Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Workshop

The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Article
1) That the articles involved remain at the pre RM titles until the ARBCOM matter is resolved


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Arbcom is not going to make a judgement as to what the article should be titled. This case is about the behaviour of several admins. If the community through a process that it feels is satisfactory makes a decision about what to call the article, it would not be the business of Arbcom to interfere. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * In light of the closure of the move review I think its entirely appropriate that the closing admins decision not to move the articles before this is resolved should be endourse by all. point 2 is another issue Gnangarra 04:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't you have filed this under the "Temporary injunctions" section? — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Brendandh has started a new requested-move survey, it is at Talk:Perth (disambiguation). — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I disagree; the community has spoken on the appropriateness of the original close, so I have implemented it. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I also disagree. The location of the article about the capital of WA has absolutely nothing to do with this case; arbcom has no say or interest in things like that. That was clear even before several arbitration committee members made it more clear. There was an extensive and well-advertised discussion about this, which is what you do before reinstating an administrator action when there is no emergency. The rest of the project doesn't need to wait for arbcom. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 16:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan
2) is desysopped, and is named as a party to this case. (withdrawn by proposer)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No, I don't think so. The community held a review process, a neutral party closed the review with a conclusion in accordance with the review.  Putting that decision into action is not a disciplinary offence. Maybe it would have been wiser to leave it to a completely disinterested admin, but since he wasn't making the decision, only actioning it, I don't believe there is anything here serious enough to consider such drastic action.  --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Elen of the Roads. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (re Jenks24's last comment) I see no reason to add Ncmvocalist as a party to the case. As far as I can tell, he has acted in good faith in offering proposals that he believes should be adopted. However, I do agree, as I said above, that this particular proposal by Ncmvocalist was disproportionate and unwarranted. Proposals for extreme actions such as emergency desysopping should be resolved for correspondingly extreme situations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also concur with Elen. PhilKnight (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Wholly without foundation. SarekOfVulcan (a) participated in the move review, (b) saw the conclusion of the move review, and (c) implemented the results of the move review. His actions are in line with adminship and are only tangentially related to this ArbCom stemming from wheel warring (admin reversals without clear discussion). As ErikHaugen notes, unanimity isn't a prerequisite to admin tasks. Also, there is no urgency here; the encyclopedia is not harmed by arranging the articles in line with the requested move and its review. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, why is this in the "motions and requests by the parties" section? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * SarekOfVulcan may have based his action on a general opinion on procedural issues from arbitrator Elen of the Roads, who had earlier expressed the opinion that it should not be a problem to carry out a move at the conclusion of the move review process. The preceding citation had previously been referenced in the Wikipedia talk:Move review discussion. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * PS, JHunterJ makes a valid point, Ncmvocalist is not actually a party in this case. Maybe one of the clerks could move this to a different section? — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * SarekOfVulcan (a) participated in the move review, (b) had no authority from the Community to suggest the move review was binding, (c) was aware that the admin who closed the move review was unwilling to enforce the result for the same reason, (d) was fully aware that admins and editors opposed the close and action, but (e) still chose to move the article anyway prior to this matter being resolved. An urgent desysop motion is required to prevent any further admin intervention until this matter is resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (a) He didn't close the review, though—surely that matters? (b) Please elaborate? (c) I don't think the closing admin didn't move because of any concerns about move review's legitimacy in general. The closer was mistaken that we needed to wait for this case; an administrator made that very clear here if it wasn't obvious before that we don't need to wait. (d) Of course it wasn't unanimous; we don't generally wait for unanimity before moving pages. (e) Sarek's move was after an extensive, well-advertised discussion, so carrying out the move seems proper. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 16:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the fact that he was a participant and not a closer which makes this particularly egregious. SarekOfVulcan disagreed with the closer's expressly stated preferred decision not to move the article until one of two circumstances were met (also noted by users who were participating in the discussion), and overrode it with his own preference as to what the close should mean. The timing and nature of the move is therefore inconsistent with the closer's statements and directly flies in the face of any 'discretion' the closer did have (encouraging more problematic admin intervention). That this conduct was engaged in while similar admin conduct is being reviewed by the Committee makes it that much more problematic. This should have been posted in injunctions (more familiar with seeing motions so use the terms interchangably) - I don't mind moving it to the next section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a single user participating in the discussion, not "users", and I notice you didn't post the where SmokeyJoe had stated If arb-com choose to interfere in a question of page title, wait for them to do so, but do not decide to do nothing just in case they might. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk)  17:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Gnangarra and SmokeyJoe don't appear to me to be a single user; what evidence do you have to the contrary? SmokeyJoe's previous assertion at 01:56, 25 June 2012 was made moot by his own assertion "Well, if that's his, the closer's, considered position, then that's what should happen." (05:43, 25 June 2012) But even if we ignore the fact SmokeyJoe changed his position, and went to the point that you and SmokeyJoe agreed that you wanted it closed in a different way, that still did not mean it was up to you as a participant of the move review to use your admin tools to override the closure with your own preference as to what the close should mean - especially when the closer clearly already indicated something else. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And what closure, precisely, am I supposed to have overridden? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You overrode the closure made by Mike Cline who specifically asserted that the move should not be effected until this case is complete, and if opened in the meantime, further discussion is complete in a separate RM. He read the discussion which contained the arb comment, but still concluded that a move should not be made until then; the last I checked, admins are accountable for their actions - that includes you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the was Original close endorsed and found to be consistent with WP:RMCI. I have made some observations about the Move Review at Move Review Comments. Those  said nothing about waiting for the ArbCom case.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk)  19:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The closer seemed to think we needed to wait for this case to run its course. But of course we don't, and arbcom has made that clear. The closer's reluctance to close because of the ongoing arbcom case is probably irrelevant; SoV's carrying out the close is purely mechanical; anyone could have done it. his own preference as to what the close should mean—I don't think there's much debate about what it means, it is very clear. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you participate in a discussion, you are not permitted to effect a close of the discussion as you see fit because you are involved. This wasn't mere reluctance; the closer very expressly stated on his talk page that he would not move the article as you are very well aware (despite your own objection), and again reiterated that the close was not made with a purpose of moving the pages until ArbCom is resolved and further discussion is complete if opened in the meantime. It takes no genius to work out that the closer has reviewed the move review discussion and in spite of what an individual arbitrator asserted, quite wisely noted that a move should not be made. I see nothing to suggest that ArbCom gave SarekOfVulcan (who participated in the discussion) the authority to move the article. I don't endorse this trend of overlooking the problematic conduct by admins I agree with; it is both inconsistent and inappropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * you are very well aware—yes I am of course; I know that the closer had no intention of actually moving the article, despite the close, since the closer seemed to erroneously believe that such a move would be wheel warring: . It wouldn't have been, of course, so as far as that goes by itself, it's ok that SoV completed the task once the judgment call had been made. quite wisely noted that a move should not be made—ah; am I correct in that you are arguing that any further moves ought to wait for this case to complete? ie, you think Elen was wrong here? I see nothing to suggest that ArbCom gave SarekOfVulcan (who participated in the discussion) the authority to move the article.—I think this is irrelevant, since they aren't really in any position to give authority about things like that, as far as I'm aware. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 19:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. A community discussion was held, a consensus reached and then enacted. Really, proposing to desysop someone for making a change following consesus. Personally I find Ncmvocalist's comment at the closers talk page more troubling than SarekofVulcans actions. (Note: I participated in the move review and endorsed the original close) AIR corn (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Drama for drama's sake if ever there was. ArbCom made it clear that they would not decide the location of the page - Courcelles for example said in accepting the case, "one thing we will not be deciding is where the article on a large city in Western Australia should live", while other arbs in the case have made it clear that content matters are a community decision. That has been running parallel to this case and has concluded in my view unexpectedly, but not inconsistently. Sarek's action is not based on the original outcome of the RM and thus it cannot be seen as a continuation of the same chain of events. Orderinchaos 00:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just read over the workshop page and, frankly, Ncmvocalist's arguments are getting more and more ridiculous. Someone should be desysopped for implementing a community consensus when ArbCom members had specifically said that it was OK to do so? Please. If anyone should be added as a party to the case, it is Ncmvocalist, and I would encourage ArbCom to review his actions on the case pages and surrounding the move review. Jenks24 (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In response, I think it's fair enough for people to put genuinely held views along with proposals enforcing them - and in talking with Ncmvocalist on here and by email, I'm strongly convinced they are - even if they are found to be wanting in various respects and ultimately rejected. While the discussion on some of them has been voluminous, it hasn't been obstructive. Orderinchaos 16:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (In reply to you and NYB) Yes, I agree my final sentence was over the top. I've struck it out and I apologise. There's also a little bit of discussion on my talk page about it, on the off chance anyone is interested. Jenks24 (talk) 05:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Supervote

 * I apologise if this is the wrong place to place this. clerks should please feel free to move this to whatever section appropriate.

Moved to talkpage --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Administrator conduct
) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. To the best of their abilities, administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policy and perform their duties with care and judgment. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who egregiously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or administrators who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their access removed. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions or conduct.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Very good. AGK  [•] 22:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Tweaked to include care, judgment, conduct and accountability as intended in admin policy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Learning from experience
) Administrators are expected to learn from experience. When an administrator's action is overturned, the administrator whose action was overturned is expected to consider why others disagreed with the action, and take this into account in future decision-making. Administrators should avoid taking personal offense to their action being overturned, or to feedback given to them regarding their action(s); over time, every active administrator working anywhere on the project can expect to have some of his or her administrator actions disagreed with or overturned, just as every arbitrator sometimes finds himself or herself in the minority on an issue voted on by the Committee.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Good. AGK  [•] 22:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's some copy-edits for clarity appropriate here, but this is a good principle: Everyone makes mistakes, that's how we learn. Administrators who do not learn from their mistakes should not be administrators. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Making a mistake is not a problem in itself - it's how we deal with that mistake, and what we learn from it that really matters.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  00:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Important principle, part of it coming from AEsh. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of administrator tools in disputes
) Administrator status or tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content or policy dispute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Wheel warring
) When an administrator action has been reversed, administrators are expected to avoid wheel warring by repeating the reversed action or reinstating similar action when it is known that another administrator opposes it. Even in a situation where there is an ongoing community discussion, administrators should refrain from un-doing or re-doing the administrator's actions until consensus has become clear. Wheel-warring is especially inappropriate and may result in substantial sanctions being imposed on the administrators involved, including desysopping.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Complying with this reduces the scope of dispute later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects
) A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia; and, simultaneously, a group of editors that use said pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work. It may maintain various collaborative processes, keep track of work that needs to be done, and act as a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed. It may not be used as a platform to push for a certain type of agenda or a view. When in doubt about achieving consensus at the WikiProject level, users are always encouraged to seek help beyond that (i.e. sister WikiProjects, Village pump, etc.).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * To what extent has the issue of WikiProjects, as opposed to mere involvement in a given topic area, affected this dispute? Per my comments below, I would prefer to focus on involvement in the usual sense (rather than take into account WikiProject membership). AGK  [•] 22:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Responding to Ncmvocalist below, not to the proposal above, although I'm doing so here since I am a party inasmuch as I made the original administrative action that led to the wheel war that led to the arbcom, even though I did not wheel war, but Ncmvocalist is focused on that original move (which is being separately reviewed in an appropriate forum) instead of the subsequent misuse of admin tools: And it should be noted that the very brief "basis" presented there is even so much more than the non-existent basis provided by Deacon in his hasty reversal. Frivolous implication of partiality led to a response pointing out that the appearance of partiality is stronger the other way. Which has been explained. Several times. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to AGK above: In Deacon of Pndapetzim's reversal of my close, he said it was "too little like an impartial close." In response to that implication of partiality, I pointed out that he was a member of a Scotland project which would look more like partiality (since the should-be-primary topic is Australian and the Ur-topic is Scottish). That's the only extent. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Being Scottish wasnt part of the discussion, many participants who are Western Australian and Perth residents also opposed the move with sound reasonings. Had your response been about the merits of the discussion instead we wouldnt be here because it only reinforced Deacons conclusion that your closure appeared to be because of your own bias. Gnangarra 11:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Lifted from Ryulong. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I think the crux of the decision would go back to involvement in the usual sense, the reason I think something needs to be noted somewhere is because it is significant as far as the implications of raising an allegation in this way. If an admin has an issue with the involvement of their peer, and they referred to involvement in the usual sense, this issue would not arise where the admin either provides evidence for the allegation, or some proper basis for the allegation. For example, one basis might be that the peer was engaged in recent content disputes on the exact same subject matter (there is something remotely more particular to look into). However, if the only apparent basis provided is "you are a member of this country's Wikiproject" and no other detail is provided even at a later point in time, less experienced editors easily get the wrong impression that Wikiproject membership is a sufficient reason for involvement (and misguided allegations against others follow in the same fashion in the future as the administrator is leading by example). But, given that, it might be more suitable to cover the particular issue of this dispute in the individual-based finding of facts rather than via principles regarding Wikiprojects. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Standing of Wikiproject participants
) An user's interest or participation in a WikiProject is not, by itself, an indication of their standing or involvement in a discussion or topic.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Although mere membership of a WikiProject does not of itself convey involvement, extensive contributions to the associated topic could affect any decision to take administrator action in a related article. I suspect the issue of "membership" is best set aside, so that the sole focus in any question of involvement can be on the extent of a user's contributions to the related subject. Whether or not their signature is on the list of project members is of itself evidence of very little. AGK  [•] 22:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed with AGK. I've myself been accused of "membership" in a particular on-wiki group which I had assiduously avoided... turned out to have been based on someone else's editing of a Userbox I'd created to include a category.  The whole business was silly then, and I don't see how membership is per se a problem anywhere: actions speak for themselves, and we do not do anyone any favors by assuming associations are significant absent actions. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the thinking here, but the wording is not right. Perhaps, as AGK is suggesting, this should be "Membership of a WikiProject is not, by itself, an indication ..." - by the time someone is participating in a Project they are involved.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  00:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * agree, wikiprojects are there to enable collaboration on similar or associated articles an editors participation in such collaborations is irrelevent to any individual discussion. To use an editors participation in such collaborative efforts as reason to discount or ignore their opinion is a kin to commenting on the person rather than subject. Gnangarra 23:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording of WP:INVOLVED does include a "have strong feelings about" clause. The significance of Perth, Scotland within Deacon of Pndapetzim's worldview over a number of years does go a little beyond mere membership in a WikiProject: it's a topic he knows well and cares about and, well, might "have strong feelings about".  I reluctantly added a bit more to the Evidence page.  Reluctantly because it's stuff from years ago, not quite smoking-gun material, and seems like belaboring a point, when I merely want to point out that he was injudicious to personally go about reverting the original move closure. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * PS, this is merely anecdotal of course, but several users at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland have recently lauded him as a key contributor on Scottish topics. Once again, I don't accuse him of bias or partiality, I'm merely pointing out that it was poor judgment to undertake an administrative action that left himself open to the perception of a conflict of interest. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Needs to be said, apparently . Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * JHunterJ, what was actually suggested to you by Deacon of Pndapetzim was that your close did not sound impartial, and if you wished to express a view, you cannot appear to make a supervote in the process. Your response of raising Wikiproject membership (or lack thereof) was not helpful as it was not in itself an indication of standing or involvement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * P.T. Aufrette, the reasoning that was behind these two principles (at the time they were made) was that it is inappropriate for users to accuse each other of being involved on the basis of membership to a Wikiproject; not because there is no other evidence or basis for involvement. If the evidence you have presented is that Deacon is involved for his contributions in relation to the Perth topic or views he has previously made known, that does not discount from the fact that JHunterJ did not cite this. It also does not discount the fact that he merely cited Wikiproject Scotland membership as the basis for the involvement allegation and that it was inappropriate. The evidence of his responses here suggests this was pointy at best, but no mistake. When admins accuse each other of being involved on the basis of their Wikiproject membership on an article talk page, that plants the seeds for future battles and is counterproductive to what Wikiprojects attempt to achieve - and similarly affects the collaborative environment of the project as a whole. The implications which arise from doing so are often difficult to reverse, especially when such allegations come from users who lead by example; that is, the level of responsibility on administrators to avoid such conduct from the outset is heightened by the fact that an user who participates in or views an article talk page discussion (where that sort of incomplete allegation is made) will not necessarily follow the comments which arise here, or at the same discussion several days later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It is a relevant factor - someone with a strong interest in a topic who indicates that by signing up to and participating in a WikiProject may have a bias to which they are blind, and which may be relevant in considering their actions on a closely related topic. That is not to say they will necessarily do so, but that a statement which appears to state the reverse is probably not helpful. (Disclosure: I'm a member of several WikiProjects.) Orderinchaos 18:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * True, certain types of participation could be an indication of their standing or involvement, so this is probably too broad. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment re the diff from WP:Scotland quoted above. With great respect to all, I don't have the time or inclination to read all the pertinent material on this page, but these are the facts as I understand them:
 * The Deacon is a long-standing member of WP:Scotland
 * His contributions to the encyclopedia are generally held in high regard by members of that project.
 * However, if in similar circumstances in relation to an article about the US one the admins happened to be an American, I wonder if we would be having this part of the discussion. I see nothing in WP:INVOLVED which suggest that nationality, ethnicity, or interest in a particular country or state are prima facie evidence of "involvement" in a topic under the purview of that project. In short, I am largely in agreement with comments above by AGK and Jclemens. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Background
1) This case reviews a combination of the disputed administrator actions made in relation to a request for move discussion which took place on the talk page of Perth, Western Australia, and related administrator conduct. The request for move discussion was initiated on 25 May 2012 by the filer of this case,, who proposed that the Perth article be moved to the title Perth (disambiguation) title, and that the Perth, Western Australia article be moved to the Perth title. Several users participated in the discussion between 25 May 2012 and 8 June 2012.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Worth including something like this as background. PhilKnight (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, background. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

JHunterJ's actions
2.1) closed the move request as successful at 12:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC) and proceeded to move the pages in accordance with the request, despite conclusions by multiple participants on 8 June 2012 that there was no consensus (evidence). JHunterJ’s actions were subsequently reversed by  on the basis that there was no consensus in the discussion to support the move, and that the closure did not sound impartial (evidence).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Agree, but the other admin should be named. PhilKnight (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the evidence this does seem an appropriate summary. I did consider that some of those saying no consensus were those opposing the move (and so would be inclined to wanting it closed as no consensus), but note that two were people who had supported the move who also said no consensus. The close itself, looking at it closely, doesn't appear to be a problem - it could go either way. What is of interest is the circumstances surrounding the close - such as how the closer responded to reactions to the close, and if the closer was involved.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  00:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Still too much focus on the original close (which is being reviewed in an appropriate forum) and too little on the ArbCom matter (the wheel warring). "conclusions by multiple participants that there was no consensus" is beside the point: multiple participants cannot close a move request, and multiple other participants (and others) have also concluded that the move was appropriate per WP:RMCI's instructions, WP:NOTVOTE, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "conclusions by multiple participants that there was no consensus" is the whole point: Admins are suppose to be neutral when closing discussions they are suppose to reflect what the discussion concludes not the opinion of the admin closing it. Gnangarra 09:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ... what the discussion and applicable policies and guidelines conclude...", yes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * SilkTork, I don't believe anyone raised an issue of my involvement, aside from Deacon's tangential implication of partiality in his reversal (I can't imagine how any involvement could be construed). My reaction to the reaction to close was to bring it to Wikipedia talk:Move review, and to respond to the questions put to me about it in the various forums since (although there is apparently no right amount of response -- earlier I had been advised to explain more so as to avoid the impression of admin-fiat, and here more explanation has been viewed by some as badgering). -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Amended to name other administrator for clarity and link. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about the claim of involvement - JHunterJ originates from the US and his locus of editing did not extend to Perth (any of them)-related topics. Orderinchaos 01:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Review and justified criticism of JHunterJ's actions
2.2) Multiple users who reviewed JHunterJ’s closure of the discussion, including several participants who endorsed the move request, noted that there was no consensus in the discussion to support JHunterJ’s closure, and that JHunterJ's actions were inappropriate. A variety of reasons were provided to justify this criticism, both in an ANI discussion and move review.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Broadly speaking agree, but perhaps a little strong. I'd prefer to phrase this along the lines of 'subsequent discussion endorsed Deacon's overturn of the result'. PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Erik, thanks for your comments, I agree it's preferable to wait until the WP:Move review discussion closes. PhilKnight (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the move review has endorsed the close, I'll strike my above comment. PhilKnight (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * PhilKnight, subsequent discussion has not (yet anyway) endorsed Deacon's overturn of the result. The discussion at the appropriately-placed move review continues, with voices on both sides. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk page and ANI discussion at the time did endorse the action of Deacon, and was very unfavourable about JhunterJs closure. While discussion is occuring at move review that discussion started after the arbcom case, yet the apparent consensus still doesnt indicate support for JhunterJ's closure though some individuals do. Move review was only a proposed process that hasnt sort community endorsement it cannot be described as the "appropriate place" The appropriate place to discuss the closure was at the talk page of the admin who closed it, standard practise has always been if you dont agree with the action of an admin is to first contact the admin. Gnangarra 10:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While simultaneously Talk page and ANI discussion at the time did also endorse my action, and was very unfavorable about Deacon's reversal. That's the point; the actual conclusion of the Talk page discussions and ANI were "open a move review", not "endorse". The WP:RMCI, WP:NOTVOTE, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines support the closure along with some individuals, although some individuals don't (who apparently disagree with the guidelines or their application here, which is why I've opened the topic again at WT:D). -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide some diffs of this endorsement of your action becuase all the ANI discussion did was critise your closure. Gnangarra 11:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The move review has concluded with an actual endorsement: support of my original close.. Suggest rewording: "Review and criticism of JHunterJ's actions: Some users who reviewed JHunterJ’s closure of the discussion in the aborted ANI discussion, including several participants who endorsed the move request, thought that there was no consensus in the discussion to support JHunterJ’s closure, and that JHunterJ's actions were inappropriate, but the move review endorsed JHunterJ's close." -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note that "ANI discussion at the time" went on for all of 3 hours and 33 minutes before being closed as "Nothing for AN/I here", so not "a standard review of administrator actions (with the usual consensus)". -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ncmvocalist: the review you're talking about constituting apparently consists of whatever combination of statements you need to make it appear that some consensus/endorsement that you agree with has been reached, but the only consensuses or endorsements that have actually been reached about me are: the AN/I was the wrong place for that discussion (in the AN/I), and that the original move closure was made in accordance with WP:RMCI (i.e., is not the slam-dunk "no consensus" conclusion that Deacon thought it was to reverse without discussion). Right, the move review process is new, and it happened to disagree with your assumed conclusion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ncmvocalist, I don't know what you mean by placing attachment on my administrative actions, or what levels there may be, or which would be excessive. This ArbCom is a result of wheel warring, but you instead choose to focus on my original close, and have eclipsed the actual problem. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ncmvocalist: . Also, according to you, repetition of the same thing over and over is badgering. The move review has finished, with an endorsement of the original move. Please stop badgering me about it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To quote the closing of move review I believe that JhunterJ did just what the Determining Consensus section says, both in spirit and intent in closing the Perth RM. I won’t presume to get into his head about his specific decision making process, but his extensive explanations in the Move Review sustain my belief. If we want different rules for closers to play by so that local consensus in RM is the driving force, we should make that change, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon yes this is and endoursement of the close but this closure also doesnt appear to have actually followed what the discussion said but rather was closed with another supervote. At this time drawing any conclusion from that process would be immature as the process doesnt have the experience for admins to realise that the opinion that matters is that of those who participated not that of the closer. If anything this closure endourses a systemic problem in RM that opinion of the admin closing weighs more than the opinion of the community. Gnangarra 23:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've amended the header; the proposal wasn't intended to make a view on the appropriateness of the venue, but it was intended to make a view as to the fact that a review was appropriate, and the criticism was justified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The review was constituted by a combination of the comments at the ANI and the comments at the move review - not one or the other alone. Also, the criteria listed at WP:Move review has no actual standing on the Wikipedia project, and has not been established with the consensus of the Community (even for a trial). Currently, reviews of administrator actions are conducted using the current policy on consensus, and outcomes of such reviews are determined by reference to what the Community has determined - not a single user's evaluation of criteria which has no standing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * JHunterJ, you stated "talk page and ANI discussion at the time did also endorse my action, and was very unfavorable about Deacon's reversal." You have not yet provided diffs to support this allegation despite being requested to do; rather than repeatedly continuing to engage in the problematic conduct you have been criticised for on this arbitration page, you might try to provide diffs to support the allegation. Now, pending changes was a "new" process that was trialled with some consensus from the Community; there is no authority behind this move review process or criteria being trialled, and the close of it is no different. Had a close been made in favour of Deacon's close on the basis of that same criteria, my response would have been no different. The excessive level of attachment you have placed on your administrative actions is another reason why findings of fact in relation to your conduct and approach are essential in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * JHunterJ, you are a named party in this case involving a review of administrator conduct and actions in this matter. Both your conduct and actions are also subject to review, even if P.T. Aufrette did not intend for your actions and subsequent conduct to be reviewed when this was escalated to arbitration. I note that you have still not provided the diffs requested of you for your assertion: "talk page and ANI discussion at the time did also endorse my action and was very unfavorable about Deacon's reversal". Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * JHunterJ, please provide the diffs requested of you for your assertion "talk page and ANI discussion at the time did also endorse my action and was very unfavorable about Deacon's reversal". Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is wildly one-sided. Should we add 2.2a) "Multiple users who reviewed JHunterJ’s closure of the discussion endorsed JHunterJ's closure as appropriate and in-line with guidance at WP:RMCI"? I think that is also a valid observation. Ncmvocalist's point may remain that JHunterJ hasn't handled criticism appropriately, so maybe I'm off in the weeds and the balanced perspective would just be a distraction from the overall point. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * PhilKnight, I think your change is actually stronger! The proposal is that some disagree with JHunterJ, not that there is a general consensus as you imply. And having just read over the ongoing move review, I think it is pure fantasy to conclude at this point that the discussion has endorsed anything. The point here is that JHunterJ has received criticism and responded to it in a certain way, not that the close was ultimately defensible or not. Additionally, and I'm probably off-topic here at this point, while many may endorse some reversal of JHunterJ's closure, I hope we can all agree that an immediate undo without some kind of discussion is totally inappropriate. (Another RM, an RfC, the new move review process, something). If you want an example of how to properly smack down a crappy RM closure see here. In other words, PhilKnight, I don't think we "endorsed Deacon's overturn of the result" even if we ultimately endorse some kind of move back to the status quo ante bellum. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This case isn't about whether JHunterJ did the right thing, it's about the responses to it before there was substantial discussion. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As I've already said elsewhere, I think there were two possible conclusions from the move result (move, or no consensus) - a fact acknowledged by the closer of the recent move review, and in line with Erik's observations above. I agree with JHunterJ that the length of time (and nature) of the discussion at AN/I was not really something which indicated one way or the other - basically the ultimate conclusion was that it did not belong at AN/I and should be resolved elsewhere. I also agree with Erik here that regardless of whether the move was right or wrong, the way in which the undo was effected was inappropriate given the lack of an obvious emergency, and also served to stifle discussion on the subject (due to the action being so quick off the mark, preceding any meaningful discussion and therefore prejudging its outcome). It would have been proper, however, to insist that no further progress on the move take place until a discussion had concluded. Orderinchaos 16:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As to the effect of doing the undo in that way, general theory aside, I don't see discussion being stifled as a result of the action in this case, and there is no evidence to suggest the discussion would be any more meaningful without the action being taken. I have seen a robust amount of discussion since then though, which you have also participated in. I also think there was enough time between the original action and reversal for Deacon to give it careful thought before taking any action. As to the subsequent actions, I guess my proposed findings on that will come in due course. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If I recall, I went to bed one night with it still open, and woke up the next day with all four admin actions having taken place. I was quite stunned at how bizarre it had all become, and by that time any opinion I could have expressed - as I imagine was the case for many participants - would be heavily coloured by the enormity of what had just happened. It'd be like trying to have a discussion about settling a local dispute while the gun smoke is still in the air from the militants' battle over it with the blood still all over the walls. Priority is then avoiding further drama/antagonism, not actually dealing with the locus of the dispute. Orderinchaos 06:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the attempts made on this page to blame Deacon is unjustified, and is not a position endorsed by the Community - either in policy or otherwise. There has certainly been more discussion now than there would have been earlier. When a close is so clearly disputed as it has been, reversion tends to be made of the bold move (even if the bold move was interpreted or intended to have been done with consensus). The actual drama went up 10 notches when there was wheel warring over the clearly disputed close. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

JHunterJ's problematic approach and response to criticism
2.3) JHunterJ’s approach in responding to the criticism regarding his administrator conduct and actions included, but was not limited to, making allegations without providing evidence or a proper basis, badgering users who disagreed with his position, denying the possibility that several aspects of his approach was flawed, and repeatedly advocating that his closure was both appropriate and supported by consensus (examples:        ). Although uninvolved users provided appropriate feedback regarding the problems with his approach, and several opportunities and reminders that he is expected learn from experience (example example), JHunterJ repeatedly continued to adopt the approach which others found to be problematic (example example). This prompted uninvolved users to provide further justified criticism of JHunterJ's approach as an administrator (example example).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I'm not sure that we need to go into this much detail. PhilKnight (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Could this be simplified?  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  00:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * No badgering has occurred. Other uninvolved users disagree with the uninvolved users you've cited, and I do continue to adopt the approach in line with the guidelines, although I have also initiated the discussion that I have asked the people with problems with the guidelines to initiate: getting the guidelines to reflect the current consensus so that they can indeed be used for guidance (at WT:D). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ErikHaugen, correct: "badgering" here seems to mean instead "engaging in discussion rather than simply agreeing with [party being badgered]". -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The feeling that you need to respond to everything is difficult to avoid especially when your actions are being questioned so thoroughly as is happening here and at move review for JhunterJ, continually responding can be trying especially if questions appear to be similar or near identicle to previous questions. Using loaded terms doesnt help to diffuse the tensions while JhunterJ may benefit by stepping back from the move review discussion I dont see anything that really warrants ARBCOM going into depth on this issue at this time. Gnangarra 10:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @erikhaugen move review is an untried process this isnt a good case for the process to be developed around, I dont think anything good will come from it being there. Additionally it definately aint going to resolve the title issue. Unlike deletion review, move review fails to consider new information or the arguments presented therefore the person who made the action becomes the primary argument. Gnangarra 10:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * SilkTork: a possible simplification: "Ncmvocalist has cherry-picked some examples and used loaded language to paint JHunterJ in an inappropriately unflattering light", and is no doubt cherry-picking some more. I have been operating on the assumption that this is not an RFC/U:JHunterJ, and I have not had time to prepare as extensive a defense if that's what this is. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC) I think he was cut a lot of slack - not because his approach was appropriate on those occasions, but because of that basis that it is difficult to avoid the temptation of wanting to respond to everything when being reviewed. However, there is a point where the novelty of that wears off, and the ability and willingness to live up to the expectations of being an admin needs to show through; when this did not happen and the issues kept arising, uninvolved users provided feedback with a view of guiding the admin to resolve the concerns. Unfortunately, the guidance was dismissed and problems continued in the same fashion (ditto with his actions & responses on the case pages). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I will resubmit this proposal as 2.4 by the end of the week - with a view of making it more simplified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. Despite the instructions at the move review to not focus "on the person who closed the discussion", you accused JHunterJ there of inappropriate behavior and then accuse him here of badgering and inappropriate behavior for responding to those accusations ? Aside from that nonsense and how many of your diffs don't support your case in any way, there seems to be a sentiment among some that there should be no discussion or request for clarification at a move review, and I think that idea has to be a non-starter. For example, if someone weighs in at a review arguing that a 3-4 vote is not consensus, I think a followup question is reasonable to elicit an opinion about the relative strength of the 3 arguments vs. the 4. Is this badgering? No, of course not. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC) I've struck out what some have seen as inappropriate, beg pardon.ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 19:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it ironic that in the process of vehemently defending the approach you call "discussion", the style of "discussion" that JHunterJ, another editor, and yourself have actively engaged in involves repeatedly misstating others positions, asking loaded questions, and at least in this instance, answering the questions in the same comment you asked those questions (prior to even receiving a response). Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've asked any loaded questions, that last was a rhetorical question. What positions have I misstated? thanks! ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 15:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Semantics aside, it was neither helpful nor necessary, and I'd be interested to know how many arbitrators found it to be useful. You should be very familiar with what constitutes an appropriate standard of commentary and what doesn't; you are an administrator (otherwise uninvolved?), and the example you have set so far is not a good one. The actual sentiment by some is that badgering should be avoided. The position/sentiment is not that discussion should be avoided at move review. The position/sentiment is also not that appropriately framed requests for clarification should be avoided at move review. Never mind the non-starter, the very idea you have articulated does not seem to have been born from the actual positions stated here or at MR. Incidentally, another similar concern to badgering was noted recently with respect to JHunterJ by yet another user, suggesting the concern is more common than absurd. I was neither the first nor the last user to raise the substance of the concern. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see; beg pardon for asking a rhetorical question, it did not occur to me that it would cause such offense, I have struck it out. I would again suggest you edit your proposal here to remove the diffs where JHunterJ is trying to defend himself from your attacks, surely that isn't badgering; I don't think his tone is any less appropriate than yours in that section of the move review. Including them makes it seem like this is personal for you, or that you ought to be able to criticize people and how dare they try to defend themselves, which is a distraction from your case. You are indeed not the only person to argue that JHunterJ is badgering, it's true; in fact I used the words "sentiment among some" for this reason. However, even if I overstated the case and nobody is arguing for no discussion at all, this does not necessarily mean JHunterJ's behavior was inappropriate. I would reiterate that some discussion and rebuttal is reasonable, how much is too much is a judgment call and your diffs here simply don't demonstrate anything too egregious. For example, you use this. But here, we see a discussion between Guettarda and JHunterJ on an important subtlety about how closers should take into account differing interpretations of guidelines. The diff you produce is a request for specific arguments in the RM that used an interpretation that JHunterJ discounted. How could that be seen as unreasonable? Many of these diffs don't support any claim of inappropriate behavior on JHunterJ's part. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 19:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You have misstated the position again; it is not a matter of offense - it is a matter of how much value it adds to this aspect of the case. But enough on that. I can have another look at diffs in this proposal when I am drafting my next set of proposals, so will see if I have time tomorrow before responding to the remainder. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in firm agreement with Gnangarra - I think every admin at some point in their career has been there. Orderinchaos 16:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify what I mean by that - I'm completely opposed to this FoF proposal. JHunterJ acted, others debated, he took no further action beyond participating in those debates, which is the sort of behaviour we should encourage in admins whose actions are challenged. As it turns out, one process has endorsed his close. Orderinchaos 16:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No. If this case were about JHunterJ's actions, it wouldn't have been opened.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The snowball started with Deacon's action. Orderinchaos 06:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @Gnangarra—Move review's usefulness is not an issue here. I'm only saying that rebutting arguments there does not necessarily imply poor administrator conduct. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Kwamikagami involved
3.1) participated in the request for move discussion and expressed a view in favour of the move (evidence).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Kwamikagami's use of tools and wheel-warring
3.2) Kwamikagami wheel-warred by re-doing JHunterJ's administrator action when there was no discussion leading to a clear consensus for re-doing the action, and despite it being known that the action was reversed and opposed by an administrator. In doing so, Kwamikagami also used his administrator tools in a way which appeared to further his own position in the content dispute in which he was involved.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Orderinchaos, agreed. Kwamikagami's action was at least precipitated by my opening of the topic at Wikipedia talk:Move review on June 9/10. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Amended to reflect intent of proposal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "No clear consensus for the action" is subjective - that in itself is a matter of contention and so not really suited to a finding of fact. Orderinchaos 14:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would note, as well, that the circumstances which Kwami found himself looking at are almost unprecedented - I can't think of another time that an RM has been concluded, closed, and then almost instantly rolled back without adequate discussion by another admin. Simple "opposition" or "disagreement" doesn't make sense here - a rigid interpretation of this would lead to a "may the most heavy-handed OTT admin action win" way of doing things around here, with ArbCom then having to umpire each and every one of them - a case of process-over-outcome thinking which should not be encouraged by any stretch. Kwami's action served to reinstate the RM as it was initially closed - although that close was later disputed and taken to the new Move Review process where it was ultimately endorsed. The whole thing did not take place in the most ideal way, but nor was it the most ideal of circumstances. Orderinchaos 00:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Kwamikagami's history of combative conduct
3.3) Despite being an administrator, over an extended period of time, Kwamikagami has engaged in a variety of unseemly, combative, and disruptive conduct, including edit-warring and personal attacks (example example).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we need to be careful about using ArbCom proceedings to deal with "laundry lists" of unrelated issues regarding the same admin. As far as I can see, this is the first time this admin has been to ArbCom (I could be wrong on this), and the particular action taken here is not of the same character as those referenced in the evidence section - if we had a history of wheel-warring, then that would be relevant. Orderinchaos 17:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wheel warring is possibly under a separate heading, and whether or not the action was combative (or intended to appear as such) in this case could lead to a question of relevance too - but on the other hand, I think it can be seen to have a strong relation to the user's judgment as an administrator, and is something which cannot be entirely disconnected from the case either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Gnangarra involved
4.1) participated in the request for move discussion and expressed a view against the move (evidence).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Yes I expressed an opinion in the RM, explicitly that there was no clear format to determine primary topic because primary topic has no clear process. that we(those discussing) should first determine what is an acceptable formula. Gnangarra 00:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Gnangarra's use of tools and wheel-warring
4.2A) Gnangarra wheel-warred by re-doing Deacon of Pndapetzim's administrator action when there was no discussion leading to a clear consensus for re-doing the action, and despite it being known that the action was reversed and opposed by an administrator. In doing so, Gnangarra also used his administrator tools in a way which appeared to further his own position in the content dispute in which he was involved.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * seethis evidence there was discussion and it was clear Gnangarra 12:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC) See alternative proposal 4.2B. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Gnangarra's action was undertaken with a specific view to returning to the status quo and initiating a discussion. Things happened *rather* fast from there, such that that discussion never got to commence before ArbCom's intervention was requested. While I personally would not have taken the action Gnangarra did, I can understand the reasoning behind his move, which was not simply to revert to a "preferred version" but to rewind to before the RM and find another way to solve the problem. It's worth noting that outside Wikipedia, for example in the administration of non-profits and in the business world, this sort of lateral / problem solving thinking is the norm. It should be noted that Gnangarra and I disagreed on the original RM discussion, and we still hold opposing views as to the final location / resting place of the article. Orderinchaos 00:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Gnangarra's use of tools
4.2B) By re-doing Deacon of Pndapetzim's administrator action, Gnangarra used his administrator tools in a way which appeared to further his own position in the content dispute in which he was involved.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed as alternative to 4.2A. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Focus on content
Per WP:FOC ''The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to any community''


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Naturally, but this kind of "hugs-all-round" principle is not entirely helpful to protracted or complicated disputes. AGK  [•] 22:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * in light of the focus on being a member of Scottish Wikiproject as being a reason to deny/discount their opinion. Gnangarra 23:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No opinions were discounted by reason of project membership. As has been clarified many times through the various discussions after your wheel warring. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * disagree as per this dif that indicates WP:LOCALCONSENSUS was a consideration and the above observation of Ncmvocalist about you raising Wikiproject membership. In fact much of the discussion has been about membership even RM comments were counted based on membership of wikiprojects Gnangarra 01:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * resp to OIC - your link is just a clear example to demostrate that discussion has focused on the editors and what projects they collobrate in, otherwise you wouldnt have provided it to prove a point. Without proof of canvassing or meatpuppetry theres appears to be a lack WP:AGF in the opinion of editors who opposed the move, more specifically Scottish editors contry to WP:FOC/WP:DR. Gnangarra 06:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Occam's Razor informs us that the simplest explanation for something is often the best. When one sees a "bloc vote" from a group of editors who would have reasonable justification in holding a certain opinion, one would be reasonably safe in assuming that their votes are somewhat informed by that opinion. This impacts on different individuals differently, and indeed some not at all, as was seen at the RM. My link cited as "even RM comments were counted" was possibly misapplied, though - it was in reply to someone else to demonstrate that the votes were *not* exactly as they had expected, in particular from the Perth WA group. Orderinchaos 03:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, as long as it's understood that my purpose in providing the figures was to inform a discussion already taking place which I thought had reached a partially invalid conclusion. FTR I don't think it was meatpuppetry or canvassing - that would require a level of organisation that was outright absent, and the mover themselves linked the WikiProject's talk page to the discussion so canvassing was completely unnecessary - but I do think the votes in question failed to give a comprehensible rationale and appealed to emotion, and that's clear from reading the text of the votes themselves. The two (or three) most significant oppose votes came from Western Australian contributors. Orderinchaos 13:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

No wheel warring
1) When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. (WP:WHEEL).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Worth including. PhilKnight (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Admins might reach different conclusions
2) Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion. (WP:ADM)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * It might make sense to mention the Exceptional circumstances section describing situations when it is ok to reverse an administrative action before discussing it. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Noting Erik's addition, agreed. Orderinchaos 06:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not counting virtual noses
3) Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. (WP:RMCI, with support from WP:NOTVOTE and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * There's some intentional tension here: when the community overwhelmingly supports an outcome that would not be obvious under existing policy, there's good cause to reexamine the policy. I'm not sure that's what happened here, but I don't want us to be undermining the community's right to change policy by our existing feedback processes.  Relative weighing and rough consensus DO matter in the vast majority of contested administrator closes... but not all of them: policies are derived from community consensus, and the community has the right to change its mind. Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * ErikHaugen, I'd like to agree that it shouldn't be germane to this case, but since the proposals so far have been focused heavily on my original close and too little on the wheel war, I thought it best to get it on the table. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, the community didn't overwhelming support an outcome that would not be obvious under existing policy. In this case, the majority supported the original outcome as did the guidelines they cited; a minority supported a different outcome. And I have opened the topic of changing the guidelines anyway at WT:D (the talk page for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), but it has not gotten much attention. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * DGG, what "rights" are these (other than the right to change its mind about policy)? If the others are indeed community "rights", we'll need to update (or scrap) at least WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Unless you're referring to WP:IAR, which is only (to be) used when there is consensus that ignoring the rules would improve the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * This is true, but probably isn't germane to this case. Hopefully arbcom isn't going to weigh in on how the RM should have been closed :). ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed with this. Arguments (whether support or oppose) which do not address policy or propose a reasonable case (or objection) on the facts do not inherently carry as much weight as those that do. Otherwise the closing admin is left with the unenviable task of trying to gauge the "vibe in the room" rather than something more measurable and objective, leading to more disagreement and more contentious outcomes. Closers should not be expected to be psychologists, they are facilitators of the community's decisions. Orderinchaos 06:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that view practically enables administrators to stifle discussion rather than facilitate it. You will appreciate that the Community comes to policy but cannot always envisage every single set of circumstances possible; that is why the Community reviews individual matters and comes to a consensus on particular circumstances as policy development cannot keep up by itself. It is not an administrator's role to apply rules mechanistically so that they can close a discussion in line with their personal view, particularly where it is contrary to the Community consensus in those circumstances. There is a limited situation where you can mechanistically stick to a particular policy despite consensus, one being WMF privacy policy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You have stated this "against community consensus" thing numerous times, with no evidence whatsoever, with a view to convincing the community that JHunterJ's close was egregious and unreasonable. Go back to the actual RM, read the opposing arguments, and identify the policy or factual points against each one. Most of them were emotional hand-waving with no substance whatsoever. Some of the support votes were too, but lesser by proportion. My point above is not about this particular close but about a growing sense I have about community discussions in 2011-12 that emotional hand-waving is the predominant mode of registering one's opinion, rather than making decisions based on what the policies say and based on facts - perhaps I'm an optimist or a nostalgist, but I actually think such !votes are unhelpful, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with them (and in some other debates, I have strongly agreed with them, even while thinking they belong on Facebook). What's a closing admin to do? In AfDs, policy is much more clear that such votes can and in many cases should be ignored. Why should RM be different? Orderinchaos 07:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The community not only has the right to change its mind about a policy; the community has the right to make an exception, even while not wishing to change the existing policy, and even without wishing to discuss whether to change the existing policy. (Of course, where the exce-tions are frequent, there usually is the need for reconsideration of the policy, or at least of the policy wording.)  DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom is not a substitute for RFC/U
Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process (WP:Arbitration). Wheel warring usually results in an immediate Request for Arbitration (WP:WHEEL).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * It's not absolutely necessary, but usually we prefer a RfC/U, however, in cases like this, ArbCom IS a substitute for a RfC, specifically in the use of administrator tools and possible wheel warring. SirFozzie (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Per SirFozzie. ArbCom can and does refer things back to RfC/U when they are brought to us prematurely, but the two big categories of things we accept are administrator conduct and issues the community has been unable to resolve. Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is understood we accept cases which involve unusually divisive disputes among administrators, which is what has happened here. Wheel warring itself does not need to have taken place.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  01:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed since too much of the earlier discussion seems to be a misplaced WP:RFC/U (or bypassed dispute resolution) when the matter here is the wheel warring.
 * SirFozzie, right, in the use of administrator tools and possible wheel warring, not (as I understand it) in my usage of administrator tools before the wheel warring occurred. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Wheel warring by Gnangarra
1) Gnangarra reinstated a reversed administrative action without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I think we should include something along these lines. PhilKnight (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Correct, although as noted under Deacon below, it was the late stages of a snowball effect. Gnangarra's actions, by his own statements at the time and after, were attempting to restore the status quo and start a discussion on the correct end result, given that it had become controversial. It was done for the right reasons - to avoid a long-term bunfight over the outcome of the RM between groups who needed further discussion to achieve compromise or a solution - even if it is an action I would not have taken. Orderinchaos 06:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Wheel warring by Kwamikagami
2) Kwamikagami reinstated a reversed administrative action without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Again, something similar to this needs to be included. PhilKnight (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * As I note above in Ncmvocalist's version of this proposal, Kwamikagami's action was at least precipitated by my opening of the topic at Wikipedia talk:Move review on June 9/10. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * While the action was incorrect here, the nature of Deacon's action and the lack of discussion involved make me wonder whether, if editing rather than admin tools had have been involved, this would have been seen as akin to an "RV - vandalism" move by an admin (noting that such reverts are sometimes incorrect - i.e. when vandalism has not occurred - and the admin in question is not automatically hauled in front of ArbCom for such a mistake.) A community discussion had concluded, someone had judged its result, and someone else had gone in and rolled it over, and Kwami appears to have been trying to restore order. The fact RMs are not highly watched areas of the encyclopaedia (unlike AfD, RfA etc) means a lower number of admins are around and one can't simply assume another will fix it. I'd actually like to hear ArbCom's point of view on this sort of situation, as it's not unique to RM (CfD comes to mind). Orderinchaos 06:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Reversal without good cause by Deacon of Pndapetzim
3) Deacon of Pndapetzim reversed an administrative action by another admin without explicitly demonstrating good cause, careful thought, and some kind of courtesy discussion without demonstrating good cause and without discussion. The administrative action in question was not a clear and obvious mistake.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is a little strong. Deacon of Pndapetzim reversed the page move without discussing the matter first. PhilKnight (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Ncmvocalist, are you claiming that Deacon of Pndapetzim did not revert an administrative action; that all three of good cause, careful thought, and some kind of courtesy discussion accompanied it; or that the action being reversed was a clear and obvious mistake? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, SarekOfVulcan. I'm trying to say that the standard from the principle--a set of 3 things to accompany the reversal--was not met. I am not trying to say that each of the elements of the standard was absent separately. How should I reword it? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And redone after Jafeluv's note. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Wholly without foundation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The "no careful thought" clause is inappropriate. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * JHJ -- simplest change is to add "without explicitly demonstrating good cause". -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the problematic thing here is that this was done "without good cause"; that is, there was no "good cause" that I am aware of why the reversal had to happen before a discussion could take place. I would like to see these kinds of administrative actions only reverted without discussion when there is some kind of urgency. I think the way it is worded now still suggests that there was no careful thought and courtesy discussion—I would say there was courtesy discussion and I don't think we have any reason not to assume there was careful thought. Maybe "...without explicitly demonstrating good cause for reversing immediately prior to a community consensus for doing so. The administrative action in question was not a clear and obvious mistake." or something. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And I just noticed Phil's wording; that is probably better. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the key contention here, and Erik's comments above - there was no emergency. As I said earlier, Deacon's actions and the manner in which they were carried out precipitated the entire chaos which led to this ArbCom - everything that happened after was simply a snowball effect growing its impact. Had they not been taken, at the risk of WP:CRYSTAL, I believe the move request would have stalled, those involved (including supporters such as myself) would have asked those doing the move not to proceed until discussion had concluded, the discussion would have not produced a consensus either way. After a few days, the discussion closer would have seen the to-and-fro, changed the RM to "no consensus", and those of us wanting a move would have to settle for convincing others to change their minds down the track. In short, Deacon's actions were unnecessary and stifled discussion which would have actually resolved the thing for now without needing to haul three perfectly good admins before ArbCom. Orderinchaos 06:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you feel that not all of requirements A, B and C were met, it's better to just state directly which one(s) of the requirements that was. That way the reader is not left guessing which requirement you think was not fulfilled. "Not B" is a much clearer statement than the cryptic "not A, B and C". Jafeluv (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:PhilKnight
... and a few tweaks by User:Jclemens as co-drafter, rather than starting my own section. Jclemens (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Administrators
1) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. To the best of their abilities, administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policy and perform their duties with care and judgment. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who egregiously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or administrators who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their access removed. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions or conduct.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes. Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Learning from experience
2) Administrators are expected to learn from experience. When an administrator's action is overturned by the community, the administrator whose action was overturned is expected to consider why others disagreed with the action, and take this into account in future decision-making. Administrators should avoid taking personal offense to their action being overturned, or to feedback given to them regarding their action(s); over time, every active administrator working anywhere on the project can expect to have some of his or her administrator actions disagreed with or overturned, just as every arbitrator sometimes finds himself or herself in the minority on an issue voted on by the Committee.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Second sentence could be clearer about overturned by consensus vs. reverted by another admin. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Added "by the community" to clarify the appropriate venues, and meaning to include discussion noticeboards, DRV, and other semi-structured means of consensus-based administrative decision review. Revert if any objections, but this satisfies mine. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questioning of administrative actions
3) Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrative tools. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them where needed. Criticism of the merits of administrative actions are acceptable within the bounds of avoiding personal attacks and civility.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Is it "accountable to" or "accountable for"?  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's how I would read it. I've tweaked the wording accordingly. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Reinstating a reverted action
4) When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Well-established principle. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Administrators involved in disputes
5) Administrator tools are not to be used in connection with disputes in which the administrator is involved as an editor.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Well-established principle. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Background
1) A request for move discussion was initiated on 25 May 2012 by the filer of this case,, who proposed that the Perth article be moved to the title Perth (disambiguation), and that the Perth, Western Australia article be moved to the Perth title. Several users participated in the discussion between 25 May 2012 and 8 June 2012.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Tool use
1.1) Because un- or re-doing page moves requires the use of administrative tools to delete the associated redirect, such actions fall under the more stringent bright line restrictions of wheel warring rather than those applied to edit warring.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Adding here in Phil's section, rather than starting one of my own. Idea here is to explain why this is actually wheel warring, when we tend to think of wheel warring most often in the context of blocks and protections. Jclemens (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I think this should be a principle rather than an FoF. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

JHunterJ
2) closed the move request as successful at 12:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC) and moved the pages in accordance with the request.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

2.1) JHunterJ's response to criticism of the move request close was at times problematic.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * There is a deal of discussion about this finding, though the difs do indicate an unhelpful argumentative response, and an unwelcome personalisation of the issue, which needs to be taken on board by everyone. We encourage everyone to attempt to defuse tense situations rather than crank them up, and we tend to expect it of admins.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * IMO this only makes sense if there's a parallel extension of the finding re Deacon about his poor implication that the origial close lacked impartiality, both in his closing comments and his subsequent comments, since those comments elicited my responses about how his project work could be interpreted as partial. Otherwise, yes, my comments were problematic in that they illustrated existent problems. If someone makes similar baseless insinuations about my partiality in the future, I see no problem in pointing out those problems as well, but I will phrase it as a more direct correction to avoid this issue. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Evidence of learning from the mistake directly above: next time someone makes a similarly baseless oblique insinuation that a close of mine was partial, I'll correct them directly instead of pointing out how they might also be perceived as partial. The rest of your diffs of discussion (when other people are engaging in it) or badgering (when I'm engaging in it) have also been given due consideration. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * What is it that is problematic about this? JHJ is replying to some pretty harsh criticism, so I hope the answer isn't that JHJ replied at all. Is it the comment about DoP's membership in a wikiproject? I find it extraordinarily frustrating when closers are unwilling to discuss what seem like enormous problems with their closes, so I hope this finding doesn't have any kind of chilling effect. This is similarly in reply to some very harsh language "No admin with any relevant experience could seriously claim that this discussion had consensus" etc. Again—is the problem the wikiproject comment? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the wikiproject comments. PhilKnight (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok fair enough. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's worthy of pointing out that both comments linked in 2.1 post-date the undiscussed reversal of the close. I'm not seeing what's problematic - had those sort of responses come *before* the actions, they might be seen a little differently. It's worth stressing once again the very short timeline over which this all occurred. Orderinchaos 22:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter when JHJ made these comments? I think the comments they were in response to were more objectionable than the comments in the linked diffs, but they were still unnecessarily combative, regardless of when they were made. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with saying "You are a member of the [WikiProject X] and not impartial"? I am a member of several WikiProjects and it wouldn't be a problem if someone said that to me. As a RM closer (for an admittedly short time), I have avoided closing RMs where there is a primary topic debate and one of the candidates has a strong tie to Australia, Aussie rules, and cricket. As to the second diff, it's not ideal, but if that's the sort of thing that gets you an advisement from ArbCom, then you guys will need to start dishing out about 20 a day (and yes, I'm just talking about admins here). Jenks24 (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think "you guys will need to start dishing out about 20 a day" (just for admins) by giving this advisement; there are plenty of admins who have maintained their composure and responded appropriately to criticism when much more (and much less) controversial actions have been made - and I am also referring to incidents where the criticism has been much more strongly expressed than what was seen throughout this matter. Those admins have also avoided fanning a dispute after involved editors inflame/escalate it further (than necessary). For me, even an isolated "spurt" in the heat of the moment may come down to (in part) being human, but being human would also mean there is evidence of actually learning from the mistake. On the other hand, when there is a pattern of that admin using a problematic approach in responding to feedback, one hopes that an advisement will be sufficient to persuade the admin to revise the approach. The diffs provided in this are just a couple of examples in relation to one particular issue; I don't think the purpose (especially as far as the final decision is concerned) to outline every single issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * JHunterJ, the approach expected of admins for accountability isn't one where only after a drafting arb explicitly indicates there will be ArbCom intervention that there is evidence of making attempts to learn. And another thing, this proposal was made prior to the evidence I submitted on the evidence page as you are already aware; although I had hoped there would be no necessity for placing it on the evidence page, when I noticed your recent comment directed at Deacon (which was made sometime after your comment at 21:24, 26 June 2012), it seemed to me you weren't sufficiently learning from experience. It also gives clarity to the fact that this was just examples of one aspect. If you seriously believe the rest of the evidence has no merit as far as arbs are concerned, I am sure you can find an arb who will have no hesitation in confirming that explicitly for you. But really, underestimating the significance of the approach will only lead you back here in future, and the idea is to avoid the need for that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim
3) reversed the original decision by moving the pages at 16:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC) without discussing the matter first.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Kwamikagami
4) participated in the request for move discussion, and reinstated the original decision by moving the pages at 02:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC) without discussing the matter first.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Gnangarra
5) participated in the request for move discussion, and reinstated the reversed decision by moving the pages at 07:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC) without discussing the matter first.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

JHunterJ advised
1) JHunterJ is advised to respond calmly and courteously to queries regarding Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Deacon of Pndapetzim advised
2) Deacon of Pndapetzim is advised only to reverse an administrative action taken by another administrator after discussion, unless there is an emergency.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Modified to ErikHaugen's version. PhilKnight (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I fully understand that the purpose of any such ruling would be to indicate that ArbCom are not happy with my role in this situation, and that the advice is a way of communicating the level of unhappiness. It's a big dramatic waste of time for those who've decided to get involved, and I possibly deserve some like communication for my brief role. I would request however that you rephrase such a ruling to keep it less contentious, in line with verifiable facts, and thus fair to me: something with a comparative, like "take more care when reversing another administrator's decision"; something like that would be fairer, I think. No-one can fairly say I am opposed in general to "careful thought" or acting on "good causes". If nothing else the specific of this ruling wouldn't be very useful to me as an admin, since even if you take the view that I was an idiotic incompetent, you also know I thought at the time (and incidentally still think) I did have good cause and believed I had given thought sufficient for a good decision.
 * Firstly, I had good cause (or cause that one could--and I did--argue and reasonably believe to be "good"), and that was confirmed by almost all uninvolved parties in the aftermath in the AN/I thread and elsewhere. The original close was somewhere between controversial and wrong. If ArbCom believes that admins should have supervotes in RM discussions, fine, most admins can be trusted to carry out such things fairly; but be explicit (as in a ruling here) so every admin knows in future and so there is no experience- or friend-based inequality among us. Something like "first admin there after closing date ought to close, not vote in RM discussion" would appear to be the de facto rule under the logic endorsed, even though this may only be known to experienced users/admins.
 * Secondly, I most certainly did think it through, as I explained in my comment. Think it through better? Well, I try my best already. I would have made a better decision if I'd known the likely participants better, but really the decision I made wasn't very distinctive from others regularly made by me or other admins. The only difference here is what happened afterwards and the politics and momentum of events therein (in which I have refrained from engaging, even [here excluded] to defend my own action).
 * Thirdly, I fully admit that I didn't precede the reversal with a courtesy discussion. No denying that at all. My intention was to be quick and decisive. Bad call maybe, and it is possible I was wrong (we don't know what would have happened otherwise), but really advising me on this matter has no real purpose. I know already that it is generally better that admins should discuss things like this with each other in most situations. Honestly, at the time my thoughts were "oh dear, what's this guy done, better cut this out before it starts up" (which I appreciate may look a bit ironic now). The discussion heuristic is generally useful, but I have a brain that thought another heuristic was more appropriate at the time
 * Finally, big real life matters at hand just now, so please understand and do not treat it as a sign of disrespect that my involvement in this case will be limited. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * R to Orderinchaos below: IMO "strong admonishments" are in line with wheel violations; while I obviously disagree with Deacon's action (either in result or in urgency), it's not a wheel violation. The ArbCom's alignment with WP:WHEEL, if a problem, would mean that the wheel stuff would need to be rewritten to put stronger burdens on the initial reversal instead of kicking in with the second reversal. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Deacon has some good points here—Phil, as you noted here, it's kind of harsh to imply that Deacon did this without any careful thought. I think this should be rephrased to make it clear that the problem was that an administrative action was reversed without prior discussion when there was no emergency. I think we can all assume that Deacon thought carefully about this. I also think that "courtesy discussion" means when you do reverse another administrator's action without a full discussion, you should at least let that administrator know what you did and why—Deacon did this for sure. What Deacon did not do was have a full discussion before reversing an administrator action. That needs to happen unless there is some kind of emergency, which there obviously wasn't in this case. Perhaps "Deacon of Pndapetzim is advised only to reverse an administrative action taken by another administrator after discussion unless there is an emergency." or something. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed with the changed wording, other than it needs to be stronger - if those that conducted followup actions are receiving "strong admonishments", a mere "advisement" for starting the whole fiasco in a situation in which he may have been involved seems not to reflect the circumstances on the ground. I would ask the question in terms of phrasing it, "is this sort of action something ArbCom would wish to encourage, or at worst turn a blind eye to?" (Note my quibble is with the wording, not with the end result anticipated by this proposal - nothing in this entire case raises to a level IMO needing serious action or likely preventative action being required.) Orderinchaos 15:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Kwamikagami admonished
3) Kwamikagami is strongly admonished for use of administrative tools while involved in an editing dispute, and for reinstating a reverted administrative action without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * If we can ignore for a second that Kwami participated in the discussion, this is an example of where the second mover can get away with a lot, but the third mover (and fourth) get slammed for wheel warring. In my book, the second mover is just as much at fault was the third and fourth, although in this case that's mitigated by Deacon not being involved in the discussion, while Kwami and Gnan were. As more of a general comment about ArbCom cases, I'd really like to see the AC getting tougher on second movers who act without getting approval from the first admin or a consensus at a noticeboard. Jenks24 (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Focusing in that way on what you refer to as a "second mover advantage" would have a counter-productive effect, and does seem to run contrary to the nature of this project in my opinion (which is a wiki rather than a crat society whose hands are completely tied). The Community doesn't give admin tools on the basis that their actions remain stuck in stone by default, or with a view that an action should stick merely if it ticks boxes as far as the letter of policy; you have the ability to make judgments - from getting the ball rolling or being bold, to amending/reversing something in the first instance. If an admin has exercised judgment to do something, an explanation should usually be given from the outset (and further discussion can follow). If an admin has exercised judgment to reverse something though, then generally, a consensus must follow before reinstating the action - rather than just continue the reversals/reinstatements/amendments to make it look like a war. When the Community can be very divided on an issue, usually it is best to stick to the last accepted consensus version (often the version prior to the first move) until the subsequent discussion leads to the consensus for reinstating the first action. The "advantage" for a "second mover" seems to amount to a very limited time (which the "first mover" also has), though really, when a clearer consensus can emerge from that subsequent discussion, that can be more of a disadvantage too. If an action is reversed, and it is decided that should be reversed (so as to reinstate the previous action), principle 2 applies the other way too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, but isn't the point of the 2nd mover advantage so that problematic things like blocks can be undone quickly? There's just no urgency with a page move like this; no reason not to wait for discussion. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are often also claims that blocks or undoing blocks are not an emergency, so that is another tension which underlies all this. Blocks are perhaps the most significant, but moves can occasionally become significant too. In this case though, there was no emergency. However, we do appreciate the thinking behind why a reversal was made at the time at which it was. Many users were in a dilemma as to whether to accept the original close (as they ultimately also wanted a move), or whether to express concerns about it (even though that may ultimately mean a delay in the move). I think the fact that those users were in favour of the delay does indicate two things. Firstly, a subsequent discussion may lead to a clearer result and reduce the scope for dispute in the future; if that can be accomplished, the indication is that a short-term delay is worthwhile. Secondly, it indicates they want admins to take more care rather than in the name of backlog, effecting closes which could end up (even unintentionally) giving a certain appearance. Here, best practice suggests a courtesy discussion between both admins should have taken place first in any event. Judging from the comments since then though, the reversal outcome was inevitable shortly after such discussion would have taken place between them both, so it is more of a reminder of best practice than anything. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not much to say other than to agree with Jenks, and to reiterate my earlier point that in my view Deacon's actions are the reason we're here, Kwami's and Gnangarra's were part of a snowball effect, and the seriousness of the outcome should reflect that (although I agree with the fact that we're only talking "strengths of admonishments" here and nothing stronger for any of the three of them). Orderinchaos 15:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Gnangarra admonished
4) Gnangarra is strongly admonished for use of administrative tools while involved in an editing dispute, and for reinstating a reverted administrative action without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * In reply to Orderinchaos, the longer a wheel war goes on, the less excuse the N+1th admin has to continue such participation. The participation by all the involved admins shows a lapse of judgment, in my opinion, but one which grows less excusable per iteration.  I've added a principle to clarify that move-warring isn't just edit warring, in which case anyone can get one "free" revert in without being sanctioned for edit-warring in most cases.  I think that lack of clarity, rather than the administrators' otherwise unremarkable track records, are what argues best for leniency in this case. Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * My only reservation is whether or not the strength of this admonishment should be relaxed (given the sketches of past similar-type behavior raised in the evidence by Jafeluv for Kwamikagami, and that past similar-type behavior has not been raised for Gnangarra - though a suggested alternative would be that the former warrants a separate admonishment). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that "strongly" is probably overdoing it. Regarding Kwami's behaviour, I'm a bit lost, has he been reprimanded for wheel warring before? Jenks24 (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Similar conduct concerns as far as move-warring, edit-warring, personal attacks, were raised in this discussion re: kwami - where a pool of concerns and feedback was given, and noting his administrator status. I don't think it is strictly identical conduct, but if he absorbed the principle which he should have learned from that experience, I'm sure he would have really thought twice in this situation before completing the action in the way that he did. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Strongly" is a bit harsh considering we are talking about an administrator of 5½ years standing whose judgement has otherwise been sound and who has never been to ArbCom before. A wording like "reminded" or "advised" would be more appropriate. Orderinchaos 15:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree; move warring is not cool and created a mess, but it is more like edit warring than blocking. If its the first time for Gnangarra (and I dont see evidence that suggests otherwise), a "reminded" or "advised" would be better, or even "admonished" instead of "strongly admonished".  Regarding the assertion by an arb that culpability increases with each action taken, I think this should be reconsidered.  Gnangarra was the third person to reverse the move, and therefore Gnangarra was undoing the action which was "wheel warring", being the move by Kwamikagami, thereby returning everything to the status quo before the mess started. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Five pillars
1) Per WP:FIVEPILLARS, building and maintaining an encyclopedia at the highest standard requires that its editors have as much time as possible available for such a purpose, and that relations between editors remain mutually beneficial.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I dont like it. ;-) Firstly, it is phrased in a way that makes assertions about the endeavour of "building and maintaining an encyclopedia at the highest standard", rather than the more relevant endeavour of building and maintaining English Wikipedia in 2012.  The publishers and editors of Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and World Book Encyclopedia probably don't intend to use "WP:FIVEPILLARS" to help them determine how to write an encyclopedia.  IMO English Wikipedia has a long way to go before it is a sterling example of an encyclopedia of the highest standard. (Its taken 10 years and tens of thousands of people to write 3,596 featured articles and 15,328 good articles)  Don't get me wrong, English Wikipedia is brilliant in many ways, but this is mostly attributed to the benefits of "free-libre" and our "good enough" content. Also, I am not comfortable with the phrase "that relations between editors remain mutually beneficial" but I havent put by finger on why it strikes me as 'wrong'.  Perhaps "Collegial" would be a suitable replacement to "mutually beneficial". John Vandenberg (chat) 03:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation
2) The title of an article is important for indicating the article's content. The title of a Wikipedia article and its url are currently symbiotic; Disambiguation is there to handle those occasions where articles share potential titles and resolve url issues arising from such ambiguity.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This is important background to the case; including it as a Principle (or FoF) would make the decision more understandable to the public. Needs a bit of copy-editing for further clarity and simplicity. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Significance of disambiguation conflict
1) This case originated in, though does not primarily concern, a WP:DAB-related disagreement among editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General problem with disambiguation-related conflict
2) On many previous occasions, the Arbitration Committee has dealt with significant long- and short-term procedural disputes and conduct issues originating at least partly in earlier article-naming disputes--national, ideological and so on--where significant numbers of otherwise productive editors had become locked into wasteful conflict over WP:NAME issues. Such disputes are avoidable by delinking urls and article names, and they are tolerated only so far as that link is more useful than not to the encyclopedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I am not sure that I buy blaming the URLs for editors warring over them. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Consultation
1) Upon the closure of this case, the Arbitration Committee will sponsor a community consulation on the future of Wikipedia article naming functions and potential solutions for problems (such as ease of internal hyperlinking) created by ending the current dependence between article names and urls.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Could the proposer please expand on what he sees as potential useful outcomes of the proposed discussion, and how the new "move review" process/proposal might bear on them. Comments from others would be welcome too, of course. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * @NYB 23:48:
 * The potential final outcome could be pages with urls unrelated to article names. Thus both Perth articles would be titled "Perth", but located somewhere else. As an example, ODNB, which has:
 * http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/12949
 * Rather than
 * http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/Henry_II
 * Move review would, like all move related process pages, be pointless afterwards, since pages would be unmovable.
 * Such a change for Wikipedia would be extremely traumatic, and I'm not by any means certain it would be worthwhile. The useful outcome of the consultation would be to determine if it would be worthwhile. Of course, this is actually a technical issue too, over which no-one as a member of the Wikipedia community has any power to change directly. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Policy is that subjects are identified by (changeable) subject titles rather than permanent identifiers. The arbcom decision needs to uphold existing policy, especially when it is so deeply entrenched.  It is bad practise to not have a unique permanent identifiers for resources, but we only have permanent identifiers for revisions.  There is a unique and permanent identifier for each article, and we could very easily adopt it as the URL of the page (and have the title of each article set via wiki syntax rather than the article identifier), however I don't know of any wiki that uses this article identifier, nor have I seen that option discussed anywhere.  I think it is not appropriate for Arbcom to suggest such a radical change in response to a minor & isolated move war.  If there were move wars frequently rising to the level of arbitration, the committee might suggest that the community finds a better solution, but I dont think that is the case.  There are a few high profile move wars (e.g. Macedonia,..), but these are usually based on geopolitical naming and territory conflicts that are being waged in the real world.  The Perth and Georgia cases stand out because the fight is of little real world consequence for anyone involved. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Err, I am wrong. I stumbled into WikiProject Unique Identifiers and see that mediawiki has a curid param that can be used to create links to an article. e.g. .  And there is some discussion at Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_86. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Remarks by uninvolved Neotarf
( Possible conflict of interest statement: Although I did not participate in the original Perth Move Request, I support the Australian city as a primary topic, and made later statements to that effect; and I voted "no consensus" in the Perth Move Review -- in other words, that there was insufficient consensus to regard the Australian city as primary topic.)

Put the fish away; it's a waste of good food.

 * All four — and now five — individuals who moved the title were looking at the same discussion at the same RM, and trying to correctly implement what they saw as consensus. 
 * Unfortunately they did not interpret it in the same way. Also unfortunate,  the title policy is often confusing and self contradicting, and in my opinion poorly written.  Often it reflects changes that were not made after discussion and that do not reflect consensus.  At the same time these policies are held up against a !vote, and depending on interpretation, used to justify a decision contrary to the consensus reflected by the !votes.


 * Add to this the confusion over how to effect changes on the encyclopedia, since a consensus is needed to overturn a preceding consensus. In the past, changes have taken place by accident or by edit warring, with the last edit in place before some kind of intervention kicks in being the one that sticks, and becomes the new consensus. At the same time there is a tradition of Ignore All Rules, that encourages editors to be creative with procedure for the good of the project.


 * The new proposed Move Review procedure continues the tradition of confusion, as what to do in case of what decision is not spelled out. If there is "no consensus", do you revert to the original or is it "no consensus to change", and you leave it as is?  Both have been suggested on the talk pages, with nothing concluded. In spite of this, the proposed Move Review was used in the case of Perth, to justify moving the title yet again, a fifth time, even though it was not widely advertised as a RM is, and although it only addressed the topic of whether the decision was done correctly, and not the issue of where the title itself belonged.  There were again rumblings of a supervote. It was not until another RM, widely advertised, that drew in a wider audience, that there was finally a consensus on the location of the title that was seen as conclusive.


 * The discussions surrounding the Perth move were far from conclusive, and JHunterJ's moves have been far from uncontentious, although who is to say whether or not that is because of him. But the proposed Move Review process has now been used a total of 4 times, and all 4 reviews have been of moves done by JHunterJ. While all four were eventually upheld, there was more than a little acrimony.  Again policy outweighed consensus, and there were again more suggestions of supervote.


 * These are not slam-dunk decisions. They are controversial. So far, 5 admins have split 2-3 over the correct decision. On the day that the correct course of action is evident to everyone, that is the day you can fault people for their good-faith actions. In the meantime, it would be a better use of time and energy to figure out how to bring more clarity to the process.


 * On some levels, this is a content dispute.
 * I started participation in RMs because I was interested in title policy. While there was some interesting discussion going on in the RMs, the discussion too frequently turned to the editor instead of the content. I had to field depreciating, and somewhat stalkerish remarks about my edit history, who I "agreed with", and whose talk pages I had edited on. I was incorrectly identified as "agreeing with" a position when I had not even participated in the RM and had in fact "disagreed". The discussion in the RMs needs to be refocused on the ideas themselves, not on who may or may not agree with them.


 * There is also way too much citing of policy in place of discussion. While the blue links can be helpful, they are not a replacement for stating rationales that should be the guiding principles behind the policy.

Neotarf (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: