Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Lord Roem (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: PhilKnight (Talk) & Jclemens (Talk)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Arbitrators active on this case

Courcelles
David Fuchs
Elen of the Roads
Hersfold
Kirill Lokshin
Jclemens
Newyorkbrad
PhilKnight
Risker
Roger Davies
SirFozzie
SilkTork

Inactive:

AGK
Xeno

Recused:

Casliber

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-party preliminary statements

Comment by somewhat involved editor Orderinchaos

While I'm unhappy that things got to what they did in this situation, I think that the focus on individuals in this case is simply poking the Wikidrama beast. All of the four admins involved acted in good faith - there were two possible readings of the RM, which had a final vote count of 19 to 13. 1 - It had closed in favour of a move, with 60% in support. Or 2 - The sizable opposition was enough to consider consensus had not been reached. The end situation - the previous status quo - is a point from where an RfC of some sort could be initiated on the topic of where the page should be, and the move-warring can be regarded as an regrettable past incident and we can all move on. Orderinchaos 06:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edited statement to correct an error as pointed out above (I'd previously said no admin tools were required to perform the move.) Orderinchaos 08:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the circumstances surrounding the move have been mentioned - my look at the situation was quite interesting in terms of the voting. The "blocs", if you like, voted as follows:

Perth WA - 4 support, 5 oppose.
Australia (except WA) - 7 support.
Scotland - 6 oppose.
Other - 8 support (2 from UK, rest from Canada/US), 2 oppose (1 from UK, 1 from Norway).

I realise this belongs in an evidence section later. While clearly there was an amount of nationalism in the Scottish opposes, the situation in Australia and definitely in Perth itself is far more complicated. Orderinchaos 11:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to P.T. Aufrette - as Gnangarra's currently having technical problems in editing pages, I'll note that what I think he means (as it's 4:40am here in Perth) about the 10,000 is pages which link Perth, Western Australia; pages which link articles containing the words "Perth, Western Australia" (e.g. this one) or which contain categories which at present have the words Perth, Western Australia in them (see parent cat) per the general category naming convention which requires concordance between category names and article titles. In summarising that, however, I personally believe that this is not an issue as long as the process by which the need for change is determined is a sound one - CfD sees bot moves of this size or greater not infrequently. Orderinchaos 20:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aufrette's statement that 10,000 is not an emergency. More likely than not, it would happen in a series of stages which could take months. I've been involved in some far less controversial moves of this general type before (in cases where there was only one item with the primary name). Get a few people working on it - the WA project has several capable admins and project workers, and when you add WP:AUS to that we have a broad array of support we can call on, to ensure that the work is properly supervised and not unduly disruptive. Orderinchaos 17:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I accept that JHunterJ's closure was controversial, that does not necessarily mean that it was bad. Additionally, the fact that he has made controversial closures in other RMs on topics other than this one which may or may not have been bad also does not necessarily mean this one was bad. I understand from reading comments here that some here are frustrated with him over previous incidents, but I'm honestly not seeing the obvious or egregious badness in this one - indeed, both JHunterJ's and Deacon's interpretations, based on different aspects of the situation, are correct. Many of the votes in any analysis did not add in any meaningful way to the discussion and amounted to emotional hand waving - I've explained this further at the move review page. However, back on track, I believe that Deacon erred gravely in reverting the move without consultation with the original closing admin - indeed, by the time the closing admin even got to look, there was nothing left to do. I do not honestly believe we would be here without Deacon's action, as it set the stage for everything else thereafter. Subsequent actions were more ill-advised than wrong - I can understand the motivation of both, that Kwami saw a concluded RM which had been unset without due process, and reinstated the original outcome, while Gnangarra felt the best way to move forward was to have a longer discussion about it and that status quo should remain while this was the case. A trout is warranted, but from what I can tell, it was a one-off without precedent in the lengthy admin careers of both, and in the spirit of "preventative, not punitive", there would be no good cause for losing either over a single situation which was literally over in hours. Orderinchaos 17:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Collect

Am I correct that Kwami was "involved" per se by his !vote in the move discussion, and therefore Kwami's revert of the "move" was the improper act here (albeit not likely intended to be improper - just improper as far as any "wheel-war" claims are concerned here)? In fact, it is the only improper act I see in the whole furschlugginer list. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Cla68

You guys really can't talk this out without having to resort to arbitration? Cla68 (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A point from peripherally involved Black Kite

The only people who were involved in a wheel war here were Kwamikagami (definitely) and possibly Gnangarra (depending on whether he had the agreement of the original admin, and even then it's still not a good idea). The original two editors were acting in accordance with WP:BRD which would have been fine if there had then been discussion. WP:WHEEL is quite clear - "Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion. Resolve admin disputes by discussing."

What is more concerning is that both Kwamikagami [1] and Gnangarra [2] had commented in the discussion and supported the version that they reverted to, thus violating WP:INVOLVED as well. Having said that, I don't think anything more than a very large trout and a admonishment not to do it again is needed here. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I do think the original close was wrong. The pure headcount was 19-13 in favour of a move (not a massive consensus to begin with), but the vast majority of "Support" votes were simply WP:JUSTAVOTE comments of the format of "Australian Perth is the primary topic". JHunterJ claims to have closed the discussion with regard to WP:NOTVOTE, but an analysis of the Support votes suggests that he didn't, and it should have been closed as No Consensus. Whether that justifies Deacon's revert is a discussion point, but I suspect it makes it more valid. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment; having looked further into this, I suggest a recommendation for ArbCom be that JHunterJ refrains from closing further move requests. There are too many that appear erroneous, like this one, on the rationales given for them. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by LtPowers

It is extremely important to note that consensus is not determined by a simple counting of votes, but that closing admins must weigh the individual arguments carefully. JHunterJ was well within his discretion to find a consensus in the discussion if he perceived a significant weakness in the opposing arguments. The proper response for anyone who disagreed with that finding is discussion, not reversion.

WP:BRD does not apply here; that page is an instruction to editors to be bold, with the knowledge that if the bold edit is reverted, then it serves an opening for further discussion. It is not a blanket permission to revert-then-discuss when discuss-then-revert is a much better order of operations. And WP:BOLD doesn't apply to the original action anyway; JHunterJ was an admin determining consensus from an existing discussion. That's not BOLD, it's just CONSENSUS.

Full disclosure: I supported the move request in question.

-- Powers ^T 20:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Bidgee

I think that the consensus for the move wasn't there (no consensus), since it is based on the argument of the vote and not the vote itself. I think that the Admins involved were acting in good faith. I feel that Gnangarra was correct to move the article back to the old title due to the dispute with the lack of consensus since the articles it affects is large (due to linking) and also being more disruptive to our readers.

Note: I voted support for the move for Perth, Western Australia to Perth. Bidgee (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think P.T. Aufrette understands the affects and effects of one name change has to many articles, first of all it means any article or categoies that had "Perth, Western Australia" needed to be renamed to have ", Western Australia" removed and you also have wikilinks to articles change from "Perth, Western Australia" to "Perth" which becomes a problem when there is a consensus to keep "Perth, Western Australia" as the title and the changing of the links is done by a bot. You have articles that link to "Perth" but have nothing to do with "Perth, Western Australia" before the move but once move is done and the wikilinks are changed, anything you do after will make it more difficult to fix! Just look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Perth. Bidgee (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Moondyne

disclosure: I am a member of WP:WA and !voted oppose in the RM discussion

It seems to me that this case isn't a genuine wheelwar as most people would understand the term - a single revert to bring the article back to the status quo after a questionable close is hardly a war. The rfar is being justified by the phrase "Wheel warring usually results in an immediate Request for Arbitration" which seems to be a lousy choice of words - its as if we must have drama and we musn't try to resolve any other way.

Regarding the RM, I still feel that the discussion shows that there is no community consensus for a move and that the close gave no weight to the arguments. What is the point of having RM discussions if comments from volunteers comments are seemingly ignored and one person's strict interpretation of policy applied? I gather that the closer has been bold in a similar manner several times previously. If this is the direction we're heading I need to reconsider bothering with being involved in community discussions like this in future. I know that the RM close is not the purpose of this discussion, but its important to appreciate the context in which events occurred.

I hope the arbitrators won't waste too much time on this matter: apply trout and move on. Moondyne (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Noetica

Disclosure: While not involved in the RM that started all this, I am deeply interested in problems with Wikipedia's present arrangements for RMs and article titling generally. I have had unpleasant exchanges with JHunterJ over several of his RM closures.

I agree with some of what Moondyne says, above: this is no serious case of wheel-warring, and there are larger issues that the Committee would do well to address.

I also agree with this point from P.T. Aufrette:

An evaluation by Arbcom of the suitability of the relatively new and untried Move review procedure [under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Move review] might be helpful, as would any suggestions for how a similar situation could be handled better in the future, or how the current contention over the move outcome can be steered towards a final resolution.

Issues with article titles loomed large in a recent case before the Committee: Article_titles_and_capitalisation. RMs were not prominent in that case, but they are intimately connected with policy and guidelines bearing on article titles.

Moondyne has alluded to difficulties with JHunterJ's closure of the RM, in the first instance. Surely they are at the root of the present disputation. I've decided, for the time being, not to contribute to RM discussions with my customary detailed analyses. I feel that my considerable efforts have been wasted. JHunterJ shows no compunction about closing RMs in which I make sustained contributions, though he must by now be aware that I strongly disapprove of his failure to consider my arguments – or the refutations I offer of others' arguments, which he frequently accepts without even touching on my response to them. Any other admin could step in, given the possibility of discord and perception of bias: but JHunterJ seems unwilling to let that happen.

When experienced editors with the capacity for specialist analysis give up on RMs, there is a wider problem than we might have thought. I hope the Committee will expand this case to take in such concerns also, and in particular to address the matter of partiality and of less obvious kinds of admin involvement that work against reasonable outcomes for RMs, and that waste a considerable amount of effort from volunteers who exert themselves in good faith. At least some findings of principle and of fact may be valuable, to inform future RMs.

Noetica^Tea? 04:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JHunterJ has now suggested (above) that this is not a forum for examining his actions as closer of the RM we are concerned with. Since then, Black Kite (above) has also asked "that JHunterJ [refrain] from closing further move requests. There are too many that appear erroneous, like this one, on the rationales given for them." The Committee certainly has discretion to consider poor closure decisions, and several of us are calling for it to do so. A narrow focus on effects rather than causes would be a waste of everyone's time. JHunterJ has suggested action at ANI instead, or an RFCU. But the matter has already been to ANI, and has ended up here. An RFCU would certainly be warranted; but again, the matter is now before ArbCom. And anyway, the closure issues do not involve JHunterJ alone, though he has been the main concern – with this Perth closure, and for example his supervoting closure for the article Big. There are also closures by others, such as the most recent one at Talk:Anne Hathaway, with all of its irregularities that sap the time and energy of editors concerned to build an encyclopedia with readers' interests to the fore rather than mechanical and partisan application of defective titling rules. Noetica^Tea? 23:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dicklyon

I have no knowledge of the particular case, but would like to echo a sentiment something like Noetica's. When I once told JHunterJ that he seemed to be closing RMs that involved the exact guidelines and interpretations that he had taken strong positions on, he replied that he did not have a conflict of interest, rather that he was particularly qualified for having studied the policies and guidelines in detail. That's bogus; all us who care strongly have studied those. What's needed in RM closing is someone willing to study the arguments of the community, rather than be bound by their own predetermined conceptions of how it should go. He should recuse himself from further RM closings that involve issues that he has strong opinions on. It's not surprising that another admin would be outraged enough to revert him; too bad it didn't get handled more calmly... Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tony1

I've voiced support for the notion that only admins should close RMs because they're held to a high standard in terms of neutrality, CoI. I hope JHunterJ isn't letting the side down. Tony (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by OohBunnies!

To note, I did vote oppose in the requested move. I think the admins here did act in good faith, but JHunterJ's initial closing and subsequent move was imperfect and it's not too surprising that something like this happened. Saying that the oppose votes had no weight even when some support votes (such as "If I told people I was "going to Perth", there would be no misunderstanding of where I was going. That pretty much defines primary topic." made by the admin that reverted the first revert, who breached WP:INVOLVED) don't hold much weight per PRIMARYTOPIC either as they simply show that it's looks different depending on what part of the globe you happen to be sitting on.

If the subsequent drama hadn't happened (i.e if no one had reverted JHunterJ's move) I would have been sufficiently unhappy with it, enough to bring it up with JHunterJ but as I read all the threads, I'm not convinced he/she would have listened to me and other editors above me have suggested that JHunterJ's closes have been problematic in the past. I think that should be looked at. As for the wheel war, trouts should suffice. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 09:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: the admins involved in the wheelwar are 100% accountable for their own actions, but I feel that JHunterJ should recognise his own accountability in the matter. Even while many editors have criticised the close, it doesn't appear as though JHunterJ is willing to accept any of the criticisms. It suggests to me that he doesn't understand that the primary topic is decided by community consensus, not by him alone. I think that ignoring or dismissing a significant portion of the community voice does the community a disservice. I understand that ArbCom's primary concern is the wheelwar, and that they are not going to discuss the primary topic policy or where the article should reside, but I do hope they will take the initial close into account when examining the affair. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 10:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Neotarf

After several unpleasant exchanges with JHunterJ, I have stopped participating in RMs that involve primary topic. When JHunterJ participates in the discussions he is strongly in favor of primary topic. When he closes RMs — and he does close RMs where there is disagreement over primary topic — he does not explain his actions, so it is easy to conclude that the time spent commenting on these things would be better spent somewhere else. Neotarf (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion by Br'er Rabbit

{{Perch}} for everyone? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information from totally uninvolved Beyond My Ken

Just bringing this to the attention of the committee. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by George Ho

The move review on Perth, Western Australia, is occuring at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 June 14. Meanwhile, I must say that I have begun to express doubts about JHunterJ. Nevertheless, Animate advised me not to "harass" Hunter because I overly demanded Hunter not to participate any discussion that may seem complicated. In Talk:Talk Talk, I have made a requested move about moving "Talk Talk (band)" back into "Talk Talk; there were oppositions, so I withdrew. Then I tried WT:Disambiguation. However, JHunterJ did move everything back and decided to disregard oppositions. Also, in WT:Disambiguation, Hunter made namecallings about Noetica's comments. --George Ho (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are Talk Talk and comments about Noetica. Also, look at talk:All That Jazz (film), Talk:Season 2, Talk:Season 4 (30 Rock), and Talk:It's Great to Be Alive. He uses same reasons that... I could not adequately rebute. He interpret rules not the same way I think; well, I don't know... Still, the only "decent" he might have done were advising me to do something not "disruptive" (which making 2nd request in "All That Jazz" doesn't qualify)... and concluding something in Talk:Doctor Zhivago. Problems with Hunter haven't gone away, as far as I can see. --George Ho (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved comment by jc37

(I haven't read anything about the requested move, nor the situations subsequent to it. The first I knew that this was contentious was because it was noted at WT:Move review, where I have been helping out with the proposed process.)

But I thought I should express that I have had concerns concerning some of JhunterJ's closes in the past. He has been active at WP:DAB in the past, and in my experience has a very bureaucratic sense concerning disambiguation pages. (linking, formatting, what pages are and are not "allowed" on a dab page, which pages should and should not have (disambiguation) and so on). And I believe has had a hand in the writing of the related policies to reflect that perspective. While not necessarily "bad", it has, in my opinion, led to situations which hindered rather than helped navigation of the encyclopedia. And as this Arb request relates to dab pages, I thought that this is worth noting.

And I will admit that his RM closures have to me at times come across as appearing close to being a "supervote". But I will say that we all like to give sway to admin discretion in closures. And JuhunterJ does close those discussions which others may shy away from due to their contention, so I've always felt that he deserves a bit more leeway in WP:AGF, since such closes can be contentious by nature of a related contentious topic.

So anyway, nothing incredibly "bad", but just wanted to try to put some of this in a broader perspective. - jc37 14:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I do not think good faith is really the issue being raised JHunterJ; it's judgment and accountability. If you notice people shying away from closing something contentious, then expecting extra care to be taken is not unreasonable. If there is a concern that a maximum level of disruption has resulted from judgment that was repeatedly or seriously poor, or where insufficient care was taken, then simply saying 'take me to RfC/U or ANI - not here' does not strike me to be the appropriate response. If you chose to get involved by putting your hand up to the task which has caused so much controversy, then you should have no hesitation in seeing it through (especially at the point in time where the major problem arose rather than ages later). Alternatively, you could settle the dispute, but I don't see much desire for that from you or the filer's comments so far. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK JHunterJ, what did you make of Black Kite's comment in relation to your closing of such discussions? Or are you saying your peer is also, like that other editor, unable to assume good faith and act civilly? Or is it that you have had extensive interactions with Black Kite on the issue (like you did with those other editors)? As to settling (aka voluntarily resolving) disputes, it is not always possible - but that does not make it impossible either (I am aware of administrators who have settled disputes after a dispute remotely involving them has come to this page. That is, no case, and a better use of Wikipedia resources; particularly time, energy and contributions). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by involved-in-other-similar-RM Enric Naval

IMO, this is a content dispute:

some editors have proposed to remove "Be precise, but only as precise as necessary" from WP:PRECISION, which would allow parenthetical disambiguations in many articles, i.e. Big - - > Big (film)
the proposal has the flaw that it doesn't explain when we should stop adding parenthesis[3], i.e. it would open the doors wide to Nice - - > Nice (city), Colonoscopy - - > Colonoscopy (medicine), Big (film) - - > Big (1998 film), etc.
consequently, the proposal has failed, and WP:PRECISION has not changed
despite the failure, some of these editors go to RM and use this flawed interpretation of WP:PRECISION
JhunterJ rightfully ignores their !votes, since they are not supported by guidelines
for these editors, this arbitration case would be an excellent opportunity to get rid of JhunterJ. Then these editors can push their own interpretation of RM. And without having to address the flaws that prevented adoption by the community. And any further admin that tries to apply guidelines as determined by the community can be scared away by pointing at the fate suffered by JhunterJ.

Summary: they can't get rid of WP:PRECISION because their proposal is flawed, and they can't solve the flaws in their proposal. So, they try to get rid of those that apply WP:PRECISION as written, then they use their own noise to claim that WP:PRECISION is "controversial". --Enric Naval (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Binary solutions again

While I have not had time to consider this case in detail (and indeed, up until a few months ago, would have had no reason to think such was necessary) I am disappointed to see that not only is a case that was largely community resolved being processed by the committee to the detriment of the constructive work the parties could have been delivering, but that once again binary solutions that fail to actually resolve the dispute, and strengthen the widely held belief that an Arb case is effectively a slow motion form of Russian roulette, are being passed. Rich Farmbrough, 01:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Huh?

Okay, I don't get it. JHunterJ closed the request with a move. Deacon of Pndapetzim reverted it without discussion. That was unacceptable behaviour. I restored the move per JHunterJ's closure, so that any reversal could be discussed properly. It wasn't a judgement on the move, just the obvious concern, one I would think people here would share, that we don't go around reverting decisions that we disagree with. For that I get desysopped? — kwami (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are the fall guy in this case. 188.26.163.24 (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]