Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:03, 13 December 2006

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: .

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 .

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

• Serge Issakov
• Elonka
• "cease and desist" from ^demon
• Jossi
• Thatcher131.

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

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

Other disputants were encouraging Yaksha to continue:

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

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).
• 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."

• Two days later, Wknight94 proceeded to engage in multiple such moves, without discussion or any attempt at RM:
  • September 19, approx. 65 moves
  • September 22, approx. 80 moves

• September 24, Administrator tariqabjotu closed the Fire + Water move discussion as "No consensus."
• September 25, despite how the RM had closed, Wknight94 moved many articles in the Lost category , citing in his edit summary, "per Talk:Fire + Water precedent", even though the RM at Talk:Fire + Water had been closed as "no consensus."
  • Note that these moves were clearly controversial in other ways, as some of the pages had already been in move wars that week: Nohat's move, Ned Scott's revert, Wknight94's move, incorrectly citing the "no consensus" RM as justification

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 Misplaced Pages 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
  • 20:58, Ned Scott shows up at my mother's bio.
  • 21:49 Ned Scott shows up at articles related to a podcast that I'd co-hosted:
  • 21:50 Ned Scott deletes one of the articles by turning it into a redirect

• November 3
  • 01:50 Wknight94 shows up at pages about my company's products
  • 02:09 Wknight94 shows up at unrelated IGDA article:
  • 02:12 Wknight94 shows up at a stub that I created several months ago:
  • 02:18 Wknight94 shows up at my bio:
  • 02:24 Ned Scott returns to Centauri's talk page
  • 02:32 Wknight94 shows up at an unrelated AfD that I'd started on Different Spaces:
  • 03:18, I post at Centauri's talkpage about what appears to be stalking.
  • 03:34, Ned Scott deletes my post off Centauri's talkpage and moves it to User talk:Elonka.

• November 6
  • Wknight94 issues a complaint that I hadn't issued a {{Prodwarning}} for the unrelated cohesiveFT article .

• November 7
  • Ned Scott posts a comment at the Village Pump that I was "distorting reality in order to gain sympathy," I reply with links to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, stating that Ned's language was unhelpful . Wknight94 then chastises me at my talkpage about not understanding WP:NPA.

• November 8
  • Wknight94 deletes my Prod tag at unrelated CohesiveFT

• November 9
  • Wknight94 deletes another of my prod tags at unrelated The Junior Varsity, this time with a less-than-civil edit summary

• November 13
  • Wknight94 shows up at an unrelated AfD on Chiodos,
  • 02:41, a {{spa}} account nominates my mother's article for deletion (note that this is an article that I've never edited) )
  • 04:35, Ned Scott shows up as the first person to vote "Delete".
  • 20:44, Wknight94 shows up.

• 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."
  • 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?".

• November 15
  • Wknight94 removes my {{db-bio}} tag at unrelated Elvira Arellano.

• November 21
  • Wknight94 shows up at unrelated AfDs that I'd started on Westfield Tuggerah and Westfield Bondi Junction.
  • Wknight94 pops up to disagree with me in unrelated conversations about shopping malls.

• November 22
  • In a "stir the pot" post, Wknight94 posts a diff to Radiant's talkpage , implying that I was talking about Radiant at Misplaced Pages talk:Protection policy
  • In an example of great irony, Wknight94 posts at Yaksha's talkpage, accusing other people of stalking.

• November 24
  • A few minutes after I post, Wknight94 shows up at Rebecca's talk page. Note that he tries to cover his behavior with the comment, "I don't know how this got on my watchlist"
  • 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." . 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."

• November 25
  • Wknight94 shows up at another unrelated AfD on Westfield Glenfield.

• November 27
  • Wknight94 removes another of my {{db-spam}} tags

• 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.

• December 1
  • Wknight94 places a warning on my talkpage that I was threatening people with blocks (this was in response to this post I'd made )

• December 3
  • Wknight94 challenges several articles in my family tree:

• December 4
  • Wknight94 accuses me of "blatant lies." . 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
  • Wknight94 gives me a 3RR warning (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.

The "poll" at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (television) was invalid

• (started section, diffs coming later)

Evidence presented by Wknight94

Elonka 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 .
2. Numerous people commend Josiah for capturing the essence of the dispute and make further comments .
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 , call for a new poll and deny consensus .
5. Her call for a new poll is again refuted .
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 .
8. Maintaining extreme patience, Serge Issakov (talk · contribs) asked for evidence that a new poll was needed , Josiah Rowe pointed out that discussion made a new poll unnecessary , Ned Scott agreed with Josiah , I suggest actively looking for people who feel they were misrepresented , Ace Class Shadow (talk · contribs) says he contacted some of them already but got little response .
9. Elonka replied to Serge's call for evidence 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 .
11. It should not be surprising that Serge lost his patience at this point , two weeks after the RFC. It immediately became an incivility accusation .
12. I directly repeated my suggestion for proving her case and Serge agreed .
13. We're both ignored. I repeated my suggestion several days later . 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 but has been thoroughly ignored by Elonka and MatthewFenton.

Elonka misrepresented facts

• Elonka's claim: a naming system has gone through "...multiple iterations, and the editors here arrived at a consensus..." .
• Reality: a single editor had a preference and made a single edit to indicate the preference with no discussion .
• Follow-up: Elonka asked the original author where the discussion was for the naming convention . Rather than tell us that or wait for an answer, just 7 minutes later, she repeated the unsubstantiated claim at WP:ANI . No discussion has been found to this day.
• Elonka's claim: Lost titles with (Lost) dab tag were the "agreed-upon title, per unanimous mediation..."
• Reality: There is no verbiage at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes regarding episode article names. This is confirmed by Wikipedical (talk · contribs) who also disagrees with her stance.

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 (Ned also blocked page moves but admitted to it without provocation):

• Not in Portland - Elonka's revisions of 2006-10-29
• Further Instructions - Elonka 2006-10-29
• The Glass Ballerina - Elonka 2006-10-29
• Live Together, Die Alone - Elonka 2006-10-29
• Whatever the Case May Be - MatthewFenton 2006-10-29 and 2006-11-18
• Raised by Another - Elonka 2006-10-17
• ...And Found - Elonka 2006-10-16, MatthewFenton 2006-11-17
• Everybody Hates Hugo - Elonka 2006-10-16

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 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 personal attack policy

Elonka has shown a misunderstanding of the personal attacks policy, specifically the clear distinction between commenting on a person and commenting on a person's actions:

• Edit about Elonka's action , her response to read WP:NPA .
• Edit about MatthewFenton's action , Elonka's response with section heading, "NPA"
• Edit about disruption (directed at no one) and another about Elonka's actions and words , Elonka's response: a full-blown npa2 template

Elonka misunderstands harassment guideline (rebuttal)

Elonka's harassment section here 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 ) 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 Misplaced Pages 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)) , WP:CSD (not even referring to her) , WP:NPA , WP:HA (again not even referring to her) , WP:3RR , WP:PROD , {{PRODWarning}} (she has subsequently passed on that knowledge to other users ), WP:RS , as well as blatant misrepresentation , unfounded allegations , and making intimidating threats of blocking ... Frankly, someone claiming they want to be an admin some day showing so many lapses in Misplaced Pages 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 (re: blatant vanity article on Simple ). She's drawn the ire of Danny (talk · contribs), longstanding admins Rebecca (talk · contribs) and Radiant! (talk · contribs) , and I'm willing to bet Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) removing references at Elonka's mother's article isn't a chance encounter. She has even been briefly indefinitely blocked so I would think she'd welcome some guidance. MatthewFenton has also been blocked numerous times for disruption and edit warring 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" (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 .

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.

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. ,,

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. ,

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:

• moving 3 LOST articles - this resulted in 15 support vs. 3 oppose.
• moving 19 articles from the series "The Wire" - this has been open for 7 days, and currently has 18 Supports vs. 3 Oppose
• a single episode article from TMNT - this has been open for 5 days, and currently has 12 Supports vs. 3 oppose

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 . 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 also supports the existence of this consensus.

The initial poll conducted in the RfC was valid (rebuttal)

The intial poll conducted in the RfC 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 , 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" . After some investigation, it turned out the entire Star Trek naming convention of always disambiguating was started by one individual . 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" ().
• 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" . 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 . However, other individuals involved in the LOST mediation have disputed this claim . The mediator himself 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 without going through Request Moves. However, after i did take an article move to Request Moves , Elonka demanded a speey close .
• Elonka has been actively reverted edits and moves 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
• Elonka has been making claims of sockpupptery against a number of individuals in this dispute . 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" . 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 , and has not responded nicely when asked to stop
• She has been accusing individals of stalking and harrasment , 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) .

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. 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. However, this is not so, as seen in the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes and then confirmed by another party of the mediation case and the mediator himself . Josiah Rowe also looked in the discussion history and could not find where it was discussed.

• What did happen was Elonka copied the mediation results to a sub-page of WP:LOST (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines) . When Elonka did this she added a section on episode titles, and then rationalized that when everyone agreed with the mediation results they also agreed with her addition.

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stargate was a WikiProject who previously decided to disambig always. When it was brought up in discussion, participants of the project agreed to change to comply with WP:TV-NC 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.

• Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point.
  • WKnight:
  • YakSha:

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.

• 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.

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

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 ) 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.. 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." The proposal also gained support from many of the "support" voters who had been active in the conversation, including myself:, 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 Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. 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 Misplaced Pages guidelines. The discussion was muddied by personal remarks between Elonka and Ned Scott, 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 ; he was reverted by TobyRush (talk · contribs), and Netaholic restored his changes saying "(rvt, I read consensus for this addition on talk)". Attempting to forestall an edit war, wknight94 (talk · contribs) started a new section asking whether consensus had in fact been reached.. (The next comment was a rather bizarre comment by MatthewFenton (talk · contribs) 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 — in each case, the situation is exactly contrary to what Matthew implies.]) At this point, TobyRush (talk · contribs) made a summary of the arguments to date which Elonka endorsed. 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, which appeared to me to be resolved when Toby Rush pointed out that any exceptions should themselves be justified by a consensus of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, we're all invited. :)".

At this point, I suggested that Cburnett's suggestion had a broad consensus of support, and added it to the page . Many editors then participated in some tweaking of my initial phrasing , but the support for the guideline was clear. However, Elonka disagreed that a consensus had been reached. 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." 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.

Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Consensus vs. supermajority says:

In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what 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)

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.