a particular group of articles (episodes of TV series) can override the Use the most common name guideline/convention. (to be continued) --Serge 17:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Anþony

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

Elonka claims in her evidence that certain editors are "mostly against mediation".[482] 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.[483] 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[484] [485] [486] [487] and made it clear that she intended to pursue a binding remedy beyond mediation.[488]

Another party to the mediation, Riverbend (talk • contribs) also stated that he intended to oppose page moves because mediation was taking place.[489] In my response to Riverbend,[490] 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,[491] 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.[492]

[edit] Evidence presented by Radiant

[edit] Elonka is a tendentious editor

She easily meets the four criteria for a tendentious editor, as explained on WP:DE. I'm linking to other sections of the evidence page here; I think this is clearer than copy/pasting the diffs.

  1. Continues editing in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition. She has been wikilawyering and filibustering to get her way, despite consensus to the contrary (here). The seemingly-trivial issue of episode naming has lasted several months; debate on WT:NC-TV (not including talk elsewhere) fills 750 kb, about the length of a Charles Dickens novel.
  2. Fails to cite sources, or misrepresents sources. She has been unable to back up many of her claims, e.g. of earlier consensus about naming TMNT, Star Trek or Lost episodes; these have since been shown to be false (here, here and here). Elonka misquotes other people to make it seem they support her view when in fact they don't; e.g. her list of people "supporting a new poll" contains several who oppose it [493] [494] [495] [496].
  3. Rejects community input, moderation, and opposing consensus from impartial editors. After the first poll, rather than joining in discussion, Elonka kept demanding a second poll, even after discussion found consensus ([497]). She keeps asking more outside opinion whenever an outsider opinion disagrees with her (here). She has been "forum shopping" when she doesn't get her way on one page ([498], [499], [500], [501], [502]).
  4. Driving away other contributors through incivility, personal attacks or ownership. She has accused people of harassment (here), sockpuppetry (here) and disruption (here), and threatened people with blocks [503]. She has used both mediation and arbitration [504] [505] as a filibuster.

[edit] Elonka has a history of being disruptive

In the past, Elonka has been the center of several controversies, escalating relatively minor issues by blowing them way out of proportion.

  • The "Dreamguy dispute", which started here; after Dreamguy said that Elonka lies, she started multiple lengthy debates to demand an apology or sanction on Dreamguy [506], [507], [508], and mostly this. It is well-described by Bishonen.
  • The lengthy "Polish Cabal" case, described in this RFM, where Elonka accused people on the Polish WP Noticeboard of nationalistic campaigning. She accused Piotrus, of POV-pushing, hipocrisy and personal attacks, and demanded his desysopping.
  • Her extensive involvement in editing articles about herself, her family ([509] [510] [511] [512]) and her company's products ([513]), which many people called a conflict of interest. When Danny nominated one of these for deletion, she accused him of bad faith, and later said "If such a thing happened again, [she]'d probably handle it the same way" here.
  • Edit warring over articles on shopping malls; when someone objects to her "cleanup" tag, she responds by tagging articles as {{db-spam}} ([514], [515], [516]). She has started multiple debates on the topic (here, here and here). Elonka does not stop her apparently-controversial actions while debate is ongoing ([517]) - but does demand this of others in this arbitration case.

[edit] Elonka posts false evidence

Aside from the fact that I fail to see why Elonka thinks that attacking me helps to resolve the NC dispute, most of the "evidence" she posted about me is misleading or downright false.

  • The allegation that I engaged in controversial moves is false. The moves I made relate to the series Battlestar Galactica, The Outer Limits and Fullmetal Alchemist, conforming with WP:DAB. There has not been any controversy about those series; the controversy is about Star Trek and Lost. A dispute in one area does not lock down all of Wikipedia until it's resolved.
  • The allegation about abusing the protection button is also false. The NC page was protected over an edit war (involving Elonka; [518] [519] [520]) about the {{disputedpolicy}} tag. I was not involved in this, and have not edited that page at all during this entire year. Protection to end edit wars is quite common.
  • The allegation that I deleted an RFC is similarly false. There were two RFCs about this. One was added on Oct 30th by Argash, and archived Dec 5th by Centrx. The other was added Oct 29th by Ned Scott, and removed Nov 13th by Ned Scott. Elonka requested comment on the village pump, which was archived by a bot.
  • The allegation that I claimed to be a mediator is once more false; I have never claimed to be part of the MedCom or MedCab. Josiah Rowe stated that I attempted informal mediation here (by which he apparently meant giving outside perspective) which I did at Elonka's own request. Elonka removed my statement about this, and revert warred ([521] [522] [523] [524]) on the mediation page over this, which led page protection and to rejection of the mediation case.
  • The statement about edits to WP:CON is silly. Elonka claims that WP:CON may not be edited while this case is ongoing ([525] [526]); this is either an overly bureaucratic approach, or a filibuster.
  • Since giving barnstars isn't even remotely disruptive, it is very silly to cite that as evidence here.

[edit] Elonka engages in talk page spamming

Elonka has canvassed dozens of user talk pages asking those users to comment on this ArbCom case, because "their name is briefly mentioned" (generally by Elonka herself).

[527] [528] [529] [530] [531] [532] [533] [534] [535] [536] [537] [538] [539] [540] [541] [542] [543] [544] [545] [546] [547] [548] [549] [550] [551] [552]

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

[edit] {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.

[edit] {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.

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

[edit] {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.

[edit] {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 "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Naming_Conventions_Evidence_e01e.html"