Wikipedia needs to deal formally with the very divisive and important topic of Sigmund Freud, whose ideas have many adherents and many harsh critics, a well known and longstanding controversy akin to the evolution controversy in its scale and the passions of its partisans. A very aggressive editor, Polisher of Cobwebs, has written a lead to the Freud article that gives undue weight to criticisms of Freud and underrates his importance within psychiatry and neuroscience. It isn't an accurate reflection of the controversy, which is more justly reflected in the "Science" section in the body of the article.

Polisher of Cobwebs refuses any alterations to the lead and has reverted all my edits. He refuses good faith discussion or compromise and is bullying and uncivil. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sigmund_Freud&diff=prev&oldid=497167818 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sigmund_Freud&diff=prev&oldid=497166629

I reached out through recommended dispute resolution steps in the Talk pages, and I proposed a number of small changes that left the majority of his lead intact and restored some balance to the lead with reputable well-sourced material. He rejected them all with much hostility.

Polisher of Cobwebs says openly in the Sigmund Freud Talk pages that a negative / critical view of Freud is the only correct one. His user page lists numerous articles he has created that rely exclusively on sources that roundly disparage Freud, biographies of Freud, and anybody who dares to find value in his work.

The "Freud Is Dead" / "Freud Is Not Dead" wars have been ongoing for a hundred years now, but Polisher of Cobwebs does not acknowledge his partisanship and is determined to ban anything that honors Freud’s importance to psychiatry and psychology from the Freud page lead. The page used to be rated a "good" page, but is no longer, and with good reason. Polisher of Cobwebs and other Freud-bashers have made the Wikipedia entry on a very important figure biased, warped, and inaccurate.

The page ought to be defended from this editor and others that have inflexibly distorted the Freud legacy as partisans of the Freud wars. Polisher of Cobwebs and those who agree with him have ample opportunity to vent their spleens in veiled form and quote all the Freud-bashers they want on the Freud page and in many other pages, but people who know and value Freud's work ought to have a say in characterizing Freud as well, no? I notice that Creationists are not allowed to deface the Darwin page lead in this way.

@PhilKnight: Thanks for the advice, but alas, I think my just budding career as a Wikipedia editor has come to an end. Even if I had the time or was paid, I don't think I could endure what is required to prevail over the Kafkaesque machinery that has arisen here at Wikipedia. The result of this system is that he with the most spare time or with the biggest lunatic obsession with fighting these petty battles owns the truth. A pity.Hypoplectrus (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this comment from the voting section and appended @PhilKnight to retain the context. AGK [•] 08:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Polisher of Cobwebs. This dispute is not run of the mill because it is about Sigmund Freud, one of the most influential and controversial figures of the twentieth century. It is not run of the mill because a dispute regarding Freud is more than an accidental contretemps between individuals with dissimilar views; disputes regarding Freud belong to a hundred years' war of ideologies with at least two significant camps, much like the evolution controversy. There is no way Wikipedia can hope to have a neutral article about Freud without some layers of protection against uncompromising partisan activists like Polisher of Cobwebs who denies with ferocity that the lead mention Freud's continuing influence on psychiatry, even when Nobel-prize-winning neuropsychiatrist Eric Kandel said Freud's theories "remain the most coherent and intellectually satisfying view of the mind" in a 1999 review of the state of psychiatry and mind science in the American Journal of Psychiatry. Kandel ER., “Biology and the future of psychoanalysis: a new intellectual framework for psychiatry revisited.” American Journal of Psychiatry 1999; 156(4):505-24. (Polisher of Cobwebs suggests on the Talk pages that Kandel's opinion--which is only one of many that could be brought out in support of Freud's lasting influence on psychiatry--is only relevant because I "happen to like him," as did the Nobel committee, I might add, as well as every medical school in the United States, virtually all of whom have used Kandel's classic neuroscience text for the last two decades.)Hypoplectrus (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Polisher of Cobwebs

This is a run of the mill content dispute that does not need an arbitration case. Hypoplectrus' comments about it are not accurate: the lead of the article on Freud does not "underrates his importance within psychiatry and neuroscience", because it does not mention psychiatry or neuroscience. Not mentioning these subjects is not the same as saying that Freud is not important to them. It is not true that I have tried to "ban anything that honors Freud’s importance to psychiatry and psychology from the Freud page lead" - the lead states that some researchers believe their work provides support for some of Freud's theories, and I was the editor who added that. Finally, it is not true that I have reverted all of Hypoplectrus' edits. Those interested enough in this tiff to care can check that through the article's revision history. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bus stop

In my opinion User:Polisher of Cobwebs is too controlling at the Sigmund Freud article. I disapprove of this kind of language: "If you cite Eric Kandel's views in the lead, I will remove them." That is too confrontational. I want to see what User:Hypoplectrus wants to add to the lead from the views of Eric Kandel. More than that, I would like to see User:Hypoplectrus' influence on the article more broadly. Most of what User:Hypoplectrus says on the Talk page sounds sensible to me. I approve of what I see User:Hypoplectrus trying to bring to the article. It is not that User:Polisher of Cobwebs will be rendered superfluous by allowing for a more collaborative process that allows User:Hypoplectrus constructive input. I think the degree of resistance to normal collaborative editing displayed by User:Polisher of Cobwebs is unreasonable, especially given the wide range of material and opinions and commentary applying to this topic. Bus stop (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An offer from Orderinchaos

Perhaps rather than a formal dispute resolution mechanism it just needs someone who's completely uninvolved to mediate the situation. If parties were in agreement, I think the way forward would be to protect the article (I'd hope "informal agreement not to edit the lead until discussions are concluded" would be possible as an alternative), have each person put their case for what it should be and why, and then figure out what the differences are, whether they're major or minor and can be resolved, get some others to offer their thoughts, then edit the final version in accordingly. I've seen this approach work before where the number of disputants is low. I'm not an expert in the field although I've done first year psychology and have access to a university library and online academic materials. Orderinchaos 08:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the discussion at the talk page carefully, I think the problem is in part that the article has come to be "owned" by one individual with strong views. Some of those views are sound and well-justified, others are less sustainable, especially in areas where there is controversy or vagueness in the source materials. Orderinchaos 09:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)

Hypoplectrus, for "previous steps in dispute resolution", you've only provided a link to Talk:Sigmund Freud - is there a particular section where an attempt has been made to resolve this dispute? Furthermore, have any other steps listed at WP:DR been attempted, including requesting a third opinion, opening a request for comment, or raising the issue at a relevant noticeboard? Arbitration is the absolute last step in dispute resolution, and the Committee will generally decline to hear cases unless those steps have been tried and failed to resolve the issue. I don't see that this is the case here, so pending further clarification I'm voting to decline this request and recommend you seek one of those other venues. If you need assistance, please feel free to ask myself or one of the clerks and we'll point you in the right direction. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Hersfold. Courcelles 22:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline in the hope this dispute can be resolved without arbitration, which is often a lengthy and contentious process. This doesn't imply your dispute is unimportant, merely that arbitration isn't the best way to resolve it. Suggest having a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - there are several kinds of dispute resolution that could be useful. For the content side of the dispute, given the complexity of the issues, I would suggest the next stage is informal mediation, and if there are more serious problems you could try either a Request for Comment on content or formal mediation. For the user conduct dispute, if there are relatively minor concerns you could try Wikiquette alerts, and if there are more serious conduct problems, I would suggest a Request for Comment on user conduct. If after the earlier stages in the dispute resolution process have been attempted, we could look again at whether arbitration was required. PhilKnight (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Phil and Hersfold. Hypoplectrus, I encourage you to take a break from this dispute if it is causing you stress. There are numerous venues for resolving Wikipedia disputes, and one will resolve your concerns; arbitration is simply not one such venue. Essays such as Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot touch on the subject of the temporary withdrawal from a dispute for the purpose of regaining perspective, and may be worthy of perusal. AGK [•] 08:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - the discussion on the talkpage is still ongoing, and no other dispute resolution has yet been tried. Given the popularity and importance of this topic, it does concern me that there is some edit warring taking place on the article, and a strong discussion taking place regarding content, yet so few people are helping out. There are over 1,000 users watching the article. Perhaps some of them could assist? If not, try asking someone at WP:Editor assistance to co-ordinate the talkpage discussion, and perhaps lock down the article page to ensure stability of one of our high-profile articles until some consensus has been reached. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per the above. Acceptance is now mathematically impossible and this request can be closed at a clerk's convenience, with appropriate notification to the filing party. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perth wheel war

Initiated by P.T. Aufrette (talk) at 02:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

P.T. Aufrette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
JHunterJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Gnangarra (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

P.T. Aufrette, filing party
JHunterJ
Deacon of Pndapetzim
Kwamikagami
Gnangarra

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

There has been a fair amount of (somewhat unproductive) discussion at various talk pages. However, according to WP:WHEELWAR: "Wheel warring usually results in an immediate Request for Arbitration". Based on that wording, I am filing here. If the case should be declined, I would ask that arbitrators provide guidance or suggested replacement wording for the WP:WHEELWAR page.

Statement by P.T. Aufrette

May 25: P.T. Aufrette starts a requested move survey, to move Perth, Western Australia to Perth. [1]

added: and simultaneously to move Perth to Perth (disambiguation).
May 27: Kwamikagami !votes "Support" in the requested move survey.[2]
May 31: Gnangarra !votes "Oppose" in the requested move survey.[3]
June 9, 12:38: JHunterJ closes the requested move survey, with the result of "moved",[4] and moves the article. [5]
June 9, 16:49: Deacon of Pndapetzim reverts the move [6]. There is no prior discussion, but there are after-the-fact posts shortly afterward that question the impartiality of the original closure by JHunterJ.[7][8]
June 9, 23:57: P.T. Aufrette posts to WP:ANI calling for the original closure outcome to be restored pending a review at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review (recently renamed to Wikipedia:Move review). [9] The issue of a perceived affiliation (of Deacon of Pndapetzim) is raised (also here).
June 10, 02:15: Kwamikagami re-reverts, restoring the original closure outcome, with edit summary "please don't wheel war". [10] It is not clear if this was done by way of response to the earlier call to do so, or was done independently.
June 10, 07:13: Gnangarra re-re-reverts the move with edit summary "as per discussion at closing admin talk page". [11][12] This edit summary is a particular point of contention: my claim is that no such discussion took place, and the aforesaid closing admin JHunterJ concurs.[13] JHunterJ's part in this supposed "discussion" consisted of a single 12-word sentence posted at 11:08 pm his local time,[14] which Gnangarra unaccountably claims to represent JHunterJ's acquiescence to Gnangarra reverting JHunterJ.[15][16][17][18][19] Gnangarra (in Australia) then carried out the revert during the overnight hours in JHunterJ's time zone, while JHunterJ was not posting and was presumably offline sleeping.

Regarding the contentious original move closure, that is not the topic of this arbitration request. It is my hope that it can be addressed via Wikipedia:Move review or similar mechanism. However, it is not clear whether any or all parties would accept a resolution via Move review [20], which leaves the original issue up in the air. An evaluation by Arbcom of the suitability of the relatively new and untried Move review procedure 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.

Vegaswikian (talk · contribs) has now started a move review — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In summary my contention is this:

A wheel war did indeed take place.
Per WP:WHEELWAR, RfArb is indeed the appropriate venue, per the wording "Wheel warring usually results in an immediate Request for Arbitration."

@Orderinchaos: You are mistaken, admin tools were needed, because the target Perth was/is a disambiguation page.

12:38, 9 June 2012 JHunterJ (talk | contribs) deleted page Perth (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
16:50, 9 June 2012 Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk | contribs) deleted page Perth (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
02:15, 10 June 2012 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) deleted page Perth (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
07:15, 10 June 2012 Gnangarra (talk | contribs) deleted page Perth (G6: Deleted to make way for move)

@Cla68: Gnangarra's role is the one that most concerns me, because of:

His getting involved at a late stage, when the wheel war really should have been cooling down rather than being perpetuated.
His disingenuous, if not absurd, claim to have gotten acquiescence from JHunterJ "per discussion". Please check the links provided. Given that "Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action.", it seems as though he invented a non-existent discussion in order to carry out a wheel-warring action while escaping sanction or censure for doing so. I think he needs a formal rap on the knuckles, at the very least.
The subsequent discussion with him on talk pages has been particularly unproductive and unsatisfactory. He continues to make the claim that "...its clear the admin had no issue with a reversal."[21] even after the admin in question told him on his own talk page that this was false.[22]

— P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Deacon of Pndapetzim:

~~I'm not sure how a non-admin can "intimidate" admins. Please post diffs.~~ (Deacon of Pndapetzim rewrote his original statement.)
~~Making multiple posts to talk pages would be the minimum expected prior to taking it to RfArb.~~ (Deacon of Pndapetzim rewrote his original statement.)
You carried out your action in the wrong way (reverting another admin with no prior talk discussion), and you were the wrong person to do it: as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland it could be inferred rightly or wrongly that you could possibly have had a pre-formed opinion about whether the former capital of medieval Scotland (Perth) should be considered a primary topic. No less than Kwamikagami and Gnangarra, you left yourself open to questions about whether you used administrator tools to further your own personal editing goals. When that concern was raised, you were a bit dismissive.[23] ~~And now you are trying to make this personal.~~ (Deacon of Pndapetzim rewrote his original statement.)
~~added: JHunterJ can speak for himself, but he didn't sound entirely reconciled to your actions and statements [24] or to those of Gnangarra.[25]~~ (Deacon of Pndapetzim rewrote his original statement.)

— P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"As far as I can see, every uninvolved admin, on AN/I and elsewhere, agreed with my decision." — that is a very sweeping claim. The original version of your statement here made a similarly broad everyone-agrees-with-me claim.[26] If the ArbCom wishes to authorize some kind of survey among admins, that might be helpful. In any case, even those who share your position on how the move request should have been closed might be troubled by the way you went about it reversing it: very hastily, without prior discussion, and as a possibly WP:INVOLVED party (broadly construed). — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite:

Deacon of Pndapetzim may also have been WP:INVOLVED, per:
"...administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community..."

[emphasis mine] — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnangarra:

~~In your statement there is the phrase "...along with a recommendation to consider how a similar long term RM progressed". Can you provide a diff to justify this?~~ OK, maybe he's referring to his own recommendation here. A poorly phrased run-on sentence led to confusion.

To be clear: JHunterJ's entire participation in the supposed "discussion" was this single 12-word sentence:

"You missed the part where someone else reversed my actions for me"

with edit summary:

"too late to reverse"

posted June 10 at 03:08 UTC just before he called it a day and went to sleep in his time zone. I interpret that to mean he was unaware of Kwamikagami's re-revert less than an hour earlier, and thought that the status quo was Deacon of Pndapetzim's reversal. Your immediate reaction (June 10 03:12) seemingly shared this same interpretation;[27] when addressing JHunterJ directly on his talk page in this and one subsequent post (June 10 03:40–03:45),[28] you did not say anything along the lines of "hey, I see you from your statement that you now question your own original decision, thanks for saying that you have no further interest or concerns... so, I guess you're happy if I revert again?"

On the other hand, in the following hours and days you have seemingly posted an endless variety of interpretations of this one short sentence, namely:

June 10 03:15 "the admin who closed the discussion has indicated otherwise [implying a change of mind]" [29]
June 10 03:24 "The last comment by J on the matter indicates that he also question his decision."[30]
June 10 07:13 "per discussion with closing admin" (in your edit summaries, implying that a discussion had taken place)[31][32]
June 10 07:23 "I take that as being JhunterJ isnt interested in discussing the matter and was happy that the reversal had occur. No other discussion has taken place to indicate otherwise" [33]
June 10 11:13 "JhunterJ response was to say his moves were reversed and he had no further interest nor any concern about the reversal" [34]
June 10 11:17 "JhunterJ said his move had been reverted, he raised no issue about that, I just complied with that." [35]
June 10 23:57 "the admin closing had dismissed further discussion by saying You missed the part where someone else reversed my actions for me, by which its clear the admin had no issue with a reversal." [36]
June 11 01:06 "actually you dismissed my request to discuss the mater saying its been reverted" [37]
"nor did it appear to me that he was willing to discuss the closure, in fact I said to me I've been reverted I'm happy to leave it at that" [your statement below]

This is already a bit contradictory (was your action "per discussion", with JHunterJ having "no concern" about your reversal, or was there no discussion at all because it was "dismissed" and refused?). ~~And now you're saying there was a "recommendation" embedded in there too?~~ OK, maybe he's referring to his own recommendation here. A poorly phrased run-on sentence led to confusion.

I really don't understand how you could possibly read so many different things into a single 12-word sentence! And your relatively long statement posted here hasn't clarified that at all. A person reading the above flurry of comments, in totality, would probably imagine there had been some kind of long discussion, which never happened. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS, When I found both you and Kwamikagami had !voted, in all honesty I had to add that relevant fact about him to the timeline. I do feel bad for Kwamikagami, who clearly felt he was trying to halt a wheel war instead of participating in one. In my WP:ANI post I had asked for "an uninvolved and impartial administrator to restore the original closure outcome" [38] I have not asked for any specific sanctions at all, not even against you, other than trout. The rest is up to the arbitrators to call it as they see it. My main goal is simply simply that this situation should not happen again. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PPS, "If the move was left in place the issue could spill over into some 10,000 articles"' — really? You are literally saying that ten thousand articles would have been modified or moved in a harmful way if you had waited even, say, half a day or took the time to have an actual discussion? ~~For instance, you could have also tried contacting Kwamikagami on his talk page and asking him to reverse himself; it did not hinge on JHunterJ alone.~~ OK, he did... implicitly.[39] And you repeat the "10,000" articles claim a short while later, so it wasn't just momentary hyperbole. How did you come up with this numerical estimate, which set of articles was at risk, and who exactly was about to move/modify all of them unless you took urgent emergency measures? — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In his subsequent edit, Gnangarra yet again (for the third time) invokes a half-baked 10,000-article emergency as justification for immediate reversal without discussion. I don't think that's grounded in reality. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Bidgee:

Categories are never renamed automatically. They must be nominated, either at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy or (if anyone at all objects to the speedy) they have to go to a full Wikipedia:Categories for discussion nomination. Even a speedy with no objections cannot be completed in less than 48 hours (at the end of that waiting period, a bot is unleashed to actually carry out the rename).
If the move request is carried out, Perth, Western Australia becomes a redirect to Perth. All old links work as before. Except perhaps for limited and specially-approved purposes, there is no bot currently operating that automatically substitutes redirects, which would be contrary to editing guidelines (see Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken). Any such wholesale link substitution would have to be carried out at human speed, not at bot speed. And why would anyone rush to do so within hours of the move request closure? All the old [[Perth, Western Australia|Perth]] links keep working in any case.
Perth was/is a disambiguation page, any incoming links are erroneous or outdated. As far as I can see, nearly all of them are from archived talk page discussions, very few people will be viewing those. There are only two incoming links from article space, and they're both redirects (a third is Perth (disambiguation) itself, which is what the old Perth would get renamed to). Someone who clicks on one of these old Perth links and ends up at an article about the Western Australian city will either 1) be exactly where they expected to be, or 2) click on the hatnote that sends them to Perth, Scotland or to Perth (disambiguation).

You and Gnangarra are making it sound like every rename of an article in Wikipedia is fraught with tremendous and immediate implications. That just isn't the case. There was no 10,000-article emergency here. There was plenty of time to have a discussion first. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kwamikagami

I restored a move that was reverted without discussion, but wasn't willing to repeat when that was reverted. I don't have much more to say about it than that. — kwami (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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 [40] and Gnangarra [41] 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 Deacon of Pndapetzim

Knowing the details of this case, I cannot foresee any useful "feedback" that either Kwami or Gnangarra (or indeed anyone else) could reasonably have that could possibly justify the activity of a full case. There were a total of 4 pages moves, and only 2 of them could be construed as "wheelwarring"; they were not repeated and did not alter the course of events. Even Kwami's, a hot-heated but understandable reaction to a personal reversal, was quickly overturned and did not cause any major issues. Gnangarra can hardly be at fault, since all he/she did was reverse involved party intervention when there was already consensus at AN/I for status quo; someone had to do it, so chastising Gnangarra is hardly a fair course of action.

I'm not even sure "wheelwarring" is at issue for anyone here, since moving a page is not a special ability of admins (though it is true that admins can in practice delete pages in the way, this is not relevant to an administrator's formal power as such pages are theoretically supposed to be removable without reference to any admin/non-admin competence; see for instance). I think SatuSuro's comments at Talk:Perth, Western Australia are pertinent here ("wheels of bureaucracy ...incredible waste of time and energy"). I suspect too few of you Arbs like football /soccer and want something to do with no other cases and Euro 2012 going on!

As my name has been raised, let me repeat what I said on the Perth thread and on AN/I: I reversed the close because it was done improperly (closing judgment referred only to the JHunterJ's own opinions, not the discussion being closed) and was clearly wrong (there was nothing like "consensus"). I have closed hundreds of RMs in my time here, I doubt there are more than a handful of admins who've closed more. When I learned the RM ropes you closed based on the outcome of the discussion, whatever your own preference. But these days more and more of them are being closed without any convincing reference to policy or to the discussion, where one admin exercises a "super vote" with little if any reference to the relevant parts of the actual discussion into which lots of users have already invested time and effort. This is bad practice, and will result in the weakening of the WP:RM system. RM after all is not part of official policy, and it only works at present because participants believe they have an excellent chance of a fair decision.

As far as I can see, every uninvolved admin, on AN/I and elsewhere, agreed with my decision. There were some questions about the method, i.e. doing it straight away instead of having a long discussion about it first. Often the latter method is good, but please don't be led to believe that slavishly following a "rule-of-thumb" like this is always the best way to do things. I did not think it was best here because the priority was to fix the decision before it created more hostility / drama between the participants or stress for JHunterJ. Indeed, if you confine attention to the original issue, you can see that this has been vindicated. However, in such an affair inevitably passions exist, and two of the discussion's support "voters" reacted to it in extreme ways; one by moving the page to his preferred choice, and the other, the original poster P.T. Aufrette, by launching AN/I and ArbCom threads targetting those whose actions interfered with his desired outcome. In hindsight it may be the case that I happened to be "wrong" to have acted quickly, but I don't think you can say I was at "fault" since these types of reactions are very rare.

As for accusations that I was "involved" because I am a member of WikiProject Medieval Scotland: being a member of a related wikiproject is not and never has been a criterion for "involvement". Indeed there are members of Scottish wikiprojects voting for the proposal, and Australian members against it (see data from Orderinchaos: it is not even clear that project membership was statistically important, save for likelihood to participate).

Finally, naming conflicts arise because wikipedia-article names are tied to wikipedia-page urls and thus have to be unique. This is not inevitable and could easily be avoided by a minor if traumatic one-off change to Wikipedia's software interface (c/f ODNB). The stress, conflict and wasted energy for this are extremely costly to the project. Perhaps there should be wider debate about how necessary such wasted wikienergy is. This case is fairly frivolous one that certainly would have been rejected out of hand by past ArbComs, but since you seem to be going ahead with it, perhaps more attention to this issue could be one way of making it useful. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two points of clarification, prompted by comments by P.T. Aufrette and JHunterJ above.

1. I did not accuse JHunterJ of partiality. I have never claimed / nor do I hold that JHunterJ's private opinions are relevant; these are unknown to me and by default I would expect JHunterJ to be able to ignore them. As can be verified very easily,[42] what I actually said was that JHunterJ's closing judgment resembled a support "vote", not a closing judgment.

2. I have not altered anything in this statement in response to anything written by P.T. Aufrette (which I had not even scanned until today).Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:07, 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]

Statement by JHunterJ

I originally closed the move request, and I did so in accordance with WP:RMCI, WP:NOTVOTE, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and the guidelines and policies raised in the discussion, or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The move was reverted by Deacon of Pndapetzim without discussion; he did note it on my talk page. The revert was reverted by Kwamikagami based (I assume) on a brief conversation at Wikipedia talk:Move review#Perth. The revert-revert was reverted without discussion by Gnangarra, although his edit summary implies fruitful discussion with me. The only conversation he and I had before his reversion was his suggestion that I self-revert and my pointing out the impossibility of that (since D of P had already reverted). I do still continue to disagree with the reverts that I see countrary to WP:RMCI, WP:NOTVOTE, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the claim below that anyone was attacking D of P because he was Scottish is rubbish. Gnangarra's claim that "nor did it appear to me that [JHunterJ] was willing to discuss the closure" is at odds with the implied acquiescence of his move edit summary "as per discussion at closing admin talk page reversing closure to prior status quo" (and also at odds with my sleepy time, which was longer he gave the "discussion" a chance to occur). -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says that local consensus can't override "wider" community consensus. Which is why move requests aren't votes. Which is why I listed the relevant broader community consensus guidelines and policies raised in the discussion. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Arguments presented in the discussion should be evaluated along with the guidelines and policies raised in the discussion. Just because one conclusion is reached by such an evaluation is not an indication that the arguments against that conclusion were ignored; if that's mistaken, the guidelines need to be rewritten to recognize that unanimous consent is required to effect any change. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, any claims that my close was "clearly wrong" are clearly wrong. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now straying from the topic at hand, but in response to Black Kite,as I read it, yes, the vast majority of "Support" votes agreed with the proposers analysis that the Australian Perth is the primary topic per the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline, while many of the opposers used non-guidelines-based "it's fine as is" (not that the change wouldn't be an improvement, just that navigation is possible under the current navigation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica, Dicklyon, OohBunnies!: open up an RFCU, ANI, or whatever about my actions, since we obviously disagree about them. This isn't that forum, and you're just over-dramaizing something that's already over-dramaed. Since Dicklyon and Noetica disagree with WP:PRECISION and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (they feel more topics that are currently primary for their title should instead have added qualifiers), I understand you would rather have admins unfamiliar with those guidelines closing the move requests. I have a very hard time understanding the rationale behind Dicklyon's (and possibly Tony1's) equating familiarity with one particular area of the Wikipedia guidelines with a conflict of interest in discussions where those guidelines apply. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any instances of "JHunterJ responds to Deacon raising Scottish connection of Deacon" should be read "JHunterJ points out the absurdity of Deacon's accusations of lack of impartiality".[43] -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gnangarra

I stand by my actions as being necessary and within the requirements of admins on Wikipedia. To consider only those events after the closure of the RM doesnt address the cause of the actions and will not actually resolve the matter. I realise that nine arbcom members have already indicated that this should only consider the actions of myself, Kwamikagami and possibly Deacon of Pndapetzim.

Yes I voted in the rm, I voted oppose to the move on the basis that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC metrics are flawed, I also commented after PT Aufrette responded to another oppose that prior discussions on the matter were irrelevent when an oppose quoted a 2004 discussion that said "lets shake hands and move on". That was an unnecessary attack on that person comment but it also indicates that the naming of Perth articles has been subject to alot of discussion over a significant period of time. The resolution from these discussion has always resulted in the compromise of no primary topic. If JhunterJ had rad the discussion and looked at the arguments presented he(presumed) would had to be aware that;

the naming affects more than one article
its been subject to previous discussion
the closure needed to be concise, well thought out, and clear to all who participated. something we expect all admins to do when handling such matters

JhunterJ closed the rm as move with the reasoning I will update the hatnote to include a direct link to the location in Scotland, so that readers seeking that will still be the same one-click from it. Both have long-term significance, but the readership usage does indicate a better efficient arrangement by putting the Australian city at the base name, and being the namesake is not one of the primary topic criteria the statement doesnt show any indication of being a consider closure it make no acknowledgement of arguments put and says stated both have long term significance the key factor to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This closure was never going to resolve the issue, in fact it clearly positioned itself for dispute and thats what happened.

Deacon of Pndapetzim reverted the move then responded the closure looks too much like a vote. JhunterJ responded with no it wasnt it was summary of guidelines brought up in the debate, I challenge that comment as there is no summary of the discussion no idications of policies. JhunterJ quoted WP:RMCI instruction on how to close, WP:NOTVOTE judge arguements base on presented arguments dont count and most importantly [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS] which says wikiprojects cant make policies/guidelines that override community guidelines. Why is this last one most important its because it clearly indicates that the closure wasnt based on the arguments presented but ignored the opinions of what was percieved as a specific group of editors. Deacon responded again and pointng out that JhunterJ didnt make any reference to the discussion, this was followed by P.T.Aufrette posting to AN/I asking for the original decision to re-instated and that the move decision be discussed at Wikipedia:Move review which I'll point out was a proposal and is still tagged as such at the time of writting this and the page also notes that it is draft subject to change and has yet to seek community approval.

To me it appears Kwamikagami responded from P.T.Aufrette request at ANI to reinstate the original closure if so to then request sanctions against him for carrying out his request is outright disgusting falls outside the expectations on every editor to be WP:CIVIL. IMHO Kwamikagami should be removed as a respodent from this ARBCOM discussion.

At this point is where I see actions should be considered based on the reasoning for the excluding the RM closures, by that assessment Deacon has also not participated in the events. In fact it leaves only my actions to be considered and possibly those of JhunterJ and P.T.Aufrette. It also means that I am no longer an involved admin as the actions are not related to the events of the RM.

P.T.Aufrette states in his statement of events that I came in late to the discussions, yes I did come in after some discussion had taken place but like P.T.Aufrette has said I should have considered that it was night for JhunterJ when asking for a response the same standard should also be applied equally to me and that it was night for me when the JhunterJ took his actions. I dindt come late to the events the events started without me and were occuring before I had any input.

When I came to the discussion it had deteroriated to point where P.T Aurfette and JhunterJ where attacking Deacon because he was Scottish. I intervened and pointed out that the majority of people who oppose were not Scottish and that the suggested place to take his concerns was to a process that doesnt exist.The focus of comments by JhunterJ and P.T.Aufrette continued to follow the Scottish line. I asked JhunterJ Clearly what should happen is that JHunterJ should reverse his actions including the closure and let the community continue its discussion as no consensus has yet been reached JhunterJ response was You missed the part where someone else reversed my actions for me along with a recommendation to consider how a similar long term RM progressed. Obviously JhunterJ wasnt following what was actually happening, nor did it appear to me that he was willing to discuss the closure, in fact I said to me I've been reverted I'm happy to leave it at that. Over on ANI I focused discussion on the fact that Wikipedia:Move review was a porposal and yet to have sort community approval as such admin should not be directing discussion to happen there.

I waited to see if any editor had any further input on the matter noone responded the ANI discussion was closed and linked directly to discussion on JhunterJ's talk page. I then made a decision to restore all articles to pre RM position, the reason being that it was obvious there was no consensus for the move. If the move was left in place the issue could spill over into some 10,000 articles, I didnt take the decision lightly nor did I do it to further an opinion I expressed in the discussion.

My decision to restore to the status quo were;

take the "scottish" issue[44][45][46][47][48][49][50] out of the discussion by two means
1. to have people focus on me where the fact that I'm Western Australian and live in Perth Western Australia means race is no longer an issue
2. and to refocus on the naming issue, only partly done as the matter was sent to arbcom before I could start it[51][52]
protecting Wikipedia from potential disruption across approxiamately 10,000 articles(Kwam also notes discussion will be a long drawn out process ahead[53])

(Submitted by e-mail to arbcom-l due to technical issues. Posted here at Courcelles 04:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

looks like the technical issues are fixed, thx Courcelles for posting Gnan garra 12:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

diffs No consensus observations by editors on the Perth, WA talk page During RM

comment by User:Hack who supported move that it be closed as NC 8 June [54]
response by User:Bjenks who opposed move "Hear Hear" [55]
oppose vote by User:Deskford agree with call for closure as there is no consensus [56]
comment by User:Orderinchaos who supports the move - seems to be 50/50 I tend to agree with this inspite of the fact that many opposers have questionable reasons [57]

these are the last four comments of the RM by people with an even split of positions in earlier discussion. Any admin closing should take note such of a discussion as a clear indicator that the discussion had advanced to probable conclusion.

post closure

you have got to be kidding! User:Sabrebd [58]
revert by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim, change to NC [59]
1. User:P.T. Aufrette notes his posting to WP:ANI [60] requesting RM decision be restored despite two editors already questioning the closure.
2. at this point JhunterJ responds with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:NOTVOTE and WP:RMCI. first clear indication that closure wasnt based on discussion as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is about Wikiproject making their policies contary to community policies. There is no policy about naming on Wikiproject:Scottland, contrary to the community policy WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Nor was any issue about WP:SCOTLAND having such a policy raised in the discussion.
User:Nyttend questions the closure [61]. note that Nyttend is an admin and has over 150,000 edits and didnt revert Deacons action.

Thats 3 people post closure who have disputed the closure, one person who supports it, exluding JhunterJ. JhunterJ is at this stage aware that his closure is disputed as is P.T.Aufrette, PT Aufrette never advised ANI that the closure has a number of people besides Deacon questioning it.

moved to RM closure decision by User:Kwamikagami [62]

restored to pre:RM Status Quo by myself [63]

This is the sequence of events on Perth WA talkpage we have seven editors who editted the page interpreting the discussion as no consensus, the closure as move, a reversal and one supporting the move. Of that 3 people questioning the closure post closure, one supporting and one from ANI just following the request there. That is a 3-1 or 7-1 ratio of editors who expressed the outcome of the RM as no-consensus excluding JhnuterJ who expressly said he isnt expressing an opinion.

On ANI prior to move by Kwamikagmi

post by PT Aufrette[64]
immediate comment by Robby The Penguin about no explanation by deacon [65]
next comment also by Robby noting that Deacon has explained[66]
followed by Nyttend supporting Deacons action and clear disputing the closure[67]
1. deacon posts to ani explains his action and also notes there is no procedure for reversing a RM closure[68] this starts a seperate thread
immediately followed by User:Dennis Brown also support Deacons action and advising JhunterJ and others to discuss it at move review [69]
JhunterJ responding to Dennis Brown saying D should take it to RM, and defneding the closure again citing WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, NOTVOTE and RMCI[70]
1. JhunterJ responds to Deacon raising Scottish connection of deacon[71]
User:Robby now says D action is fine and JhunterJ closure is clearly out of order[72]

There are now two more editors also agreeing that JhunterJ closure wasnt what the discussion had decided. There had been no new editors in support of the closure, and ANI discussion also endourses the reversal of the RM by Deacon.

Its after this that Kwamikagmi reverts to the rm closure, from then until I restored to pre:RM which is also the same as Deacon no new editors entered the discussion. Post closure there are 5 editors who dispute the closure and 1 who supports it, and an endoursement from ANI of the Status Quo.

Then add to this JhunterJs response to my request for him to revert. Yes my edit summaries could have been better phrased, but the Status Quo had clear consensus in all formuns. To have the article remain at Perth contry to consensus would have trigger edits to aproxiamately 10,000 articles, categories etc while this may be handled easily by a bot it would have needed to be reversed the flow on affects to other users isnt insignificant and during such a process it common for vandalism to be enshrined for longer then normal in articles causing even more issues.

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]

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, West 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:Dismabiguation. 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]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (10/0/1/0)

Accept to examine the conduct of everyone involved. As I see it, three distinct allegations have been made:
1. That Deacon of Pndapetzim and/or Kwamikagami and/or Gnangarra inappropriately reversed other administrators' actions, thereby violating provisions #3 and #4 of WP:TOOLMISUSE;
2. That Kwamikagami and/or Gnangarra inappropriately engaged in administrative actions while involved, thereby violating provision #1 of WP:TOOLMISUSE; and
3. That Gnangarra engaged in administrative actions under false pretenses, thereby violating provisions #1 and #4 of WP:ADMINACCT.
Each of these allegations is sufficiently serious as to warrant further investigation, and each is in and of itself potentially sanctionable if found to be true. Kirill ^[talk] 13:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Broadly per Kirill. There are kits if conduct issues here to investigate, so it almost goes without saying, but one thing we will not be deciding is where the article on a large city in Western Australia should live. Courcelles 14:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I do see Deacon of Pndapetzim as someone whose conduct needs review here. Courcelles 20:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept albeit somewhat reluctantly. Like DoP, this isn't really what I think of when someone mentions wheel-warring, but it does technically use the admin tools, and the conduct by everyone involved could certainly use a review. Given the nature of the dispute and the presence of the "delete to make way for move" checkbox, I'm ok with this going straight to us. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept: per Kirill, Roger Davies ^talk 14:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. And can the Clerks arrange an extra delivery of fish please - I think we might need it. Reverting a bold move is fine, but reverting a move immediately after a closed discussion is not how you do it - although it's not technically wheel warring, and the admin carrying out the action appears to be WP:INVOLVED. And any reverts after that are wheel warring, regardless of any other offences. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. In my view, the scope of the case ought to be the administrator actions of Kwamikagami and Gnangarra. AGK [•] 15:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. PhilKnight (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, per AGK. Not seeing Deacon as a key player here. Risker (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The Arbitration Committee has received email communication from Gnangarra that s/he has been experiencing extensive technical difficulties in posting to this page. This is in keeping with widespread reports of technical difficulties being encountered by many Wikipedians. The absence of a statement by Gnangarra should not be interpreted as an unwillingness to comment here. Risker (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further, he has sent a statement to the arbcom-l list. I've placed it above exactly as it was received. Courcelles 04:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 === An offer from Orderinchaos ===
 Perhaps rather than a formal dispute resolution mechanism it just needs someone who's completely uninvolved to mediate the situation. If parties were in agreement, I think the way forward would be to protect the article (I'd hope "informal agreement not to edit the lead until discussions are concluded" would be possible as an alternative), have each person put their case for what it should be and why, and then figure out what the differences are, whether they're major or minor and can be resolved, get some others to offer their thoughts, then edit the final version in accordingly. I've seen this approach work before where the number of disputants is low. I'm not an expert in the field although I've done first year psychology and have access to a university library and online academic materials. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 08:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
+: Reading the discussion at the talk page carefully, I think the problem is in part that the article has come to be "owned" by one individual with strong views. Some of those views are sound and well-justified, others are less sustainable, especially in areas where there is controversy or vagueness in the source materials. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 09:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 === Clerk notes ===

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:03, 14 June 2012

Requests for arbitration

Sigmund Freud

Involved parties

Statement by Hypoplectrus

Statement by Polisher of Cobwebs

Statement by Bus stop

An offer from Orderinchaos

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)

Perth wheel war

Involved parties

Statement by P.T. Aufrette

Statement by Kwamikagami

Comment by somewhat involved editor Orderinchaos

Comment by Collect

Question from Cla68

A point from peripherally involved Black Kite

Comment by Deacon of Pndapetzim

Comment by LtPowers

Statement by JHunterJ

Statement by Gnangarra

Comment by Bidgee

Comment by Moondyne

Comment by Noetica

Comment by Dicklyon

Comment by Tony1

Comment by OohBunnies!

Comment by Neotarf

Suggestion by Br'er Rabbit

Information from totally uninvolved Beyond My Ken

Comment by George Ho

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (10/0/1/0)

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.