Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * 1) Courcelles
 * 2) David Fuchs
 * 3) Elen of the Roads
 * 4) Hersfold
 * 5) Kirill Lokshin
 * 6) Jclemens
 * 7) Newyorkbrad
 * 8) PhilKnight
 * 9) Risker
 * 10) Roger Davies
 * 11) SirFozzie
 * 12) SilkTork

Inactive:
 * AGK
 * 1) Xeno

Recused:
 * 1) Casliber

Calm and courteous
No doubt continuing what is perceived as my argumentative approach, but: my responses were calm. If they were discourteous, they were such to a level that intentionally paralleled the comments I was responding to, for rhetorical effect, although those commenters do not as yet have similar advice proposed. I will avoid paralleling them for rhetorical effect and instead simply point out the discourtesy next time, although pointing it out might also be painted as discourteous. As far as I am aware, the discourteousness is only being taken on behalf of Deacon, not by Deacon himself. This bear trap of a move request had no good exit in which everyone was going to feel acceptably "courteoused", although the several extensive appropriately courteous discussions did result in the desired improvement to the encyclopedia navigation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Venue for appealing move request closures
Newyorkbrad says: "A key issue here is that as far as I am aware, at the time Deacon of Pndapetzim reversed the closure, there was no well-recognized venue for contesting the closure of a move request." While true, it certainly doesn't take much imagination to think of a good place to discuss the closure. Non-admins have been dealing with this problem quite successfully for a long time now. One suggestion is to open another RM or RfC right there below the problematic RM closure. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more along the lines of a procedure that leads to a stable result (at least for a reasonable period of time). If an AfD closes "keep" on Monday, and I think it should have closed "delete," I wouldn't AfD the same article on Tuesday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's because you have DRV! See Talk:Crepe; it works fine. But this is kind of beside the point, the context here is whether there is an alternative to reversing an administrator action without any discussion, and of course there is even if there's nothing purpose-built and official like DRV. If opening another RM right away feels wrong, then how about an RfC right below the problematic move discussion? ANI? the list goes on. That's the kind of thing a non-admin would have had to do; they do it all the time. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I had wondered the same thing as Newyorkbrad when the original set of actions took place - it does seem slightly odd that technically similar actions have an avenue of appeal, whilst moves don't. Orderinchaos 17:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree that there was nowhere to contest JHunterJ's closure. RM closes have always reviewable at WP:AN and I can recall plenty pf cases where that happened, and several where the closure was indeed overturned. I understand that most arbs would not be aware of this – RM is a rather niche area of the project – but I would expect anyone who gets involved with RM in an administrative capacity to be. That way we avoid the exact problems that led to this case. Jenks24 (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Remedy 7
There's little benefit in pointing the finger at the Community when the process is clearly in development stage, and moreover, it does seem like you are recommending the Community to make policy for one thing and against the other - that's not your role. Yes, the move review process is official in so far as setting up a separate venue for appeal, and much of the structure of how the discussion is conducted. But there are some aspects of the current procedure which do need to be ironed out before it is ready to be publicized further, hopefully with the support of an official guideline or policy. Currently, there is dispute over which version of those elements should stay, and which should change. If you are happy with the elements as they currently stand, that doesn't mean you should be giving a view via this case. In fact, I don't see the need to bring this case into view (individual cases make for bad policy in any event), or why the Committee should be interfering with the Community processes (yes, we already have that power, so you aren't giving us more, as such). Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If the procedures for the WP:MR page and process aren't yet settled, that's certainly something that I am prepared to address through editing my proposed remedy. It could certainly say that we recommend the community finalize the procedure and then publicize the page when the procedure is agreed upon, or something along those lines. And I am not contending that the proposal is indispensible to the decision or anything like that. Nonetheless, the absence of a procedure for reviewing disputed move closes has led us to this situation, in which I have colleagues prepared to desysop three experienced administrators because they each did what they (incorrectly) thought proper in a situation where the rules weren't crystal clear. See also Jclemens' voting comment on the proposal, with which I agree. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In relation to the first part of your response, if you want to recommend the Community continue with a view of having a finalized procedure, that's fine (as it can help with resolution), but there is no point recommending that it be publicized afterwards when that is what the Community already does once things are settled. In relation to the second part of your response, would your colleagues have voted to open the case on this matter even if a Rfarb was not filed? When it comes to "what led us to this situation", we cannot simply overlook the underlying (if not patently obvious) motivation behind why the filer initiated this; I'm sure you would appreciate the viewpoint that AC's input was not absolutely required in this particular matter, and that this view is more commonly held than some of your colleagues might realise. Also, if some of the colleagues you are alluding to are prepared to desysop 3 out of the 4 administrators even in light of the extenuating circumstances you describe (especially where two did not breach wheel), then perhaps their suitability for this arbitrator role should be reconsidered as they are arguably not helping the project - even if they assert that they intend/ed to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As you'll have seen, it appears the majority of arbitrators agree with you about this proposal. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is it problematic when I point out Deacon's involvement?
There's a proposed finding of fact, and a corresponding advisement, that my responses were problematic and that I should be more doormatish when accused of closing things with partiality. There's a subsequent proposed finding that Deacon has appearances of being involved. Can someone explain the difference between me saying so in response to an implication of my own involvement and the committee saying so? Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, as in your comment above, you have been belligerent in your tone, and you have made comments, such as the above, which serve no useful purpose but to aggravate matters. It is up to you what you do, but as the only finding and remedy for you is that you have not handled yourself well after the event in this incident, it might be time to take that on board.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  20:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that kind of disconnect may be counter to some preferences, but it isn't belligerent. I am questioning why I am being committee-advised for pointing out Deacon's appearance of involvement when the committee itself is also pointing out Deacon's appearance of involvement. If there's a difference that can be explained to me, that would be the useful purpose and I could take that on board as well. I have taken on board the proposed remedy for when I do it -- to state directly that the implication that my close lacked impartiality was baseless instead of pointing out that the reversal had more appearance of partiality. But the question still remains why, if there is appearance of involvement from Deacon, it was wrong for me to point it out and right to point it out here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While the Committee is indeed calling attention to an appearance of involvement on Deacon's part, it is important to note that we are doing so on the basis of specific edits and comments, and not on the basis of his membership of a particular WikiProject. The latter amounts to an assumption of bad faith on the basis of an editor's affiliation, and is inappropriate in virtually all cases. Kirill [talk] 01:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That does bring me back to my point from the workshop, however. If I am being advised for suggesting that Wikiproject Membership can give the appearance of partiality (without listing the specific edits and comments that I found, since the point was not his appearance of partiality, but his implication of my appearance of partiality), why is there no corresponding advisement for Deacon for the bad faith suggestion of appearance of partiality in his reversal? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's because Deacon is likely to receive a far harsher sanction in any case. "Advising" someone is perhaps the mildest sanction available to the Committee; but it's only used in cases where no other sanction is contemplated, not as an adjunct to a substantive sanction such as desysopping. Kirill [talk] 13:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks again. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Risker noted: "The patent assumption of bad faith in these comments (assuming that membership in such a broad wiki-project as Wikiproject Scotland would necessarily taint the actions of another editor/administrator) raises this to the level of a finding, in my opinion." This seems to be continuing, although repeating my clarification might be seen as argumentative or badgering. Deacon implied that my close "sounds too little like an impartial close", with no justification whatsoever (the assumption of bad faith). I replied that my close was indeed impartial. I echoed P.T. Aufrette's observation that Deacon's project membership made his reversal look partial instead, and I was too brief in my restatement of it, but there is no patent assumption of bad faith in my rebuttal of his implication. The second diff for this finding has even less to be mistaken for an assumption of bad faith. Compare to the earlier note's "No admin with any impartiality or experience could seriously claim that this discussion had consensus". -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A clarification: It was not Wikiproject Scotland which I brought up, but WikiProject Medieval Scotland more specifically. Perth, Scotland was considered the capital of medieval Scotland, and the argument in favor of the Scottish Perth centers almost entirely on its history rather than its modern-day status as a relatively small town.  Also, my impression was that Deacon is not only a member but a fairly core participant, so the Scottish Perth might loom a bit larger as a primary topic within his personal worldview.  In the same way that arbitrators occasionally recuse themselves under some circumstances, I argued that it would have been more judicious for Deacon to "recuse" from carrying an administrative action that had the side-effect of making a determination about whether Perth, Scotland is a rival primary topic to the Australian Perth. I felt that this set of circumstances might potentially trigger the "have strong feelings about" clause in WP:INVOLVED (also, "involvement is generally construed very broadly"). There was also his 2009 expression of an opinion, although I didn't raise that point until some time later. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Kwami
I just want to endorse NYB's comment that to desysop this admin would be "completely disproportionate and excessive", and NYB's noting of the value of this admin to the project. Heavens, Kwami seems to have been caught up in the inappropriate behaviour of other editors. A warning seems appropriate. Tony  (talk)  04:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In agreement. Any time I've dealt with Kwami, they have been civil and helpful (in particular in relation to IPA and languages). Orderinchaos 02:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Kwami is no doubt a key editor in the area of linguistics and, as Orderinchaos put it, is almost always civil and helpful. However, this case is (and should be) about his mis-use of administrative tools, not his value as a substantial contributor. There is more evidence of unexplained reverts (often against consensus)...see User talk:Guerrilla of the Renmin. GotR Talk 08:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The Horror
I am quite horrified to see what is being said about me on the proposed decision page. I feel a number of comments made in my regard have been grossly unfair or matter-of-factly inaccurate (@ 17:02 July 9 2012).

Could ask please all the arbs in question to read these comments with a fair and open mind; and that other parties to this case refrain from posting.

Deacon of Pndapetzim was involved in the topic by having previously given his views on the matter [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APerth&diff=294312881&oldid=285044047], (SilkTork)


 * I expressed no views on the topic, and it is not accurate to say that I did. As far as I see, all I did in the diff in question was present certain arguments to facilitate discussion, as I frequently do (it's clearly phrased in such a manner). I did not disclose any views I had on the location of that page. I didn't even remember posting it; the comment was three years ago and had nothing to do with the move reversal I performed last month, nor did it play any role in the aftermath in perceptions of "involvement" since it wasn't dug up until the workshop was well underway. I'm sure the majority of admin action undertaken by most admins across Wikipedia is in relation to pages within their interest zone or ones previously edited. It was never a secret that I'd edited the Perth page before, and indeed the only reason I even saw the discussion was because it was on my watchlist. There's no reason per WP:INVOLVED why I should have believed I was "involved" in the discussion as a result. If this is construed now as "involvement", then we are making the rules up as we go along (aside from inadvertently discouraging other admins acting in areas where they have experience or expertise).

While this would indeed be rather harsh for an isolated mistake, it is considerably less so in view of Deacon's history of poor conduct. (Kirill Lokhsin)


 * Kirill, this proposal (your own) only marginally passed and was in fact a handful of mostly unrelated reverts to a busy article over a period of a month (unrelated reverts are part of WP:BRD and are not automatically "edit-warring"). Four years later you bring it up to create a narrative that a user who has served well as an admin for half a decade, with 40000 contributions, having created 1000 articles (numerous voted to "Featured"), has a "history of poor conduct". I am not of course asserting that the ruling did not matter, but even accepting those reverts as "poor conduct", it's still pretty unfair that I have to defend myself again against them almost half a decade later. How long is one thing held against someone?

''The question for me is how many times do we admonish someone before stepping up the sanction. And Deacon of Pndapetzim has himself stepped up the level of revert warring from edit warring to page move and wheel warring.'' (SilkTork)


 * This is a rather unfair endorsement of the narrative forwarded by Kirill. I haven't wheel-warred nor "war[red]" over a page move. I performed one page move revert. If that had been against any rules then I wouldn't have done it. I'm culpable of reverting without discussion insofar as that is regarded as being against best practice (see also oppose at 2 by Jclemens), but as I explained in the workshop I did so for the best reasons.

As a reality check, the decision was no-more controversial than many I have seen on Wikipedia every day. Of course that does not condone anything, but this does feel a bit like being prison-sentences being handed out for swearing. If I believed it was going to be a valuable precedent (like it would be in an actual court) that might be one thing; but ArbCom doesn't do things that way (almost never analysing or citing precedent) and in my experience varies its treament from case to case depending on how many and what friends/enemies a user has, and how much pressure they exert. What's worse, I am almost certain that if I were to bring each similar future action of comparable note to ArbCom's attention, you would dismiss them as WP:POINTy and label me "problematic".

It has been said by two users (one an admin), that I somehow "began" this affair. The implication here is that I am somehow responsible for other admins wheel-warring. This surely carries a pretty drastic implication, that one admin will be treated according to how others act; and is besides outside the realm of verifiable fact, since my decision was the 2nd of 4 decisions in this process (and of course preceded all wheelwarring!). I acted within existing processes and with the best intentions, if others after me choose to do certain things that is up to them. I've always tried to stay well clear of any dramatic wheelwarring. The measures being proposed against myself and others are well outside and beyond the rules and precedents known to me and exceed the measures justified by this activity (and I am referring to some of the measures against Kwami and Gnangarra as well as to myself). There is also btw no preventative function in changing rules as we go along, so such measures would be entirely punitive as received. All of us involved in this case are exceedingly unlucky that such an incident ever got this far, and any preventative ambitions any of you have for these matters are surely as close to guaranteed fulfilment as they ever could be by events as they have already transpired. But I digress ...

Most importanly, to Kiril and others, please reconsider putting on the record such comments about me. They are unfair and unjustified, yet they will almost certainly carry weight in future if not retracted. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think your reference to "one an admin" is me, but not sure - I did indeed say that, and continue to believe it is the case. A pub brawl usually starts with someone throwing a punch, and that's pretty much what happened here in my view. Had the action not taken place, none of the fracas would have happened, and it should have been at least reasonably foreseeable that such an action would have no calming effect on the situation and was rather likely to do the reverse. Orderinchaos 02:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a matter of extreme sadness to me that we are all here, that this stuff is happening, and that I played a role in it. But I do not think a pub-brawl or fist-fight is a good metaphor for what happened; overturning an evaluation of consensus one disagrees with is not in any way a punch or an act of agression. And even if the fight metaphor was good, it's hardly fair to say my action has more significance as "the first punch" than the first wheelwarring (or even the original close). Every event always has countless preceding events, but ArbCom accepted this case because of the apparent wheelwarring. The latter is verifiably why we are all here and verifiably why my own action did not end the matter the way I had intended it to (acknowledging that my judgment on this matter has been fairly criticized).Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

2nd mover and discussion
There seems to be some disagreement among the arbitrators about when or if prior discussion is "required" before reversing an administrative action.

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Proposed_decision—This proposal borrows language from ADMIN, a section of policy dealing with the "2nd mover". Here, Kirill seems (I could be wrong?) to interpret the "courtesy discussion" clause as meaning discussion prior to the reversal, which doesn't seem to be how JClemens views it—see the response to the proposal that Deacon be advised not to reverse administrative actions unless there is a discussion or an emergency: "This risks making discussion before the first reversal normative". I agree that the "courtesy discussion" doesn't mean discussion prior to the reversal; I think it means perhaps a note letting the 1st admin know that the action was reversed and why. (Deacon did exactly this, of course). However, I disagree with JClemens that discussion before reverting oughtn't be expected in cases where there is no emergency. Immediately overriding an administrative action, in this case a move closure, is very disruptive, confusing, and frustrating for those involved. The theme of WP:TOOLMISUSE and its advice on reverting administrative action seems to be discuss first: "Resolve admin disputes by discussing", "disputes should be settled through civil discussion rather than power wrestling", "Seek constructive discussion", etc. However, I suppose it could be argued that the wording there does imply that for the 2nd mover, prior discussion is totally optional if you have a good reason and leave a nice note on the 1st mover's talk page. This describes what Deacon did. (involvement issues aside!)

I would appreciate some clarity here on whether discussion before the 2nd move in non-emergency situations should be normative, as JClemens puts it. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that initiating a discussion before reverting is a best practice, nor that it would have probably been the best course of action here. My objections are that 1) it isn't a necessary finding in this case, and 2) a finding of that nature pushes things from "best practice" to "sanctionable if not done", which is too far, in my opinion, given that we have multiple otherwise perfectly fine admins who all blew it. Jclemens (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've commented on this issue in my vote on the added proposed principle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. If we think that it's the best practice for an administrator to consult before overturning another's administrator action, unless there is some urgency (such as with clearly bad blocks), we should say so.—Does this imply that you think the phrase "courtesy discussion" in the proposal means that discussion ought to take place before reversing in non-emergency situations? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is how I've always interpreted the guidelines and best practices, and also how (for example) the blocking policy suggests situations should be handled in most cases, so the answer to your question is yes. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A plea for moderation: no desysopping, please
I only made preliminary comments (preserved on the main case talkpage, along with other comments from non-parties to the case). I am surprised and dismayed at how things have progressed. Regrettable, that the scope of the case has been less than clear. Several editors here and elsewhere have been unhappy with editing and closures by JHunterJ. If I had suspected for a moment that the consequences of one high-handed RM closure might include removal of three admins' rights, I would have participated in this case with hard evidence, proposed findings of fact, and proposed remedies concerning JHunterJ. As things stand, an RFCU is overdue for him, and that course of action remains open regardless of anything that has been deliberated on here (as he seems to agree).

Of the three admins [sic!] under threat as I write, I am familiar only with Kwami. If his record of achievements is echoed in the Wikipedian careers of the others, I must urge the Arbitrators to be lenient with all three. Kwami has done a prodigious job in enhancing Wikipedia's linguistic offerings, with rare expertise and energy – often through effective use of tools available to admins only. I know his work best at one crucial interface: where development of Wikipedia's style guidelines cries out for linguistic expertise. Kwami's help was invaluable last year when WP:DASH was reformed under ArbCom direction and supervision. This unparalleled community consultation on a style issue settled things for a great number of RMs, and lent stability that could not be achieved in any other way. (I could point to a contrast with JHunterJ's unilateral reversal of a MOS guideline, during the course of this ArbCom case. The resulting chaos is still consuming editors' time.)

I ask Arbitrators who have not yet voted to consider the larger picture, and the losses that they can help bring about – or help prevent.

I ask Arbitrators who have already voted to reconsider. We all make mistakes; the more active admins are, the more exposed they are to slip-ups. Some errors are more visible; some that are far more damaging to the Project are less obvious, and more protected behind a mask of policy that is still hotly disputed since the last case like this (affecting WP:TITLE and WP:MOSCAPS) – still interpreted according to the "supervoting" preferences of some closing admins.

The three admins under threat all acted incautiously, but with intent to keep good order; none did serious harm, and all deserve another chance to continue their good work for Wikipedia. We cannot afford to lose such talent, and such a wealth of experience.

N oetica Tea? 00:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In general and absent specific horrible wrongdoing, when we take away administrators' privileges, discretion is returned to the community to re-sysop them. We have a situation where lots of people have clamored for removal of abusive administrators' bits, and then when we apply current standards to long-standing admins, we're greeted with choruses of "but not THOSE admins". If the community wishes to resysop anyone desysop'ed by the committee, it retains that power. Jclemens (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. In Gnangarra's case we have a admin in high standing for years and years to whom a single questionable action has been identified. That action was made in good faith on the back of broad discontent to the initial move closure.  And you'd throw him to the wolves at RfA for that.  This finding is extraordinarily harsh and will likely create a net loss to the project.  I can't fathom the logic. Moondyne (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Entirely in agreement with Moondyne here. Orderinchaos 07:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Editors have been saying that the reason RfA is such an inquest and microscope is that the community has lacked a way to desysop effectively. While that may or may not be true, that is the feedback which had been received to date. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Whilst it may (with heavy emphasis on may) be right that a greater tendency on ArbCom's part to desysop admins who err may make some editors less ready to oppose RfAs, I cannot see how it can have other than a detrimental impact on the number of people willing to do the job. WJBscribe (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * [ec] You seem to be saying the inability to desysop effectively elsewhere is an argument for aggressive desysopping here. My point was, in this instance, the penalty is unjustly harsh and disproportionate, knowing that that forum can be arbitrary and caustic. Moondyne (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I echo what Moondyne has stated. Other then the wheel-war, Gnangarra has a very clean history, so I see little point in removing his Sysop. ArbCom is making the wrong finding and will likely drive fellow Australian's from the Northern Hemisphere centric Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone in this case should be desysopped over this. Wheel warring is bad, yes, but one case for each of these (the evidence of former misconduct by Deacon is pretty poor, as NYB has already noted) is not worth a desysopping except in really exceptional cases. (Wheel wars like the pedophilia userbox one, in which long-standing contributors were indeffed on the most ridiculous of grounds, would be an example.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am also in agreement that what we saw was a few people being silly in the heat of the moment. The end result? A bit of drama that, but for this proceeding, was over in a matter of hours and the community has since, independently, resolved the original situation with no harm done to anyone or anything along the way. Even at its worst, all we were talking about was the naming of one article. There wasn't mass warring - each admin undertook a single act - they shouldn't have, but my point is in the scale. All three admins have significant Wikipedian careers and achievements. None of them are new to the tools, they've by and large used them responsibly throughout their time and there's very little evidence of past drama (and none at all in Gnangarra's case). Additionally to Noetica's points about Kwami in the OP, with which I agree, Gnangarra has worked tirelessly and completely gratis to promote Wikipedia in the wider community including giving talks to editor groups, running workshops and Wiki Takes events, helping out at the first GLAM-WIKI and so on and, in an online sense, has generally acted in a balancing / moderating role during disputes within or involving the Australian Wikipedian community. That should all be taken into account. Orderinchaos 07:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

[Refactored, partly because the (accidental?) null heading "== ==" was disrupting markup on the page. – N oetica Tea? 07:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC) ] Not unintentional, I was at a loss for words and still am. As with grief, there is no label, no punctuation, no markup, that fits. If non-breaking space or somesuch is impractical, then leave as is, as a blunt reaction. Neotarf (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ugly.

I'm still trying to figure out what anybody did wrong. Editors are told to be bold, then if there is disagreement, to discuss. We have here four, and now five bold editors, who were all chosen because their judgment was valued, who took the actions they were chosen to take, but where is the discussion? Unlike some of the stuff I've seen admins do on the talk pages, whatever has done here can easily be undone. In fact it has been undone — four times so far. So what harm has been done?

Anyone who is thinking of RfA should be taken to this thread to see the blood on the floor. Neotarf (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Things got out of control, and these admins will be more careful in the future, clearly.  A de-sysop would be punitive and pointless, not preventive or in any sense positive.  Let's move on.  Dicklyon (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The word Perth seems to have brought out some very weird processes over the years. That anything to with the absurd arguments and associated moves (in both directions) that have been bandied about in this time should have actually got to arbcom is reflective of as much the perspective of where wood grains have been inspected but the forest ignored.  The minuitiae of who did what in what minute, and what order might please those with a sense of parsing sentences, but the end result is a disaster.  Perth is back to an absurd state (reflective of where some energy might have been better spent), and there is mention of de-sysop.
 * The wider prespective, the stand back and lets have a look at what happened in a broader perspective seems to get lost in these processes such as arbcom deliberations. The actors/involved have had their longer term involvement and participation ignored and a very brief series of events has been magnified all out of proportion.  If anyone has any claims to have the capacity to see the wood for the trees/forest analogy  - then they should put that into focus and think about the processes that need further development within the broader experience of what Wikipedia is (or not) and work to fix that, rather than be so forensically obsessed with detail.
 * All individuals involved should remain in their current status - and maybe somewhere, someone will actually work hard to eliminate the clearly faulty process of name dismabiguation once and for all. De-sysop should not even be in the same context - the larger picture of the naming and disambiguation of places is the issue. SatuSuro 11:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom used to be overly deferential to admins but now they're getting far too punitive. We're practically at the point where arbcom is desysopping more admins than RFA is creating! 169.231.121.57 (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not unintentional, it was a campaign promise for some of us. Well, the increase in desysop'ings was.  It's up to the community to trust that the committee will continue to expect the highest standards of conduct from administrators, and begin to loosen up the RfA process to people who've made honest mistakes and learned from them, which is what we ask of administrators. Jclemens (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Noetica, yes, I realize that your disagreement with the involved guidelines and policies means that you disagree with my closes when I honor those guidelines and policies. This is obviously not the place to rehash your problems with them, so please stop using my name as a distraction. And by all means, please do point to my reversal of an undiscussed change to the MoS abbrevations; your insistence that the undiscussed version that you happen to agree with must be kept until you agree to its change might be illustrative here as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * JHunterJ:
 * Your distortions of the plain and documented facts do you no credit, and are a serious distraction from the purpose of this section: to appeal for clemency for admins who tried to stem a cascade of instability brought about by your closure of an RM. I have shown restraint; I have not brought evidence against you in this case because you insisted that the case be confined to the wheel-warring allegations.
 * You follow policies and guidelines? Selectively, yes: with the rather particular interpretation that you give them. And you choose the RMs that you will close with care also, don't you? As an activist with an agenda. Hence the present difficulties, and others noted in other forums where you are also implicated. You know full well that those provisions in policy and guidelines have been the subject of dispute for many months, occasioning an ArbCom case already earlier this year. You also know that you have had a role in fashioning certain crucial provisions. (I looked for discussion toward consensus, and found none.) You want to be legislator, administrator, and enforcer, all in one? If any admin in the present case is "involved", it is you.
 * Review a decision of ArbCom concerning the development of policy and guidelines. There you will read these findings, all passed 9–0:
 * "'Style guides are used as a means of creating a consistent end result.'"
 * "'The English Wikipedia Manual of Style has been built from a number of pre-existing Manuals from numerous fields. The best practices from these have been combined to create a single, unique MOS that applies to articles on the English Wikipedia.'"
 * "'A higher standard for participation and consensus exists for changes to policies and guidelines, as stated in Consensus.'"
 * "'... a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.'"
 * Now, where can we see your contributions to fixing the mess you started when you unilaterally reversed a provision of MOS at WP:ABBR (contrary to an ArbCom ruling), introducing an inconsistency that I have had to remove? (Not reverting to any provision that I put there, and not with a result to which I have any strong attachment. I stand for excellence, clarity, and consistency in MOS recommendations, through consensual development and wide consultation. My record shows that.)
 * And where, by the way, do we read your last-minute plea on behalf of the three admins caught up in sorting out what you precipitated?
 * Act with the probity expected of an admin. So far you do not. If I had known it would come to this sorry outcome I would have laid the available facts on the table in the case itself, with all relevant diffs.
 * N oetica Tea? 03:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Still too much distraction; you have reverted every fix I've made at WP:ABBR, and seem to equate "with probity" with "in agreement with Noetica". I did not precipitate anything here, unless you would like to claim that every wheel war is precipitated by the first admin, in which case we should just desysop everyone in order to prevent it from happening again. (That's a reduction to absurdity rhetorical device, not intended as a portrayal of your position.) Or we could blame P.T. Aufrette for requesting the move, since that precipitated my (correct, reviewed, and maintained in a subsequent move request) close. I have no last-minute plea for the three admins. Since this is my first ArbCom case, I would have preferred to observe more than Ncmvocalist's efforts (and now yours) to make this my fault for using the mop and then correcting the misstatements afterwards and explaining why and explaining the explanations, etc., have allowed me to. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * JHunterJ, what you assert can be checked against the history for WP:ABBR. Your initial edit summary: "i.e. and e.g. should be followed by a comma (Chicago Manual of Style, Columbia Guide to Standard American English, etc." This was no "fix". It was a unilateral reversal of a provision of MOS, and contrary to due process and to ArbCom findings. It also negligently left other provisions on the page that contradicted it. Then there was discussion, which continues. Meanwhile, I have brought order to the page and explained at length that we do not develop guidelines for 4 million articles like that. The page now has all of the conflicting and non-consensual provisions for commas removed – not just yours. A good thing, right? Nothing on the page is, or was, put in place as "in agreement with Noetica". I never sought to make it so. For the present ArbCom case, my claim is that your RM closes have occasioned a great deal of dissent and ill feeling. Your actions (here and more generally) need to be examined for the turmoil that often follows them. I do not deny it, as you can read in my remarks above: admins attempting to sort things out later have been incautious. But I call for leniency, given the circumstances in which they acted.
 * N oetica Tea? 00:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What I assert can be confirmed by looking at the discussion at that talk page. The discussion only "continues" after I try to implement the consensus there and remove the prohibition after the discussion appears to end; you then revert and re-engage. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The "consensus there"?? We obviously have very different standards for consensus, right? Mine are in accord with ArbCom's. But then, we knew about that difference already. Just review your own edits at WP:DAB. They have contributed to the present difficulties. But that matter needs to be addressed by itself, in another forum. N oetica Tea? 01:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * While I disagree with Noetica's comments wrt JHunterJ, I strongly endorse what he and others have said about desysopping being completely disproportionate. These are editors who have served for an extended period of time and making one mistake should not be punished by having +sysop removed. Jenks24 (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If it was one simple mistake, the balance would be firmly against desysoping. As is, when there are findings that admins have wheel warred while INVOLVED in the topic... it's hard to call how the remaining arbs will come down on the remedies. Several arbs are attending Wikimania (wish I was...) and may have less time for on-wiki activities this week, so I wouldn't expect that the outcome will be clear until at least this weekend, maybe longer if discussions and counter-proposals continue. Jclemens (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ironically, so is at least one of the parties... Orderinchaos 02:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the other admins' contributions, but I find fact that Gnangarra is likely to be desysopped to be horrifying. Gnangarra is a hugely experienced editor and admin in very good standing, and to remove the admin tools for a single mistake is completely disproportionate, especially given that that we don't exactly have an over-supply of admins at the moment. This seems to represent a sudden and, to be frank, ill-advised escalation of the way ArbCom handles admins. For instance, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement earlier this year John was only warned for lifting a block which was under discussion at the time. Can ArbCom explain why it's chosen to escalate the penalties in this way, and why such a low-level case (a wheel war over a page move!) justifies it? Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thats the point, it is as though they have not read the details, simply lined up and are simply showing no adequate understanding of how pathetic the arguments about word 'Perth' is, and in turn have shown no adequate explanation of why such remedies are required.SatuSuro 11:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nick-D, in John's case, he was the second mover--the one who first undid a contested administrator action--and no evidence of any other issue with that block was brought up at the time. You'll note in the proposed decision case that the level of remedy was upgraded from "reminded" to "admonished". Jclemens (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that it was a use of the tools while involved which significantly increased the drama surrounding that block, it seems pretty inconsistent to have slapped him over the wrist for this and then remove the tools when Gnangarra made a not dissimilar mistake (I don't see why so much extra weight is being put on the revert being one extra step down the track). There wasn't even a formal ArbCom proposal to removal the tools from John, despite (from memory) several editors in good standing saying that they'd lost confidence in his suitability for holding the admin tools for making such an obviously bad call. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinions on the desysop proposals
On this talkpage I count these editors taking these stands:


 * Against some or all desysop proposals
 * 1) Ncmvocalist
 * 2) Tony
 * 3) Noetica
 * 4) Moondyne
 * 5) Orderinchaos
 * 6) Bidgee
 * 7) Heimstern Läufer
 * 8) Neotarf
 * 9) Dicklyon
 * 10) SatuSuro
 * 11) 169.231.121.57
 * 12) Jenks24
 * 13) Nick-D
 * 14) Mattinbgn
 * 15) Bilby
 * 16) Merbabu
 * 17) Frickeg
 * 18) WJBscribe
 * For some or all desysop proposals
 * For some or all desysop proposals

[I exclude Arbitrators and involved parties.] The updated count is 18 against desysopping, and 0 for desysopping.

Let others add their names to one or other list if they want to. And with respect, let Arbitrators take their time, and take note of the weight of community opinion as we see it expressed here.

N oetica Tea? 08:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just added myself. I'd note that the above list currently includes a high proportion of the most experienced Australian editors, which says quite a bit about the regard in which these admins are held by their peers. Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Views from the community can be useful and are taken on board by the Committee, so this discussion is valid and helpful. It is worth pointing out, though, that in the opinions expressed above people are stressing that this was a single incident done in the heat of a confused moment. The desysopping proposals on the case page are for those admins who have a history of revert warring and have been blocked or sanctioned for it, or who entered into the matter at a point where it was clear that a revert war was taking place. As I write, two of the desysopping proposals are passing, and one is not, and there is a spread of opinion among the Committee members. It is worth noting that in all cases the users will be able to regain their tools from the community, and it will be their decision if they choose to do that. We are not discussing banning the users, nor making an irreversible decision. I think most of the Committee at the start of this case would not have felt that desysopping was going to happen (worth reading our comments on accepting the case), but on examining the evidence and the history of the admins, it has been felt that a desysopping should be discussed, and carried out if that is the consensus.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the Gnangarra proposal has now passed, can I ask those who supported on ArbCom to provide even *one* prior instance of a "history of revert warring" in his case? I've looked, and I can't find any. Contrary to the previous statement, he also has a clean block log and no sanctions. He's usually one of our less controversial admins, although hasn't been afraid to step into controversial disputes and attempt to resolve them through dialogue. This is the first, and only, instance as far as I'm aware of anything else, and even that has been in an environment of utter confusion as to what the rules are. Orderinchaos 23:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed! I've lost all faith in ArbCom since failed to even listen to the community. I would support Gnangarra if he quit Wikipedia, why bother contributing when ArbCom is dysfunctional. Bidgee (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Having made my views clear with the comments on my votes, I don't have much to add on this talkpage; but I can say that I can't recall a prior instance of desysopping for a single disputed revert or a single alleged act of "wheel-warring" either. (The closest thing to an example of this I can think of is the Trusilver desysop motion, but that was in the special circumstances of overturning an arbitration enforcement action, and even so it was quite controversial at the time.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments NYB. I agree with you and the others above; these desysops go too far to.  However the community elected these arbs, and some of these arbs were very clear that they would come down hard on admins.  As it looks like two desysops are inevitable, I hope they will both are successful at another RFA soon (but not too soon, when emotions are high)- it shouldn't be hard for them to convince the community that these mistakes wont be repeated. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Orderinchaos, whatever proposals appear to be passed (as things stand) can be "unpassed" if Arbitrators will reverse their votes in response to pleas from uninvolved editors. Let's continue to hope that some will do so. N oetica Tea? 00:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * After the recent incident with Kwamikagami move-warring at Animal rights movement, I'm no longer sure desysopping him is quite so disproportionate, but I'm still concerned about what's happening to Gnangarra here. It was a crappy revert, certainly, but I'm still convinced desysopping for one bad revert is draconian. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would note that, as Jclemens said below, we-the-community are free to re-nominate for RfA anyone desysopped in this case. In my opinion, it is far more likely that Gnangarra would pass than that Kwamikagami would. If either does run again, I would make sure to add a question concerning their interpretation of WP:WHEEL. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm further disappointed that so few of the arbs supporting these measures are bothering to justify them here, even when they lack support from even one non-arb. This exactly the sort of thing that increases the sense of ArbCom pitted against editors. And particularly concerning is that two arbs have voted to close this case without discussing with us here. "Yup, this deal is done. Give a care what the proles on talk think? Never!"

My thanks to SirFozzie and Jclemens for giving reasons for their votes, even if I cannot agree with them. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those two plus NYB have accounted to those here, also indirectly PhilKnight by changing his vote (although it wasn't enough to save Gnangarra, sadly). Orderinchaos 07:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was excluding the arbs who didn't support the desysopping of Deacon and/or Gnangarra. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

An appalling state of affairs. Can someone please explain why these measures are a good thing and how wikipedia will benefit from them? I've had a lot to do with Gnangarra over the years, and seen his contributions across much of wikipedia. IMO, he's about a good an asset as Wikipedia is going to get. I would tend to say the same about Kwamikagami, except my experience with this editor is to a lesser extent than Gnang. I'm just a lowly editor of articles (quaint huh?), and maybe important people might think I'm talking out of turn, etc. But it's got to asked - what is wrong with you? And indeed, I note that none of those supporting the measures are particularly active in defending them. --Merbabu (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. In my five and a half years as an editor at this place, I have never had a reason to be anywhere near ArbCom before. The prospect of losing two or three good admins over one mistake (however silly that mistake may have been) is horrifying. As an Australian editor I've had a bit to do with Gnangarra over the years, and I'd say that generally I've disagreed with him about as much as I've agreed, but the thought that such a useful admin with an unblemished record would be desysopped over a single case (that resulted in no lasting damage and was resolved in a matter of hours) is truly worrying. I am looking at this proposed decision and I cannot see a single thing that will help improve Wikipedia, and I can see several things that will impede its improvement. Isn't this kind of thing what trouts are for? The whole thing seems like a huge overreaction, and I can only add my plea to those above for leniency in this case. Frickeg (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This case has clearly divided opinions on how hardline ArbCom should be in such cases. It may be the case (probably very likely) that much of the wider 'community' are not aware of this case. It will be interesting to see the reaction once the case has closed and more people become aware of the stance ArbCom are taking/have taken here. There is also a clear onus being put on the voting community at RfA (if any of the admins are desysopped and choose to run again in the near future) to weigh in the balance the good work done by the admins and the (with hindsight) silly wheel-warring that took place. It is possible that an admin with a good record desysopped over this may be resysopped if they: (a) apologise fully and frankly for their role in what happened here; (b) say that ArbCom did the right thing in desysopping; and (c) lay out their 'good record' in full and ask to be allowed to continue that work (I would also add that asking one of their supporters here to nominate them may or may not be best). Point (b) is important. Any knee-jerk new RFA done with comments that are critical of ArbCom (both by any desysopped admins or their supporters) may succeed, but will be unnecessarily divisive. It should be possible for desysoppings and resysoppings to be routine, not a cause of great angst and drum-beating. Some insist that adminship is a big deal. The only way to roll that back is to lay down a marker and insist that it is not a big deal. We may eventually end up in a place where a desyopping and resyopping are not a big deal (though second and third and more desysoppings may be more concerning). That may eventually lead those !voting at RFA to be more willing to sysop those who have (infamously) failed RFAs and then react by being harsh critics of admins and the system (as clearly any system that fails to accept them is rotten to the core - that last bit said with more than a hint of sarcasm). Having said that, this may have been a case where time-limited desyoppings may be a better option. Just remove the tools for six months and then restore them, and provide the admins with the option of being resyopped by the community before those six months are up (or indeed an immediate reconfirmation RFA if they choose that option). Carcharoth (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very much opposed to time-limited desysopping in this case. Either we trust these editors to act as admins, or we don't -- saying "we don't trust them now, but in 6 months we'll automatically trust them again" doesn't make sense. If Arbcom says "sorry, you broke a bright-line rule, and it's important for the sake of precedent that you lose your admin bit" but the community comes right back and says "yeah, he screwed up, but we still trust him on the whole", then that's the community's privilege. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure trust is particularly at issue here. This seems to be more about rule enforcement, in which case temporary forced warning breaks could be seen as a logical middle option. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But then you're getting into preventive v. punitive. "Forced warning breaks" are punitive -- desysopping until the community thinks they're worthy of being trusted with the tools again is preventive. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally, the idea that something you don't want to happen will happen if you break a rule stops you breaking a rule. So demonstrating that people will be "punished" is generally central to preventative measures being successful.Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Deacon. Temporary desysopping does send a warning to others. To some, this is part of what ArbCom decisions are about, though maybe it shouldn't be as most people, including admins, ignore ArbCom elections, cases and decisions until they are involved in a case, by which time it is generally too late. And the problem with the argument that the community might resysop is that historically the RFA community has been reluctant to resysop those desysopped by ArbCom (not always, but I think I'm right in saying that it is rare). Sometimes it is better (IMO) for ArbCom to retain the resysop option themselves. For the historical record, there should be a listing somewhere of admins who received time-limited desysops. The only ones I recall right now are SlimVirgin and Future Perfect at Sunrise. There may be others. I've looked at Former administrators and User:NoSeptember/List of Administrators and not found anything. I'll ask around. Carcharoth (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war has a few. --Rschen7754 22:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The page I was looking for was User:NoSeptember/Desysop (though I see that is out of date and doesn't list Future Perfect at Sunrise and some of the existing entries are now outdated). Expanding a bit on the way things turned out with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (temporarily desysopped in a naming case), the situations aren't exact parallels, but look at the remedy that passed here, and then at the motion that lifted the admin actions restriction that was imposed there. That all worked out fine in the end, and it is possible something similar could work here, though I realise that this ArbCom have moved away from those sorts of remedies, preferring up or down decisions on the sysop bit (and not much else). I don't personally think ArbCom should be rejecting certain remedies on principle, and should be flexible about things, but it may be too late for that. Carcharoth (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Procedural question about Closure review for RMs
What is the standard procedure for contesting a closure — can it be brought to review after it has been unilaterally reversed? That is, can it be reversed AND reviewed, or should it be reversed OR reviewed? Where is the proper place for any discussion prior to requesting RMV? Neotarf (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine it is a problem to bring a reversed closure to MRV, and I suppose a good place for discussion would be right below the original move request. But this doesn't really have anything to do with this talk page; why not ask at WT:MRV? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 01:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point I don't think there is a standard way. Orderinchaos 02:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The original RM seems to say that restoring the original closure is required before review. The assertion is made here, and no one takes issue with it:
 * "'I have posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive755#Perth to ask that the original closure be restored, and then any editor who wishes can take the issue to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. I believe the latter is the standard procedure for contesting a closure, rather than unilaterally reversing it.'"
 * And 2 hours later an admin reverses it, apparently in response to the request to restore the original closure, as part of the procedure for contesting the closure:
 * "'I restored the move. If it is was badly done, of if JHunterJ has a COI, there are channels to deal with that. Wheel warring over a controversial article is not a constructive approach. And given how long this debate has been going on, the time it would take to go through channels is not significant.'"
 * This doesn't seem so much a wheel war as a two-ring circus. There is agreement for contesting the close, as opposed to reverting it, but confusion over the correct procedure.
 * Neotarf (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There was confusion—but should there have been? A casual reading of WP:WHEEL ought to have given Kwami a clue that reinstating a recently reversed move with the summary "please don't wheel war" probably wasn't the right move. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Why? No one was able to answer my above question, so why would someone who doesn't even spend time at WT:RM be expected to know anything about it?


 * My reading of WP:WHEEL says Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action...try these alternatives:...For example: move the issue to WP:ANI ....


 * As far as I can see, in the original RM, the disagreement was discussed here , a request was made (according to the edit summary) "requesting restoration of original close, which can be contested in the standard way at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review rather than by unilateral reverse", the reason given was " I believe the latter is the standard procedure for contesting a closure, rather than unilaterally reversing it." Unfortunately, there is no resolution: the discussion has been similar to the ones now hatted in this talk page, and Kwami moves the page, not in a "combative" fashion, but -- as is noted in the both the edit summaries and on the talk page --  to pursue conflict resolution elsewhere. "If it is was badly done, of if JHunterJ has a COI, there are channels to deal with that...., the time it would take to go through channels is not significant.


 * It looks to me like this is exactly what WP:WHEEL says to do.
 * Neotarf (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Delay the first move itself?
Maybe there's a different way to solve that problem. Right now, if the closure outcome is "move", the move is always done immediately by the closing admin. Maybe there should be a slight delay.

For example, at Categories for discussion/Speedy, there is a 48-hour waiting period to allow for objections to be raised. Perhaps there could be a similar waiting period after a "move" closure outcome: only do the actual rename 48 hours later (if no move review was started), or wait for the "move" closure to be endorsed (if a move review was started). That should prevent move-and-revert wars from ever starting.

This means the article remains at the original title for either 48 hours or until a move review is completed. However, that's OK, because the initial move is never an emergency: the article has been at the original title for many months or even years, so it can easily wait one more week.

The 48 hours would also allow an "attempt to resolve any issues with the closer on their talk page", as per WP:MRV. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A 48-hour waiting period might even allow other admins to do an independent close on the same RM, offering up their own closing statement with rationale and justification in the same way as the current sole closing admin does. If two admins seek to close the same RM with different outcomes, it would automatically go to a move review.  This might mean that especially tricky closes would be more of a panel discussion or jury verdict, rather than a decision by a single admin.


 * Also, in real-life court cases or arbitration proceedings, the judge or arbitrator is appointed at random from among a pool of available judges at the very start of the case, rather than being self-appointed and jumping in at the end of the case. Maybe an RfC on RM reform could be started to propose some of these ideas or others. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A complete overreaction to one isolated incident. The same could easily be said of any consensus-based processes on Wikipedia, such as all XfDs. Jenks24 (talk) 07:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Jenks, I think you are being too quick to judge, if you mean to dismiss P.T. Aufrette's later [←added in amendment] suggestions as well. A pool of willing admins (RM specialists), from which the closer for any particular RM is selected randomly. Brilliant! (I already had similar thoughts, so I'm biased ☺.) Add recusals from any admin admitting to, or shown to have, any particular leaning on issues in the case. It would do a great deal to ensure a transparently fair hearing for all parties. Please don't dismiss candidate solutions to a truly recalcitrant problem.
 * I think P.T. Aufrette's idea should be raised as a serious proposition at WT:RM, with a widely advertised RFC.
 * N oetica Tea? 08:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, aren't both suggestions from P.T. Aufrette? Regarding the pool of admins idea, it looks neat in theory, but I don't think it would be workable in practice. I'd be happy to go into further detail, but I agree with your final sentence: this is not the right place to discuss this. It is of course well within your or P.T. Aufrette's rights to start a RfC on the issue if either of you are so inclined. Jenks24 (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * [Sorry Jenks, I meant to isolate Aufrette's later suggestions. Skipped a word. I wasn't sure of the scope of your response, because of your indentation.] We agree that this is not the place to consider such new proposals – nor to dismiss or accept them, right? We do not agree about the extent of the current problems, nor about the workability of trenchant reforms, which I deem necessary and you do not. Myself, I'm reluctant to initiate RFCs and the like in the present climate, just as I do not comment at WT:TITLE (long poisoned by litigious threats, procedural disorder, and limelight-hogging) and do not participate at RM discussions unless there is a specific reason for me to do so (too likely that JHunterJ will swing in at the last minute with a supervote that entirely negates meticulous argument and evidence appealing to the interests of readers – remember them?). No complaint against you, let me stress.
 * N oetica Tea? 10:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never supervoted. Please stop framing your disagreements with WP:PRECISION or WP:D as my supervotes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #aaffaa;" | Continuation of a dispute between Noetica and JHunterJ, largely off-topic.
 * You have, you do, you apparently will continue to do so – until the depth of your involvement and activism is systematically exposed. Please stop pretending that WP:PRECISION and WP:DAB (especially at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) enjoy anything resembling consensus from the Wikipedia community. Those provisions have been the playground of a few very active editors, with hot-housed views of how an encyclopedia might communicate its content to its readers.
 * N oetica Tea? 00:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that you are ignoring the published guidelines (and accusing me of supervoting when I observe them) out of some sort of mis-comprehension that they are not the consensus guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, to clarify further: I do not ignore them by any means. But you had a part in wording such provisions, and you apply them narrowly and selectively (choosing the RMs you will close), in accord with your own interpretation of them, against closely argued objections that appeal directly to the interests of readers. You pass over such appeals in silence, favouring your own more mechanistic principles. That is supervoting, and it demands scrutiny. It has caused far too much disruption, like Born2cycle's conduct that was exposed in the last such ArbCom case. N oetica Tea? 01:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah? Yes, I had a part in wording the guidelines, working very hard with many other editors to reach the current consensus (and many earlier consensuses). I have been accused of applying them too broadly and too narrowly, but I'll take those accusations over accusations of not applying them, since the accusations typically come from editors who disagree with the guidelines and cannot get consensus for their changes and so shoot the messenger instead. Since the formation of the consensus was made with the interests of the readers, you are passing over *those* interests in silence, favoring your own non-consensus principles. My passing over your demands to ignore the guidelines is not supervoting. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am most concerned about your edits at WP:DAB. There is no consensus for certain crucial provisions there, nor for the exclusion of other principles there. You have been active in bringing that about without wide community consultation; or even narrow consensus, in some cases. Nevertheless, I respect those provisions – as a commenter at RM discussions. So do other commenters; but they do not respect the slant that a partisan closing admin who sweeps in at the last minute might impose. Now, editors who "cannot get consensus"? They are of two kinds: those who respect consensual development, and those who do not let such a consideration stand in their way. You are an example of the second kind, I allege. The evidence can be presented at an appropriate forum. I have no doubt that you have been "working very hard" at your task, though you mischaracterise it as consensus-building – and I have no doubt that you work against the good-faith hard work of others, when they argue in great detail for what is plainly in the interest of readers. Those guidelines for which you pretend there is consensus: they negate such realistic arguments, and therefore they counter the very purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia the real-world use by real users. Or rather, you make sure they negate such arguments – when your privileged status as an admin enables you to do so. Such activism is an abuse. You could stand aside from such RMs, and let other perfectly capable admins close those ones while you stay clear of controversy. But no: instead, you choose to remain involved. Hence these difficulties.
 * N oetica Tea? 02:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of this is just reruns of your bad faith comments elsewhere, but "Sweeps in at the last minute" -- you seem to miscomprehend that closes can somehow take place other than at the last minute. And the suggestion that admins who are familiar with certain areas of Wikipedia stand aside from such RMs that could benefit from that familiarity is telling. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * [I presume that "bad faith" here means "not assuming good faith"; unless somehow I am being accused of bad faith myself, which seems not to arise naturally out of the context. But never mind.] Yeah right. By definition closes take place at the last minute, but you know perfectly well what I mean. Up till the close itself, there is no indication which admin will step in and do it. Unless of course it involves precision and disambiguation, in which case there is a greater chance that you will step from the mist and further your agenda, which ignores arguments to make the encyclopedia more accessible and readable for the actual readers. Those RMs do not "benefit" from your familiarity with the relevant provisions (crucial parts of which you put in place yourself, and whose nuances you nevertheless ignore). And you are clearly the admin whose closes have occasioned the most resistance and dissent, in recent times. None of that appears to make a whit of difference to you, any more than the fate of three admins concerns you – so long as you get away with a slap on the wrist with a feather. N oetica Tea? 12:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you would like "no more here, OK?", you may stop continuing the conversation here. I know perfectly well what you mean: that closes come last. I also know perfectly well how you spun it to make that truism appear to be a sinister tool in my hands, that I sweep in at the last minute. If you would like to stop using loaded language and spin, I will be happy to stop pointing it out. I do avoid some RMs: those involving accented letters, for example, or any whose arguments exceed my expertise. I work up from the bottom of the backlog, closing the ones I can. And yes, those that touch upon WP:PRECISION and WP:DISAMBIGUATION benefit from closure by admins familiar with those guidelines. And I am an admin who closes one that go against the opinions of a vocal group of editors, so it draws dissent from them, despite the invitations to improve the guidelines if the guidelines do not reflect current consensus. But otherwise you're right: the dissenting voices without consensus guidelines do not compel me to close the moves contrary to the guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * [I presume that "bad faith" here means "not assuming good faith"; unless somehow I am being accused of bad faith myself, which seems not to arise naturally out of the context. But never mind.] Yeah right. By definition closes take place at the last minute, but you know perfectly well what I mean. Up till the close itself, there is no indication which admin will step in and do it. Unless of course it involves precision and disambiguation, in which case there is a greater chance that you will step from the mist and further your agenda, which ignores arguments to make the encyclopedia more accessible and readable for the actual readers. Those RMs do not "benefit" from your familiarity with the relevant provisions (crucial parts of which you put in place yourself, and whose nuances you nevertheless ignore). And you are clearly the admin whose closes have occasioned the most resistance and dissent, in recent times. None of that appears to make a whit of difference to you, any more than the fate of three admins concerns you – so long as you get away with a slap on the wrist with a feather. N oetica Tea? 12:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you would like "no more here, OK?", you may stop continuing the conversation here. I know perfectly well what you mean: that closes come last. I also know perfectly well how you spun it to make that truism appear to be a sinister tool in my hands, that I sweep in at the last minute. If you would like to stop using loaded language and spin, I will be happy to stop pointing it out. I do avoid some RMs: those involving accented letters, for example, or any whose arguments exceed my expertise. I work up from the bottom of the backlog, closing the ones I can. And yes, those that touch upon WP:PRECISION and WP:DISAMBIGUATION benefit from closure by admins familiar with those guidelines. And I am an admin who closes one that go against the opinions of a vocal group of editors, so it draws dissent from them, despite the invitations to improve the guidelines if the guidelines do not reflect current consensus. But otherwise you're right: the dissenting voices without consensus guidelines do not compel me to close the moves contrary to the guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

JHunterJ thinks "sweeps in" is just spin? When I posted a comment here about JHunterJ's Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions at (23:44, 13 June 2012), thirty-seven minutes later, he went to an RM I was participating in and closed it, (at  00:11, 14 June 2012), cutting off a discussion that was in progress less than 2 hours after the last posting. When I asked for clarification of his administrative actions, instead of engaging in discussion, his response was defensive, accusatory, and insulting. The RM backlog was absolutely huge; what are the odds that we would both be on the same one, especially after I had just stated that I stopped participating in RMs that involve primary topic because of several unpleasant exchanges with him. I'm not saying JHunterJ intentionally used his admin powers to close off my participation in the RM in retaliation for me questioning his actions, but from where I sit, it sure does look like "sweeping in". Neotarf (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What are the odds? Well, let's look at my activity around that edit: . Yep, closed a bunch of moves that were backlogged at the time, probably working up from the bottom. It wasn't about you at all. And yes, saying "sweeps in" instead of simply "closes" is spin. And while your diff of my response is accurate, your description of it as "defensive, accusatory, and insulting" is not. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A mean-spirited comment, and not the first one either. Ironic that I am the one who has had to keep reminding YOU about  WP:DONTBITE.


 * In the link you provide, I notice there were some RMs you decided to relist, in order to welcome comments from all quarters, and make sure no one was left out because of time limitations. But not the one I was engaged in, First Transjordan attack on Amman (1918).


 * I also notice you decided to change the title unilaterally, without discussion. (Note: a blue link to a policy shortcut is not a "discussion".)


 * Most amazingly, I also notice that it takes you only seven minutes to evaluate and move two titles. One minute each to load the page and read the discussion, and 3 minutes each for the moves and redirects. For those who say you don't read the discussion before moving the title, this is proof positive that you do.  60 seconds. For anyone who wants to see, I have copied it below.

Neotarf (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about my comment or yours as being mean-spirited? I understand the latter; my pointing out your errors or clarifying your confusions is not mean-spirited; I would much rather be doing administrative tasks than having to unspin your accusations. So I should apologize for being able to read fast? They were not involved discussions, and the correct results were achieved (including the "unilateral", or what would be called "bold" if anyone else did it, move in obvious accordance with WP:PRECISION). So if you are simply complimenting me on my efficiency, thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If JHunterJ doesn't understand my objections, then I will try to explain what I find to be problematical about his editing, first in the pattern of incivility and personal remarks that seems to be his trademark response to any concerns raised about his actions, and second with regard to policy and the particular RM closed by JHunterJ that I referred to RMV.

JHunterJ's behavior
This is the first instance of incivility that I spoke up about. Here JHunterJ is suggesting I didn't accept his math because it "doesn't support my argument", implying that my motivation for posting page view statistics was because I was going in with preconceived opinions. 

He declares that I should refrain from bad faith or not to pretend someone is making ad hominem remarks, however there is no evidence that this behavior is going on. An unsupported accusation.

Here, I was accused of having an "edit-history" with another editor. I'm not sure exactly what this means, or what is the purpose of this remark. Why should it be an issue where I edit and who agrees or disagrees with me? 

He has seen fit to discuss my edit history in detail: which talk pages I have been editing, and turns up his nose at the quantity of activity. Quite frankly, I find this a little stalkerish. What does this have to do with anything?

Here he is misrepresenting my position -- claiming I agreed with another editor when I disagreed. Then, rather than consider my points on their own merits, dismissed them by claiming ulterior motives.

When I questioned him about an RM he had changed the title of without discussion, he impugned my judgment and claiming I had "personal disdain" for him, rather than responding to my valid concerns. 

The first time JHunterJ started in with these personal remarks, I let it pass; anyone can have a bad day. This last one I probably would not have thought twice about either, but for the weight of the ones that went before it. Why am I referred to so dismissively, and by name, on the original arbitration request page? 

I have expressed my objections to this pattern of incivility and explained exactly what I felt was uncivil,  but my concerns were dismissed as "bad faith".

I no longer participate in RMs.
 * It should be noted that none of the above reflect personal remarks or incivility. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

JHunterJ's policy explanations
In this Move Review, it was proposed to move First Transjordan attack on Amman (1918) to First Battle of the Jordan. The reason given for opposing the move was "The current title is recognisable, it clearly, concisely and precisely describes this military attack by the EEF. The title is consistent with two other articles which also deal with military operations in the area across the Jordan River. The year has been added to avoid confusion and locate all three articles within World War I." 

JHunterJ closed the review without any comment. But instead of abiding by the consensus, he then moved it to First Transjordan attack on Amman without discussion. When I question his action, the response was "WP:PRECISION for the consensus to avoid unnecessary precision." and he added a derogatory remark about my judgment

If you look at WP:TITLE, the WP:CRITERIA are that a title should be 1)recognisable 2)concise 3)precisely describe the scope of the article and 4)consistent (follows the same pattern as those of similar articles) in the series. How is it "unnecessary precision" to give the piece a title that is unrecognizable, confusing, does not describe the article or the historical period, and differs from similar articles? What is this "unnecessary precision" that we must scuttle the rest of the article policy title for, and how does it differ from "necessary precision"? And why doesn't he explain it instead of just hurling insults.

If there isn't any better explanation for this than "WP:PRECISION", followed by an attack on my judgment, then it's not a very good title choice. Since when does the technical requirement for a unique IP mean you have to have a title that doesn't serve the reader?

As far as boldly changing the title without consensus, I don't see any provision for that in the policy. WP:TITLE states clearly, "There will often be two or more possible alternative titles for any given article; the choice between them is made by consensus."

I don't expect JHunterJ to be very happy about me questioning his actions here; he has not reacted well to this in the past. But I would not even bother if I did not think he was making a valuable contribution to the project, and believed that he was capable of something more positive. I can appreciate that he does what he can to keep up with the backlog of RMs, but he seems to be a techie sort of person, and sometimes those kind of people are too focused only on task results, and need to step back and look at process. Maybe he needs to take a little more time with explanations, and with the people who are involved in the process with him. If he would spend a little more time on rationales, it would move the conversation forward, and he probably wouldn't have to spend so much time reading lengthy responses on forums like this. Due to time zone and connectivity issues, I probably won't be able to post a response to any answer that might be given before this discussion gets archived. I certainly hope that any exchanges we might have in the future will be civil and reasonable. Neotarf (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Very kind, but there's nothing wrong with the closes at the Amman articles and the subsequent technical moves in accordance with WP:PRECISION. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) This discussion between Noetica and JHunterJ is important, but it's not directly relevant to the proposed decision. I suggest that it be continued elsewhere&mdash;perhaps in the context of a comprehensive RfC on how disputed pagemoves should be addressed that was proposed above. (If such an RfC or continued discussion takes place, though, could someone please post a link to it here.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * }
 * Whatever happened to content specialists? Maybe I'm old-fashioned or something. (This was a response to a much earlier post about RM specialists.) Orderinchaos 23:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI of Interest
This current ANI thread may be of interest to both arbitrators and interested parties. WP:ANI.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * *is boggled* -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For anyone who didn't follow this, Kwami inserted a dash into the title when moving the animal rights article. Elsewhere this has been claimed as wheelwarring, but it doesn't appear that Kwami was "involved". Also it looks like a simple move over a redirect, meaning that this is a move that anyone can do, and admin tools were not used, but perhaps someone else can check this better than I can. If so, this is 2RR, not 4RR or wheel war. The resolution was that another admin explained on Kwami's talk page why the dash was not correct, and Kwami self-reverted.
 * There has been no finding about this, but apparently it was a factor in considering the case. Neotarf (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Campaign promises ...
I see a reference above to a "campaign promise" to undertake more desysops by an an arbitrator above. Quite frankly this concerns me. At the risk of being accused of not assuming good faith I am seeing a clear case of an unjust and excessive penalty being issued in this quite minor infraction for what appears to be the sole reason of - "Well - we promised more desysopping - and here is an opportunity to do so - so lets do it" regardless of its appropriateness in this case. Setting precedents and getting tough is all very well but not where it leads to grossly disproportionate results.

I would urge the arbitrators to assess this case on its merits and not attempt to use it as an opportunity to demonstrate their toughness and zeal and not stick rigidly to "campaign promises" where this leads to a result where the encyclopedia is worse off. Ask yourself this question: Is the encyclopedia better off if ArbCom desysops 3 administrators with impeccable records over a regrettable but largely trivial event? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. Desysoping admins in good standing over a single, unpremeditated and not very damaging mistake is unjustified and not in keeping with prior decisions, and likely to significantly erode community trust in ArbCom (especially among admins). Fairly obviously, removing the tools for such a minor issue is also not in line with Proposed principles 1 or 2, as it basically amounts to a ruling that admins who screw up once in a noticeable fashion should loose the tools without first having an opportunity to demonstrate that they've learned from this mistake. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * One wonders what sort of incentive it gives for admins to get involved in controversial topics in the first place if they're just going to be desysopped the moment they technically breach one or other of the rules, no matter what their prior record is. Orderinchaos 11:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. I see this case as becoming a reference for a lot of admins in deciding not to be bold when they would/should otherwise. Another negative (and completely unnecessary) outcome of the remedies (what a lousy word that is).  Moondyne (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If by "be bold" you mean to violate a long-standing, bright-line rule like WP:WHEEL, then I agree: admins should not be bold in that manner. What I additionally hope is that admins will pause and think through their potential actions to reverse another admin: "Am I reversing another already-reversed admin action? Has consensus settled on that?"  While some may see this case as a "trivial" violation, I see it as uncomplicated by any sort of real urgency that would actually justify a re-reversal.  Each admin put up for desysop has a separate issue alleged besides just the move reversal supporting the desysop, either being INVOLVED in the topic, or having been previously admonished by ArbCom.  Again, when we desysop an admin under such circumstances, we almost always return discretion to the community. I have zero heartburn if any of these folks are resysop'ed by the community... but that is the community's call, not mine. Jclemens (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The result of desysop is to "return discretion to the community"? No, it reinforces the authority of admins. It sends the message that undermining another admin's decision is a HUGE mistake.  Neotarf (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But why should it be in circumstances such as this? (eg, an obviously unpremeditated action by an admin with a good track record which caused no real harm). Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The bright line of wheel-warring or fourth-warring

 * I understand that there are quite a few folks who think a de-sysop is a bit over the top, so I wanted to share my opinion and reasoning why I voted to support the removal of tools from two people. Edit-warring is bad enough. Edit warring with administrator tools is worse, especially because it has to involve a group that was selected FOR their judgement showing a complete and utter lack of judgement. I said this a while back, and I stand by this. "Administrators need to be more Harry Stone and less Dirty Harry. Don't shoot first and ask questions later.
 * Wheel warring has traditionally been a bright line rule. You wheel war with the tools, you lose access to them. It's one of the few "Thou shalt not" offenses that I can think of that would apply to most administrators. The fact that we not only got to the redo of "Do, Un-Do, RE-DO) (which is the wheel war trigger), we actually had a FOURTH move here.. that just boggles my mind. I'd hope by that point SOMETHING got through the heads of all involved saying "Woah, let's put on the brakes here, this is out of hand." I personally have no opinion on whether the two administrators who I've voted to remove the tools from in general, I assume that in general their work is good, and if that's the case, getting the tools back at RfA will hopefully occur.. but again, we've said before that this is a bright line, and if it gets crossed, there's consequences. These are the consequences. SirFozzie (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume the caveat there is, "and if you don't like it, go start an RfC to try to change WP:WHEEL so that it doesn't work like this anymore." - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I hope that if the line get moves, it would move in the other direction from what I assume you're hoping for. SirFozzie (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, wasn't hoping it gets moved at all. I kind of like where it is. I'm just re-iterating the line of "this is policy; if you don't like it, go try to get it changed." - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If that is all it get's down to, why have ArbCom? If it is a simple case of "if they wheel war, even once, they lose the bit" then this might as well be an automated process that any bureaucrat can perform. But it seems to me that the role of ArbCom isn't just to say whether or not wheel-warring happened, but whether or not the severity of the case warrants desysoping. Personally, I can't see any evidence that it does in this situation, and I'm uncomfortable with the committee seemingly stepping away from the decision by placing the responsibility for their actions on policy. - Bilby (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I should add that there is no bright-line rule in WP:WHEEL. There is a statement that admins who wheel war will usually have to front ArbCom, but ArbCom has considerable leeway on how to respond. Apparently, "sanctions for wheel warring have varied from reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to desysopping, even for first time incidents." It's your choice, rather than policy, to go for the most extreme of these options in this first-time incident. What isn't clear is why an admin who has been in good standing for over five years, without any significant incidents or prior problems should loose the bit instead of a lesser option. If there is a mistaken belief that committee members have no choice but to go for removal of the bit, then I'm curious as to why that stance differs so strongly from what is described elsewhere. Alternatively, if there is evidence of previous problems with the admin, and it seems that you acknowledge that you are unaware of any, then I would have thought that this should be raised in the findings. - Bilby (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it has anything to do with this: Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war? It was some time ago, but it was initiated by the founder.  I have been looking for the criteria Arbcom uses for deciding cases, but all I can find is this policy page WP:ADMIN. For example, is  disruption of Wikipedia more or less serious than harming someone by giving out personal info or by verbal abuse?  Is that more or less serious than ethical issues like conflict of interest, or disrespecting the authority of an admin, as in the case of wheel warring or reversing the actions of other administrators. And what about prior "convictions?  Is there a statute of limitations, a point at which an editor's record is expunged, or if you have a bot malfunction once, will you have to answer for it again and again, for all of eternity? Is it really true that "administrators are not expected to be perfect" WP:NOTPERFECT or is that changing?  In the above wheel war case, there doesn't seem to have been any kind of directive or micromanaging of the situation, and you have to admit that 34 reverts and revert-reversions must set some kind of record, but in my experience, as soon as the CEO of an organization expresses concern about something, it automatically rises to the top of the priority list, especially in the absence of formal criteria. To blur the bright line issue even further, when ordinary edit warring is calculated, as I understand it, regular editors have more leeway than admins, with 3R, which seems to really mean 4, and edits of multiple editors are not included in that count. Neotarf (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fozzie, please show me precedent for interpreting policy this way. I have definitely seen folks desysopped over a wheel war, but not over a single admin action within a wheel war. Every case I can think of has involved someone pushing the buttons more than once. And as it comes to changing policy, since we seem to be talking about that, you're doing a fine job writing WP:NOTPERFECT out of policy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A list of prior Arbitration Committee decisions is here. The leading "wheel war" cases include the "Pedophile userbox wheel war" (2006), the "Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war" (2007), and the "Sarah Palin protection wheel war" (2008). I'll let others draw conclusions about whether the actions being taken in this case are proportionate to those precedents; my own view on the subject is hopefully obvious by now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A list of prior Arbitration Committee decisions is here. The leading "wheel war" cases include the "Pedophile userbox wheel war" (2006), the "Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war" (2007), and the "Sarah Palin protection wheel war" (2008). I'll let others draw conclusions about whether the actions being taken in this case are proportionate to those precedents; my own view on the subject is hopefully obvious by now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I see that some votes are being cast based on something that is, or was, going on at another page instead of what is in the evidence here, that is, an apparent revert war. If anyone hasn't looked at it lately, it ended by itself, when an uninvolved admin left a message on the appropriate talk page and the other admin self-reverted. This is standard procedure for edit warring, and there is even a special template to place on someone's talk page when they go over the 3RR limit, so that they can revert themselves and avoid any actions. (I have no idea if these editors being reviewed here are good admins or not, and have never interacted with them. ) FWIW, I checked the New Admin School page, and it doesn't have any comment on wheel warring. Neotarf (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about animal-rights? And are you arguing that wheel warring is no big deal? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 06:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (Ok, I am awake again on this part of the planet.)
 * Yes, animal rights. One vote has been cast referring specifically to the animal rights reverts, and who knows how many other arbs have read it or read the comment about it and voted, without a fair and open discussion of the issue.  Kwami has self-reverted, but no note has been made of that.  In fact, the animal rights discussion was not even presented in the evidence section here.  Also, there has been no finding about Kwami's previous controversies that would point to a rationale for harsher treatment as the 3rd reverter as opposed to the 4th reverter in this case. I know nothing whatsoever about Kwami, to my knowledge we have never interacted anywhere, but based on what has been said here, I expected to find something like Darth Vader, someone defiant, or at least hotheaded. Someone you get yourself dirty by defending too strongly.  But the more I dig into the diffs given in the evidence section, the more I see someone who is careful about reliable sources, respectful towards policy, clear and calm during a disagreement, and careful about seeking consensus in the proper forums, even while not shrinking back from advocating for what is best for the project.
 * If Kwami has done something wrong with regards to the animal rights discussion, then that should be brought up separately, judged separately, and the issues for that weighed on their own merits.
 * You say "speak plainly" in the edit summary; okay. If you look how the animal rights discussion went down, it seems that first of all, there are several instances of admins and editors alike being asked to revert something for some reason or another and a culture of doing it automatically as a favor.  Maybe there is confusion about 3R as opposed to 4R -- I see there is confusion about it right in this thread. So when it comes to wheel warring, does it matter if the second revert is not a admin?  If the reverting admin is uninvolved?  If different admins do the reverts?  If there is discussion but no consensus?  If there is discussion and a clear consensus to put the matter to a larger forum? Now I'm confused, and I just finished rereading the policy again. Maybe WP:Assume Ignorance? Maybe people are conflating edit warring with wheel warring? Or maybe the policy does not reflect actual practice.  In any case, it is possible that if this animal rights situation was looked at more systematically, that even more editors and admins would be dragged through the mud, people who are respected, people who I respect. Maybe people are tacking it onto this case to avoid looking at the other one too closely, because this one has already become too unpleasant, and there is no stomach for another.
 * "Am I arguing that wheel warring is no big deal?" Don't know how to respond to this one.  I haven't had time to read all the Arcom cases on it.  Is there a synopsis? Is there a consensus discussion somewhere?  Clearly there is no bright line on this as there is on edit warring. Assuming you want to stop people from edit warring, how do you do it?  Do you hit Johnny to make the kid next to him pay attention? Or do you start informing people? Maybe it should go into WP:Advice for new administrators or WP:New admin school.  If wheel warring is bad, maybe someone should say "why" instead of appealing to the authority of policy.  So far, I haven't seen that articulated here. Neotarf (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it isn't for nothing that people were asking for a lighter "punishment"; Kwami is a real asset to Wikipedia. does it matter if ... the reverting admin is uninvolved?...—You're right, it is not a bright line, and so as all these kinds of things are taken into account, the result may be hard to predict: see aggravating circumstance. Gnangarra was the 4th mover after !voting on the RM—a shocking thing to do, in my opinion, although ultimately obviously not cataclysmic—and was almost desysopped; presumably if Gnangarra hadn't weighed in on the RM there would have been far fewer votes for desysopping here. But on another day, who knows, Gnangarra might have been desysopped for something much more benign, like fixing too many spelling mistakes. Similarly, Kwami was found to have a rap sheet that was thought to be in a sense "aggravating", hence the desysop, although as you note some of those episodes weren't really all that problematic, if at all. Given that they were used in this way, it's too bad those weren't more carefully examined during the evidence and workshop phases. Or do you start informing people?—I am pretty sure that most admins know what wheel warring is. I think ultimately the "why" boils down to the same reason why edit warring is bad. It raises tension, doesn't foster understanding or consensus the way a discussion would, etc. Wheel warring is worse because for most of the participants it is all so arbitrary, I think. In the Brandt case you mentioned, Jimbo says "Some of the people involved were trying to calm things down. Others were merely trying to cause more disruption and fighting by engaging in inflammatory actions designed to outrage the other side. It is hard to sort it all out. This is why wheel warring is so bad." I agree that it might be good to have more guideline verbiage about why wheel warring is a problem, but I think the fact remains that it is pretty ridiculous to contemplate an admin that doesn't know what wheel warring is and that it should be avoided (especially when you're involved—just wow! or especially while you're losing a desysopping vote for wheel warring—just wow again!) "Assume ignorance" applies more to new folks or really obscure stuff; I think administrators knowing not to wheel war is pretty firmly not what it is about. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 16:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Was there a memo? Neotarf (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Slipping through the cracks
I was wondering.

Why is deacon being admonished, but the other 2 are being desysopped?

Is it merely because the wording included "involved" in his case, which several disagreed upon?

In other words, as much of that section of the page has been a work in progress while the "voting" was commencing, is the bureaucracy of the page (the phrasing of the proposed actions) allowing this to "slip through the cracks", as it were, or is this really the intent of the arbs?

Except for ongoing concerns about Jhunterj's RM closes in general, I'm neutral to all this. I'm just looking for clarification. - jc37 21:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not an arb, but see above one section, where Sir Fozzie explains that the bright line of wheel-warring is not "do, undo" but rather "do, undo, RE-do." JHunterJ did. Deacon undid. Kwamikagami redid. Gnangarra re-un-did. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nod, saw that. But I've been following the proposed decision as the edits came in. And this section really has been somewhat of a haphazard development.
 * So I'd like some clarity from the arbs on this. - jc37 21:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What concerns?

 * Ongoing concerns about Jhunterj's [sic] RM closes in general? That's disappointing. What concerns are those, other than the instance that you brought up on my talk page? -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the comments I made on this case before it was accepted.
 * I have been preferring to leave the past unsaid. But I suppose since you ask...
 * While I have seen closes by you (going back years) which fairly consistently really do look like supervoting, I just rarely have thought it worth the drama to call you on the carpet for it. (Though I seem to vaguely recall having done so once or twice in the past.)
 * For one thing, Wikipedia has a rather robust redirect system / move page system. So with the pipe trick, the actual page name could be considered little more than an exercise in vanity. (That said, I'll still occasionally comment in an RM, along the lines of commonname or precision. Or figuring out how to or not to disambiguate, etc.)
 * And you don't seem like a bad guy. I honestly think this is well-meaning, rather than intentional malfeasance.
 * So I just didn't think there was much point in pointing these out. I recently asked you about one on your talk page, because I was curious how you were determining consensus. And after misreading one of the commenters (understandable), you then seemed to follow up with a new rationale.
 * So with all this in mind, my personal opinion is that I hope to never see you close any contentious discussion outside of RM.
 * Is this my own personal assertion, not backed up with diffs? why yes it is. You're in the middle of an arbcom case, and I didn't feel that digging in the past with innumerable examples of contentious closes would be a good idea. But now that some admins are going to be desysopped. And this due to wheel warring to reverse/reassert one of your contentious closes, makes me wonder if perhaps I am mistaken in my assessment. (Yes, I realise that there are other factors involved. but it still makes me wonder.)
 * Anyway, since you asked, I hope this clarifies. - jc37 02:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Supervoting" in the same vein as discussed here? This seems odd, given that last note on my talk page in which you were concerned instead with my simply counting votes in an RM. If I (appear to) count votes, there are concerns that I am not analyzing the discussion. If I analyze the discussion, there are concerns that I'm supervoting. Rather than taking the admins to task no matter how they close the RMs, it may be useful to clarify the RM closing instructions, because I am indeed attempting to follow them correctly when I close the move requests. Correct closes might be contentious (such as at Perth); I could have avoided the contention by closing it incorrectly, giving undue weight to the !votes that were not supported by WP guidelines, but that does not seem useful either. Should admins avoid the correct use of the mop in contentious situations? I will continue to close move requests according the the move request closing instructions, and some of those will no doubt be contentious. It now appears likely that this has a horizon -- eventually, an Ncmvocalist or a Noetica or perhaps a Jc37 will have enough diffs showing only the contention, as if my attempts at following of RMCI is instead supervoting and not other editors' disagreement with RMCI or the guidelines raised in a move request. I may then be desysopped, which will be unfortunate, since I am very familiar with the disambiguation project and use the mop in its work. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking the Perth case at hand. A well worded case for your prefered outcome in the !vote section might have been enaugh for the next admin to come along to make that choice. If the outcome based on rules is that clear your close should not have been needed but rather you would have helped cement someone elses close. By that you are achiving two more things: a) you can help achive a wider consensus how certain situations are to be handled and b) actually come to see where other people do not agree with your crystal-clear view of how something needs to be handled. Actually our policies and guidelines should reflect how things are done not on how they should be done as determined by a few guideline hoggers. Agathoclea (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The hindsight is very clear, yes. A more careful, neutral reading of the close and the linked guidelines might also have been enough for the next admin to come along and make that choice. I have been saying the policies and guidelines should be updated to reflect how things are done; OTOH, if someone disagrees with how things are done, we do not immediately discard the policies and guidelines without consensus for the new ways things should be done. If we cannot refer to the guidelines in closing RMs, WP:RMCI and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS should be updated to make it clear that in RMs local consensus prevails, otherwise you'll continue to have earnest admins under fire for following instructions. What's a guideline-hogger, and are you saying I'm one? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not been following the move related issues so I can't comment on your personal involvment, but from what I have seen at MOS related issues including spillover to ANI and Arbcom there tend to be always a handful of very strongly voiced individuals who show a strong insistance on their stand of things often blocking a consensus to change, even if in practice by the action of the editors in the field that consensus is already there (or the other way around). Occupational hazzard similar to the choices elected representatives in parliament tend to vote on issues totally different to what their constituents really want. Of course people could get involved, but dogfighting over policy is often not the prefered choice of editors who just want to create content in peace. The problem with your approach is that there are a number of different even conflicting policies and guidlines and you - like all other contributors - will pick the ones that are most to your liking. So if group A has a policy based argument and group B has a policy based argument by deciding that group b has the better argument you make in essence a totally diffenent choice than saying that a majority (or a consensus) feels that policy/guideline B is more important. You tend to quote WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which brings us to some rare exceptions like BLP or copyright where there already is a wide consensus that that policy trumps all others but that is hardly a RM issue more of a deletion based issue. I can come along to a AFD where there is 100% support to keep the article and delete it because it is a copyvio but I can't do the same because I feel WP:NFOOTBALL does not apply as the player only played x minutes. Equally I can not close that one as a keep when the consensus in that AFD is that notability is not warrented for playing in the last minute even if my reading is "played in a professional game". The move review process is a total shambles when we say the closing admin has wide discretion because then his close will always be within policy. That is why we need to find different ways of closing difficult rm's that do not involve supervoting but rather include ways that cement a clear consensus or have a publicly acceptable closing process (remember China?) Agathoclea (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I still can't tell if you're alluding to or including me in the "blocking a consensus to change" comment; it looks like you are, but it doesn't make sense to me since I haven't. The Policy A/B doesn't quite fit this case, since the two groups did not each have policies backing them up. If LOCALCONSENSUS is not to be read as I'm reading it, but is supposed to be restricted to BLP or copyright (or some other set of arenas), we should clarify it. As an editor (and admin) who just wants to contribute in peace, I fall into the group preferring not to dogfight over policy. I'd definitely welcome a way of closing difficult RMs that cement a clear consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't - I am refering to the general situation at those pages. And I think we are heading into the right direction here. Question is how to tackle it. Agathoclea (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Review
I have already given my views above (that the desysop proposals are either because of previous revert warring, or because of late entry into an escalating wheel war, and that none of the desysops are permanent, so if people feel that the decisions are harsh, they can vote the tools back), however, NYB has recommended that we look again at this talkpage before voting to close the case. Looking through what people say, I am broadly in agreement. I haven't seen anything in Gnangarra's history that has given me cause for concern, and feel that an admonishment is enough. I would support Gnangarra in a RfA, and would encourage him to go for one as soon as he feels confident enough as I don't expect he would have problems. I would not, however, ask the other Committee members to change their mind in their vote to desysop him. One of the strengths of the Committee is that it is composed of individuals who make their decisions individually, and are not subjected to peer pressure. I may hold different views now and again than some (or all) of my colleagues, but I respect their decisions, and that they are making them honestly and with due consideration. The decision to desysop Kwamikagami is almost unanimous. This is the only admin I voted to desysop, and this is due to his history of revert warring and because of concerns that have been raised by the community about his revert warring. Indications above are that, unlike Gnangarra, there is a difference of opinion regarding the appropriateness of Kwamikagami's desysopping. I am not sure that Kwamikagami would have a trouble free RfA, though he would be entitled to try again as soon as he feels confident enough. After reading the above discussion again, and the new comments - including concern regarding Kwamikagami, and more support for Gnangarra, I feel my votes have been placed in the appropriate columns.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  14:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the proposed decision following the post to WP:BN notifying of future desysoppings. I would like to join others in expressing concern at the Gnangarra desysop proposal, which strikes me as disproportionate. I find myself agreeing with the comments by Newyorkbrad and Risker. This appears to be an example of an incorrect decision by an administrator who believed at the time wrongly that they were doing the right thing. Without evidence that the problem is likely to continue if an admonishment is made, desyopping seems unnecessarily harsh. My interactions with Gnangarra have been positive and I would be surprised to learn if this poor decision were repeated. Even though the action may be wrong in several respects, it remains only one action. We have dwindling numbers of admins and users are increasingly reluctant to volunteer for the job. Disproportionately punitive responses to mistakes can only exacerbate that problem. I for one (and I gather other contributors to this page likewise) would appreciate it if the arbitrators supporting remedy 6 could reconsider whether a lesser sanction might do the trick. WJBscribe (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * SilkTork:
 * You wrote that "the decision to desysop Kwamikagami is almost unanimous." With respect, that misrepresents the facts. It is imperative that we avoid giving the false impression of a fait accompli, when the future of a valued admin hangs so precariously in the balance. As I write, some have desysopping as a second preference only, for Kwami. Isn't that right? Only a few votes would have to change for reversion to an admonishment. The community would clearly be much happier with that.
 * Let Arbritrators take note, and let the case not be closed too soon.
 * N oetica Tea? 08:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the situation in light of your concerns. There are 12 Committee members available to vote, 11 have voted to support desysopping Kwamikagami and one has opposed. There are no other remedies which have gained that level of support. Two members have indicated that desyopping is their second preference, but they have still supported the desysopping. I think that "almost unanimous" is a fair and accurate statement.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not think the Kwamikagami proposed desysop is disproportionate in the way that the Gnangarra one (in respect of which I am grateful to Kirill and Roger for revising their votes) struck me as being. I would prefer it if there was a finding of fact in relation to other problematic editing by Kwamikagami to support the desysop, but several arbs make it clear that this is a factor in their support of the desysop remedy. WJBscribe (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I count 1 oppose and 3 with first choice as "admonish". That makes 4 who prefer "admonish". Neotarf (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Kwami's record
As things stand now, only Kwami looks likely to be desysopped. The rationales given for desyspping Kwami, the third reverter, while only admonishing the fourth reverter, revolve entirely around Kwami's editing history.

As I stated above, answering ErikHaugen, "there has been no finding about Kwami's previous controversies that would point to a rationale for harsher treatment as the 3rd reverter as opposed to the 4th reverter in this case. I know nothing whatsoever about Kwami, to my knowledge we have never interacted anywhere, but based on what has been said here, I expected to find something like Darth Vader, someone defiant, or at least hotheaded. Someone you get yourself dirty by defending too strongly. But the more I dig into the diffs given in the evidence section, the more I see someone who is careful about reliable sources, respectful towards policy, clear and calm during a disagreement, and careful about seeking consensus in the proper forums, even while not shrinking back from advocating for what is best for the project."

I have started looking at the diffs that were presented about Kwami's history, and while I have not finished looking at everything, this one seems worth further attention. (I just focused on the block since the other ones are accusations, perhaps unjustified, or perhaps not, but it doesn't look like anyone has taken time to consider them.)

First of all, the block was for edit warring, not wheel warring.

The block was related to a discussion at Dwarf Planet.  It is clear here that Kwami is editing to protect the integrity of a Featured Article, which I understand has more leeway for aggressive editing than ordinary articles. Also the person reporting the 3RR violation is someone with multiple blocks for edit warring. At the time, Kwami was actively participating in discussions to bring about a consensus. Finally at the end of discussion, someone notes: "Hmmm. At the time of the block, kwami hadn't edited the article for almost 30 hours. It doesn't look like there was any imminent danger necessitating a block."

Much has been said about the possibility of another RfA after a desysop; it is also possible for people to remarry their ex after a divorce. People have indeed done it, without bitterness and loss of good will. But why not take time to examine this situation thoroughly and with fairness, before such a decision is finalized. Neotarf (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement here - there seems to have been a rush to decision without due process, and I think WJB made a good point that there's no finding of fact in relation to Kwami's prior conduct, and yet the prior conduct seems to have been a primary reason for some of the votes. Months or years later when a lot of this detail is forgotten and someone is looking back on this case, I think this remedy would stand out as confusing if nothing else for the reasons others have stated. I must say that in my own interactions with Kwami, which are infrequent but consistent enough and go back several years, he has been calm, measured, patient and helpful - he's always responded to my IPA questions on his talk page, and he's occasionally come over to the Australian noticeboard to ask a question that requires local knowledge, and worked constructively with anyone who has responded. We're not talking about some egregious offender here - while I accept that it is a different situation to Gnangarra, whose record contained not a single instance anywhere else that could even remotely be construed as misconduct over a 5½ year admin career, I don't believe that the things that have been raised about Kwami's history rise to the level of desysop either, even if one or two of them are of concern. Hell, I'm sure if any admin with a history of dealing with occasionally contentious topics was examined to the level he has been, all sorts of stuff would be found - I can think of half a dozen admins in that category without even trying, and none of them are here. Nor would Kwami, but for this unfortunate incident involving one single action taken in June which (although incorrect) had a reasonable explanation (that an RM had been closed and almost immediately reverted without discussion - indeed, that's a finding in this case). Orderinchaos 20:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Kwami and Gnang have both disappeared apparently. Awesome result all around really. well done. Great to see such a proportionate responses to their misdemeanours. Can someone supporting the actions taken (and almost taken in Gnang's case) explain how all this has helped wikipedia. I see the opposite result, and significantly so. --Merbabu (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That anyone can look at this mess and see anything even resembling a just result or an improvement to the encyclopedia boggles the mind. That this process was even necessary for such a trivial event&mdash;an event that simple common sense had addressed almost immediately without the need for tribunals, hearings, evidence etc. etc.&mdash;sums up the decline of a worthy and noble project. The rule-makers have won. Congratulations. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)