Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Workshop

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

Comment on Ncmvocalist's comment on his proposal
Ncmvocalist said "Needs to be said, apparently ." Those diffs are quotes from me, for some reason, and it's not apparent why it needs to be said here. They are in response to Deacon of Pndapetzim's implication of my involvement in a discussion or topic.. I left this response to his comment in sequence in the workshop discussion, but was asked not to comment in the "Others" section., I don't understand that request, since I am not commenting on the proposal but on his comment (and briefly), but moving here nonetheless. The Arbitration guide may need to be clarified, since it is not clear on how brief discussion between parties and others should be handled. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just move it to the "comments by parties" section and specify who it is you're responding to. Like Ncmvocalist did here. Jafeluv (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * JHJ: first, pasting the signature of another editor into your quotation can cause confusion. Second, I too am not entirely sure how WikiProjects come into play, although I am rather fresh to this dispute (and not entirely up to speed). Ncmvocalist, it might be helpful (if you are watching) to clarify why that principle does need to be said. Third, as a general rule I would take the arbitration guide (which is somewhat dated, and far from exhaustive) with a pinch of salt; but Jafeluv's suggestion about how to handle 'threaded' discussion is accurate, and I would only add that one-on-one discourse (especially where it grows lengthy) on arbitration case pages should be avoided where possible. AGK  [•] 22:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Supervote
(moved from workshop page)

I think something that should be directly addressed in this case is the concept of "supervoting".

When admins close a discussion, even though everyone knows by rote consensus is not a vote, honestly if you don't close "by the numbers" there is almost always an outcry of "supervoting".

In particular when weighing broad consensus and common practice, as opposed to the "local consensus" of the discussion in question.

This is what we're supposed to do. this has long history on Wikipedia. And it's designed to stop a local consensus from trumping the wishes of the community in general, simply due to whoever happened to show up during the time frame of the discussion.

And when "admin abuse" or "supervoting" is called, the appropriate follow-up action, if wanted, (after attempting to positively discuss with the closer) is either to open a DRV (and in the future, an MRV) or go to WP:AN/I or whatever other appropriate noticeboard. (AN/I was the common practice for asking for RM reviews prior to WP:MRV, afaik.)

To bring this specifically to this case: While I'm not saying that jhunterj appropriately assessed consensus in this way or not, this is what they seems to be claiming they did.

And, to me, seems to be the crux of what went on, since, without the above, the drama that unfolded might have been avoided.

So anyway, in abbreviated form:


 * I'd like to see policies concerning "consensus is not a vote", and the expectations of admins when they determine consensus be (re-)affirmed. (Including the various policies/common practice such as I noted above.)
 * I think that the events following the close, thus related to this, should be a part of the findings of fact, including that this seems to be jhunterj's claim when explaining their close.

I'm not exactly sure how to do this (else I would - I'm rather rusty at actually editing at arbcomm, been mostly a reader of late).

Thoughts (and help) welcome. - jc37 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A concern I have is that often an admin can make basically any close he likes with any justification, but automatically appears to attract at least some sympathy by citing the "not a vote" argument. Yes, discussions are not a vote, but that does not by any means indicate that the majority or vast majority is wrong or irrelevant to the discussion. One way or the other, numbers have to count or you are saying contributors don't matter (esp. when "consensus" is the issue). There is a high burden on those saying the numbers don't count ... the more not counting the higher the burden. Saying "it's not a vote" is not enough. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding me.
 * Another thing which should be covered is "admin discretion" in closes. This is actually something slightly different than what I was commenting above, though at times it may have some overlap.
 * Deletion guidelines for administrators - for example.
 * So this is something that should be clarified/(re-)affirmed as well. - jc37 00:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's also not forget that in this case the supposed supervote was in agreement with the majority vote. As with his original reversal's claim that my close didn't appear impartial enough, I don't understand the again-oblique swipe of any supposed sympathy-attractant motive Deacon is now ascribing to me, but rather Deacon was acting as if the majority was wrong or irrelevant to the discussion when he hastily reverted. Deacon, would you please take more care in your statements so that they won't support such conclusions? -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? Deacon actually made no mention of you in his statement (now) on this page, and the MRV is certainly a good situation he can be referring to as the majority did not come to the view that the closer did, and a similar "not a vote" argument was put up by the closer in response to a concern raised about his close. I don't see any indication of Deacon acting as if the majority were wrong or irrelevant, or stating something to support the conclusion you have apparently arrived at. JHunterJ, I think you need to make adjustments to your current approach as it is problematic; I hope you grasp that sooner rather than when it is too late. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Signpost reporting
I'm a bit disturbed that since this case was open, the Signpost has been reporting it as "concern[ing] the suitability of the new move review forum", when all of the arbs who gave a reason for accepting indicated that the wheel warring was what they saw as problematic. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep; although it's easy to see how M.O.X might have gotten that impression, with the skewed focus one editor has given this case since it opened. The signpost also claims that the partiality of my close was discussed. The closest thing we've discussed is Deacon's claim that my close appeared to lack impartiality. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The actions following the move were the subject of the case. In fact, the move review result is entirely irrelevant to anything now, as there's been another concluded RM since which came to a more firm conclusion than either of the previous two community consultations. Orderinchaos 17:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Arbitration Committee doesn't have a role in how the Signpost reports the cases, except insofar as one of us might correct a factual error, or occasionally (but not recently) I've done a little copyediting. If there is a concern about how the Signpost is reporting on a case, you should leave a note for the editor who wrote the report, or a comment on the Signpost page.
 * Incidentally, I've been concerned for years that because the Signpost publishes the ArbCom report every week, undue weight is given to some types of disputes that come before the Committee, as opposed to (for example) equally problematic disputes or instances of editor conduct that are addressed on ANI. But I haven't been able to come up with any useful solution to this problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)