Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:26, 12 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 moved several articles without going through WP:RM.

Further, in his moves he included an edit summary which said in part, "per Talk:Fire + Water precedent", even though the RM at Talk:Fire + Water (which Wknight94 was an active participant in ) was closed as "No consensus."

Wknight94 and Ned Scott were engaging in a pattern of harassment

After the dispute at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (television) started, Wknight94 and Ned Scott began showing up at multiple places on my watchlist, sometimes with abusive behavior:

• My bio:
• My mother's bio (note that this is an article which I have never edited):
• An AfD on my mother's bio (note that Ned Scott was the first participant, after an obvious sockpuppet nomination):
• Pages about my company's products
• Articles related to a podcast that I'd co-hosted:
• The article of the group that runs the PodCast (which Ned Scott effectively deleted by turning it into a redirect):
• An AfD that I started:
• A stub that I created several months ago:
• My professional association, the IGDA article:
• Centauri's talk page, where Ned Scott actually deleted one of my own posts:
• Rebecca's talk page (where Wknight94 tried to cover his behavior with the comment, "I don't know how this got on my watchlist"):

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

• (started section, diffs coming later)

Evidence presented by Wknight94

Elonka misrepresents 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 repeats 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.

MatthewFenton removed speedy tags

Sysop privileges will be needed to see this since the speedy tag removal history has since been deleted

• Live Together, Die Alone - 2006-11-17
• Everybody Hates Hugo - 2006-11-17

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 has shown a misunderstanding of the harassment guideline. Of the edits she mentioned here , two resulted in article sourcing improvement , one was where Ned Scott (talk · contribs) rightly re-removed unsourced content which Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) himself had removed earlier , one was heading level fixes, and one was me voting to keep her mother's article. Hardly a vicious stalking campaign, esp. over the course of six weeks, and especially when she openly admitted to reading my RFA . Elonka moved the current dispute to so many locations (as Josiah Rowe's statement correctly mentioned) that watching her contributions was the only way to keep up. WP:HA clearly states that harassment "does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." Instead, Elonka's allegations merely demonstrate her fiercely held ownership of "her articles".

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 where 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 {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.