Case Opened on 18:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

You may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Involved parties

Wknight94 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Yaksha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ned Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Josiah Rowe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Elonka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Yaksha

This dispute is regarding whether articles for TV episodes which do not need to be disambiguated should have disambiguation. For example, Never Kill a Boy on the First Date (Buffy episode) has the disambiguation “(Buffy episode)”, even though this disambiguation is not required.

I believe we did reach consensus to follow the existing guideline of "disambiguate only when necessary". The straw poll [1] resulted in a supermajority (80%) support for "disambiguate only when necessary". The discussion that followed supported this consensus. A detailed summary of the discussion, as well as four Request Move proposals [2] [3] [4] all support the existence of this consensus. Given this, I (and others) begun to move articles which were inappropriately named [5].

Elonka, however, claimed that there was no consensus [6], [7] to move the articles, and that the moves were disruptive [8].

She has been attempting to prevent/stop the moves by actively reverting [9] [10], making making accusations of sockpupptery dispute having no hard evidence [11], threatening and requesting for people involved to be blocked [12] [13] and asking for Request Moves to be speedy closed [14]. These actions could all be seen as filibustering. She’s also been accusing others of harassment [15], stalking [16], personal attacks [17], and incivility [18]. Most of the time, these accusations where baseless, and have not been helpful in resolving this dispute.

Elonka claims the moves are disruptive to editors on affected articles, where as evidence shows otherwise [19].

Exceptions
Another aspect of this dispute is whether certain TV series should be allowed to be exempt from naming conventions, if editors on those articles agree to name articles differently.

So far, those saying Wikiprojects (and other small groups of editors) should be allowed to decide to not follow Naming Conventions have provided no convincing reasons/arguments to support their case. Elonka has consistently failed to explain why any one TV series is special in any way and therefore deserves exemption from the general convention; and why the decision any one group of editors should trump a wikipedia-wide naming convention/guideline (that is, WP:D says disambiguation should only be used when it’s needed).

Claims of Wikiprojects who have ‘consensus’ to not follow the naming convention [20] have so far all been proven false [21] [22].

Concluding remarks
At this point, we’re still working on getting articles named correctly (so moved). However, Elonka continues to insist that the dispute is ongoing, that we have yet to reach any consensus, and that the moves must stop.

I would very much hope an arbitration case can finally put a lid to this by formally showing that consensus had already been reached for this dispute, that the moves where supported by consensus, and therefore this “dispute” is over.

Note – many other editors have joined in from time to time during this very long debate. The “involved parties” here are just the main players who’ve been involved the most. A full list of people who have participated in the main discussion at WT:TV-NC can be found here (numbers are no. of edits made on that talk page).

Statement by Wknight94

A clear-cut case of supermajority consensus has become a nasty all-out war with a very vocal minority. A poll which is now visible here included a question of whether television episode articles should only be disambiguated when necessary (as stipulated by WP:D and affirmed by WP:TV-NC). The result was 26 people choosing to support disambiguating only when necessary and seven choosing to oppose. The poll was well-publicized [23][24]. Nonetheless, a few members of the minority, mostly Elonka (talk · contribs) and occasionally MatthewFenton (talk · contribs), have declared that there was no consensus and that the dispute is still open. The reason most often given is that the poll was modified several times while in progress. While that is true, it was mostly modified from a one-question poll with three choices to a two-question poll, each with two choices, and the meaning of the most contentious issue remained unchanged (not to mention Elonka herself modified the poll: [25][26][27]). I encouraged [28] everyone to contact people to find anyone who might feel they were misrepresented by the poll but no action was taken. Instead, I contacted all 25 people [29] who voted to support the first question of the first poll and asked them if they felt they were misrepresented. The results can be seen here where several of those contacted responded but not a single one said they wanted to modify their answer. Other reasons have since been given for doing another poll on the same issue but none have been found persuasive by the majority. Allegations of sockpuppetry, harrassment, and intimidation have no supporting evidence. Feeling the dispute is over, page moves were ongoing to comply with the guideline but those are being met with hints of blocking and a request for blocking at WP:ANI. An attempt at starting another poll was thwarted by Radiant! (talk · contribs) [30]. Other claims by her have been labelled as being out of context and inaccurate [31]. Other than myself, Josiah Rowe and Radiant!, at least two other admins [32][33] feel the discussion is already done and two have even performed relevant moves themselves [34][35]. A MedCab mediator was deemed biased in Elonka's favor - and yet even he offered a compromise contrary to her beliefs. [36]

Elonka has made statements [37][38] indicating that her goal is to let Wikiprojects or small groups of editors decide conventions which apparently would carry greater weight than the rest of the community. First, this is contrary to WP:OWN which makes very clear that no one owns articles. Second, WP:PROJ invites anyone to join any Wikiproject. That alone makes Wikiprojects powerless to take any sort of "control" in any situation. Her fetish for a class structure (e.g., characterizing herself and Josiah Rowe as "evident informal 'leaders'"[39]) is very unhealthy for Wikipedia and contrary to its fundamental community spirit.

Her latest call for a 30-day moratorium on moves [40] is also very contrary to the wiki spirit of Wikipedia, especially with no reason given to support such a moratorium.

—Wknight94 (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Josiah Rowe

Yaksha and Wknight94 have made an excellent summary of the situation to date; I fully endorse their summaries. The only aspect of the debate which I feel needs more emphasis is Elonka's apparent misunderstanding of the nature of consensus. It is true that the inital poll was slightly flawed, due to changes in its format while the poll was running (including, it should be noted, changes by Elonka [41] [42] [43]) — however, after the poll closed and Elonka began disputing the apparent consensus, every editor who participated in the poll was contacted and confirmed the intended meaning of their vote. More importantly, the discussion which followed the poll (currently archived here, here and here) showed a strong consensus in support of the principle "disambiguate only when necessary", and no consensus for explicitly including exceptions for particular television programs. Of course, consensus does not mean unanimity, but as long as we were short of unanimity, Elonka (and one or two others) insisted that the poll needed to be re-run.

Each argument proposed by Elonka was shot down (see here for an early example), but she persevered, periodically attempting to recruit other parties into the discussion or to spread the debate to new venues [44] [45] [46].

Our attempts at mediation failed, in part because of an edit war initiated by Elonka over how to describe the involvement of Radiant! [47] [48] [49]. Elonka's tactics throughout this debate have given the appearance of stalling and Wikilawyering.

The core issue of this debate, how to name articles about television episodes, is really quite unimportant in the greater scheme of Wikipedia. I really don't understand why the debate got to this point, and it saddens me that it has. Any resolution would be welcome.

Statement by Elonka

I am uncomfortable with the fact that though there are dozens of editors in this dispute, this case was brought by one person who chose to list a few of their allies, and me as a sole "troublemaker". Just because I've been a spokesperson, does not mean that I have been a lone voice.[50][51]. Participation by other editors has also been discouraged by an extremely chaotic and uncivil environment. I myself have been subjected to personal attacks, sexual harassment[52], wiki-stalking[53][54], and had several other articles that I'm involved with threatened or nominated for deletion[55][56][57][58][59]. This behavior has been particularly appalling considering that one of the primary disputants [60] is an administrator, Wknight94, who has been sprinkling warnings on my talkpage.[61][62][63]

Getting away from the unethical tactics and to the actual dispute, the main issue is the guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) specifically about when episode articles can and can't use a suffix such as "(<seriesname> episode)". One side of the dispute believes that a suffix should never be used unless specifically required for disambiguation. The other side feels that WikiProjects can set reasonable guidelines of their own (See subcategories at Category:Star Trek episodes). As television episode articles have been added to Wikipedia, most series followed the WP:DAB system, but many others chose to use a "consistent suffix" system. However, a group of editors in this dispute decided to declare those "consistent" articles as wrong, deleted the exception wording off the guideline page [64], and launched a disruptive sweep through Wikipedia, unilaterally moving hundreds of articles, [65][66][67] [68][69] [70][71][72][73], with hundreds more still on their "hitlist"[74][75]

There was an attempt to hold a poll on the matter on October 30, but since there was no prior agreement on wording, it was a mess [76], with multiple editors rapidly changing the wording and structure of the poll while it was in process[77][78][79]. Some called for the poll to be restarted[80] [81] [82][83] [84] [85] [86], but of course those in the "majority" protested this.[87][88]. There was some attempt to agree on wording for a new poll (mostly between myself and Josiah Rowe), but when we tried to actually run it, it was repeatedly deleted off the page.[89][90][91][92][93][94] [95][96].

It is my strong feeling that when there are many editors involved, and rapid discussion, that a survey is the best way to ensure that all editors' opinions are being heard and given equal weight. But calls for a cleanly-run poll were belittled as "stalling"[97][98], "immature delay tactics"[99][100], and the "whining"[101] of "sore losers"[102] engaging in "borderline trolling"[103] who should just, "Give the fuck up, you lost." [104]

In summary, there are some important issues here which would benefit from an ArbCom ruling. How "enforceable" is a guideline? To what degree can a WikiProject establish guidelines for its articles, especially if some of those guidelines are not in strict adherence to guidelines elsewhere on Wikipedia? When are RM procedures necessary? And lastly, I would very much like to see some oversight here about administrator behavior, specifically as regards the definition of consensus, the appropriateness of a poll when large numbers of editors are involved, the procedures for controversial page moves, and the inappropriate nature of harassing other editors with whom one is involved in a dispute. --El on ka 23:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ned Scott

I can't speak for every person in this debate, but I can honestly say I've considered both sides of this debate. Originally, when I was not as familiar with disambig naming conventions, I thought that Elonka's request was rather reasonable. A requested move was made to move the rest of the episode articles to the (Lost episode) suffix at Talk:Fire + Water, and I supported the "consistent" naming system. Before voicing my opinion I went to WP:NC-TV, which at the time said to disambig only when necessary, but then said "For Star Trek episodes, always add the series name". I assumed there was a discussion behind that and there was a reasonable rationale for the exception. User:Nohat and User:Wknight94 were two noticeable voices in the RM discussion saying that it was unnecessary. Eventually in the discussion I agreed, finding that there was no strong reason behind the exception in the first place. Since then I've even given it more thought and, after taking notice to article titles more often, realized where it could become a problem. Again, nothing major, but I made note of it.

I did attempt to change WP:NC-TV to not include the misleading Star Trek example [105]. Having looked further into the matter, I found that there was no discussion involved for including the example, as I had originally assumed. There was no "consensus", nor was there a reasonable explanation along side the example [106] [107]. I was reverted by Elonka, who I was definitely not at odds with at the time [108]. Every couple of days another revert [109] [110] [111] [112] and I gave up, not thinking it was important enough to get into an argument over.

Lost (TV series) had gotten itself a WikiProject around that time, Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost. One of the things they did was made a guideline (Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines) based on a mediation case (Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes) that had recently concluded about Lost episode articles. Being a supporter of WikiProjects, and a fan of Lost, I had been spending some time at WikiProject Lost helping to format the project page and get things started in a good direction. [113] [114]

I noticed that since the RM at Fire + Water, the episode guidelines had not been updated to reflect that outcome. I made a change [115] and again tried to remove the Star Trek example from WP:NC-TV [116]. Although I'm generally supportive of the idea of WikiProjects, there's the potential for such projects to be counter productive with forked guidelines, guideline conflicts, and projects developing ownership issues. [117] Because of these concerns, I pressed the issue.

A debate resulted, [118] with Elonka saying that the episode titling was apart of the mediation case, and that it was added because of a consensus. [119] I had been following that mediation discussion, and it's results, and noticed that there was no such discussion. [120] Later on, this was confirmed by another party of the mediation case [121] and the mediator himself [122]. I eventually asked for outside comment on the matter via WP:RFC [123]. Before this request I had been the minority in the debate, but that quickly changed when others started to comment. [124].

User:Argash noticed our discussion, and apparently other similar discussions, and invited everyone to continue on WP:TV-NC [125]. The rest has been summarized very well by Yaksha, Wknight94, Josiah Rowe.

Despite the simplicity of the issue and the minor importance of it, Elonka, and sometimes a few others, successfully drag the discussion on. Elonka particularly has made several misleading statements in and about the debate. [126] [127] [128]. She has flat out ignored reasonable discussion, and instead focuses on false accusations of incivility and harassment (with the exception of User:Izzy Dot, who was out of line). I don't know what her motive has been, but it's pretty clear that she knows what she's doing and that she doesn't intend to stop until she gets her way. I just don't know why, or what she thinks she'll gain by it, but I do know that she has been a direct cause for the situation getting so out of hand. This has nothing to do with if WikiProjects can make an exception or not, because we all agreed that any guideline can have a reasonable exception. The fact is that WP:LOST didn't even have a reasonable exception, or even a discussion that resulted in a consensus, for such an exception. No one does. The issue of episode article titles itself is not the real dispute, but rather, Elonka and a few others flat out refusing to accept this. -- Ned Scott 05:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/2)

Accept to consider user conduct during this dispute. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Fred Bauder 14:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. - SimonP 14:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Dmcdevit·t 11:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voting. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 08:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Voting in this case. (now an active arbitrator) FloNight 11:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Consensus decision making

1) Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. See Wikipedia:Consensus.

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Effective consensus decision making

1.1) Effective decision making using consensus requires appropriate framing of questions, adequate discussion of alternative solutions, and closure when a decision is reached, see Consensus decision-making for an extended discussion.

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Principles of consensus decision making

1.2) Rather than simply list known alternatives, debate for a short time, vote, and then accept or reject by some measure, a consensus decision-making process involves identifying and addressing concerns, generating new alternatives, combining elements of multiple alternatives and checking that people understand a proposal or an argument, Consensus_decision-making#Key_principles.

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Closing of a consensus process

1.3) After extended discussion, to be effective, the consensus decision making process must close. In many Wikipedia decision making processes, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, an administrator or bureaucrat "closes" the discussion by evaluating the arguments, considering which alternatives have more support and announces a decision, which may be "no consensus", an outcome which, depending on the context, usually has definite consequences. In other, less structured, situations, as in the case of how to structure the titles of television episodes, there is no formal closer. Nevertheless, considering the alternatives proposed, the extended discussion engaged in, expressions of preference, there is a result which should be respected. Absent formal closing, it is the responsibility of users to evaluate the process and draw appropriate conclusions.

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sexual harassment prohibited

4) Sexual harassment, including but not limited to unwanted sexual advances or innuendo, disrupts the collegial, respectful environment Wikipedia seeks to create for editors.

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

5) No personal attacks.

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Titles of episodes of television series

1) There has been an extended discussion regarding the Wikipedia:Naming conventions for the titles of episodes of television series; a consensus decision was reached, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#Statement_by_Yaksha, but is not respected by some users, possibly due to lack of an authoritative and generally respected procedure for closing the consensus decision making process, see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(television)#Episode_articles.

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Izzy Dot

2) User:Izzy Dot has engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment through a series of unwanted advances and innuendos.

Passed 6 to 1 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Closing of a consensus decision making procedure

1) It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in, such as this dispute. Closing consists of announcing the decision at the locations of the discussion and briefly explaining the basis for closing it in the way it is being closed; further, to change any policy pages, guidelines or naming conventions to conform with the decision; and finally, to enforce the decision with respect to recalcitrant users who violate the decision, after reminding them and warning them.

Passed 6 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No penalties for violation of consensus

2) Given the existence of some uncertainty regarding how to determine if there is consensus in a particular case, no remedy is proposed concerning those who violated the consensus in this matter for past violations of policy.

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Izzy Dot banned

3) Izzy Dot's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 14 days.

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement

Violation of consensus

1) Any user who purposely violates the consensus decision in this matter during the next 180 days may be briefly blocked. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Administrators are expected to use discretion and judgment in enforcing this remedy rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion.

Passed 6 to 0 at 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Izzy Dot blocked for 14 days on 05:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC) per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#User:Izzy_Dot_banned. --Srikeit 05:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]