Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elk Salmon

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 23:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC).

Elk Salmon (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

The Moscow Metro article had been protected in June 2006 due to an ongoing dispute over the design of the table located in the section in the article entitled The Lines of the Moscow Metro. Discussion regarding the table design occured for a month prior to the page's unprotection on July 10. Since then, despite what appeared to be some consensus for a table similar to the one displayed in this revision (called "table two" on the talk page), Elk Salmon has repeatedly reverted the article to include the table displayed in this revision (called "table one" on the talk page). As one can see from browsing the two versions, the primary item of discussion has been the order of the first two columns. Progress to understand Elk Salmon's especially strong preference for "table one" has been limited, particularly because of his refusal to participate in a Request for Mediation that was opened on July 15 and due to his belief that "table two" is original research.

Root of conflict

The dispute arose from the index on one of Moscow Metro's lines, the Butovskaya Light Metro Line (or BLLM). Officially Moscow Metro does not numerate its lines, but instead names them, however these are always presented in the same order and consequentely there are instances when numbers are used (like official maps and schemes). However the unique construction of BLLM (for Moscow Metro that is, please see the article to find out why), had Moscow Metro classify the line as Light Metro and even introduced a specialised logo for its stations and even its own train models. Officialy it was denoted as L1 on Metro maps and schemes rather than line #12, however, because the line is not actually a separate system and is fully interoperable with the rest of the Moscow Metro, it is assumed to be a twelfth line and as a result with or without numbers it is listed after all of the other lines.

In the Moscow Metro article there was a brief dispute on how the box in the table should be presented, with User:Elk Salmon attempting to argue that the presence of #12 either with or without the L1 index is necessary. However in the following discussion it was indicated that the overall majority did not share Elk Salmon's opinion and opted to keep L1.

User:Elk Salmon then attempted to separate the definition of the official numeration and the physical or index number of the lines by having the names preceed them in the column order, this generated an edit war and the page was locked by User:Ezhiki (note the twisted version of the table that was created as a result of User:Elk Salmon). For the next four weeks a heated discussion continued and the tables were improved in style, colourings headings, eventually coming down to two versions

Table 1 which was supported by the majority of editors, that keeps the official pattern of numeration in the first column

Table 2 which was courtesy of User:Elk Salmon that builds on his argument for L1 vs 12 and consequentely lists the official numberings after the names.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Edit warring:
- June 8 to June 9: [1], [2], [3], [4]
- July 10 to July 15 [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]
- July 24: [13]
- August 17: [14], [15]
Failure to explain views and negotiate:
- July 14: Elk Salmon was notified that he was close to violating the three-revert rule and replied requesting that Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs) not use his talk page
- Elk Salmon was notified of the request for mediation, and responded by saying not to hide behind threats
- Elk Salmon never indicated whether he accepted or rejected the request for mediation, and thus it never went through.
- August 19: After Elk Salmon was notified of this RfC, he replied stating he is rejecting what he calls "useless excuses" (referring to this RfC)

Applicable policies and guidelines

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, especially under the section entitled intent of the policy, which notes that "reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context" (although note that Elk Salmon has never actually blocked for any of his actions)
Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
Wikipedia:Explain your views - a very short, loose guideline, but this is the closest to describing Elk Salmon's unwillingness to cooperate and negotiate

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Discussions regarding the table format could be seen in sections 15-24 of Talk:Moscow Metro/Archive-July 20, 2006
June 25: A request for comment on the article was opened
Discussion narrowed the table formats down to two; a straw poll indicated a 7-2 majority for "table two" (Elk Salmon prefers "table one"); see also #Tables
July 10: Elk Salmon was notified that he was close to violating the three-revert rule and then subsequently alleged he was reverting vandalism
July 14: Elk Salmon was notified that he was close to violating the three-revert rule and replied requesting that Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs) not use his talk page
July 15: Request for Mediation filed – this was rejected since Elk Salmon and one other party failed to accept the request
- Elk Salmon was notified of the request for mediation, and responded by saying not to hide behind threats
July 24: The Trains WikiProject was notified of the dispute in an informal request for comment on the situation

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

-- tariqabjotu 23:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kuban Cossack 23:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Sascha. 15:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—lensovet–talk – 05:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Errabee

I have been to Moscow 4 times since 2000. In this period, I've used the subway intensively, and I have to say, there are arguments for both sides. Arguments for Elk Salmon's view are that historically, lines were only indicated by their name and color. Numbers were absent. And although the lines have always been ordered in the same way, it is not unheard of that the lines have changed number. In 2000, the ring line (Кольцевая) was number 4, because the current line 4 (Филёвская) was then numbered as 3a. I still have a map that shows this numbering.

An argument that opposes Elk Salmon's view is that since 2000, signs have been changed to include the numbering, which gives these numbers an official status. And it is this official status that allows for the table that Elk Salmon is so vehemently opposed to. It would seem that the numbering will not change anymore. As such, I think the only issue between the two tables is an aesthetical one; whichever one is more pleasing and informative to the reader should be used. By popular vote, the one Elk Salmon is opposed to, has been voted as the one that has the greatest chance of reaching this goal, and should therefore be used. Errabee 16:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: see this map. It appears that this numbering was changed before 2000, and my map was already out of date, but the point still stands. Errabee 21:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Errabee 16:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-Kuban Cossack 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC), but please show us this map where FL is numbered as "3a"...most interesting.[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.