Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Evidence

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

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

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. Create your own section and do not edit another editor's section. By default, the evidence submission length is limited to about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for named parties; and about 500 words and about 50 diffs for non-party editors. While in general it is is more effective to make succinct yet detailed submissions, users who wish to submit over-length evidence may do so by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. Unapproved overlong evidence may be trimmed to size or removed by the Clerk without warning.

Focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and on diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent; see simple diff and link guide.

General discussion of the case will not be accepted on this page, and belongs on the talk page. The Arbitration Committee expects that all rebuttals of other evidence submissions will be included in your own section and will explain how the evidence is incorrect. Please do not refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, only an Arbitrator or Clerk may move it.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Gnangarra

Current word length: 333; diff count: 17.

JhunterJ didnt close RM according to consensus

The discussion in the RM had reached a conclusion that there was no consensus for the move, JhunterJ didnt close the RM according to this shift.

1. comment by User:Hack who supported move that it be closed as NC 8 June [1]
2. response by User:Bjenks who opposed move "Hear Hear" [2]
3. oppose vote by User:Deskford agree with call for closure as there is no consensus [3]
4. comment by User:Orderinchaos who supports the move - seems to be 50/50 I tend to agree with this inspite of the fact that many opposers have questionable reasons [4]

These were the last four comments in the discussion identified there was no consensus, includes 3 comments by editors who had previously commented two of whom had previously supported the move

Two editors disputed the close prior to ANI posting

Two editors dispute the closure before P.T.Aufrette posted to ANI requesting the RM be enforced,

1. you have got to be kidding! User:Sabrebd [5]
2. revert by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim, change to NC posting reason why at 16:53 9-June-2012 [6]
   1. User:P.T. Aufrette notes his posting to WP:ANI at 00:10 10 June 2012 [7] requesting RM decision be restored despite two editors already questioning the closure.

no other editor supported the closure, after posting to ANI a third editor also disputes the closure on the article talk page

• User:Nyttend questions the closure [8].

ANI discussion endourses overturn of closure

1. post by PT Aufrette[9]
2. immediate comment by Robby The Penguin about no explanation by deacon [10]
3. next comment also by Robby noting that Deacon has explained[11]
4. followed by Nyttend supporting Deacons action and clear disputing the closure[12]
   1. deacon posts to ani explains his action and also notes there is no procedure for reversing a RM closure[13] this starts a seperate thread
5. immediately followed by User:Dennis Brown also support Deacons action and advising JhunterJ and others to discuss it at move review [14]
6. JhunterJ responding to Dennis Brown saying D should take it to RM, and defneding the closure again citing WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, NOTVOTE and RMCI[15]
   1. JhunterJ responds to Deacon raising Scottish connection of deacon[16]
7. User:Robby now says D action is fine and JhunterJ closure is clearly out of order[17]

Evidence presented by JHunterJ

Current word length: 222; diff count: 8.

No endorsement from ANI

• "closing - not an AN/I matter, being discussed at user page" [18] after dubious claim from Gangarra that fruitful discussion was taking place on my talk page[19] despite that being a poor venue and despite my absence at the time.
• "ANI discussion endourses overturn of closure" [20]: hardly
  • Also "should have taken"[21], not "should take". The tense is relevant there.

Endorsement of JHunterJ's move

• Move review concluded with endorsement of my original close in line with requested move closing instructions, in particular observing consensus by evaluating not only the voices present but also the applicable guidelines and policies.[22] This also shows that Deacon of Pndapetzim's reversal unilateral declaration that there is no consensus in the requested move[23] to be incorrect.

Ncmvocalist missed the response

• Ncmvocalist selectively quotes me, changing the meaning by altering the subject of "While simultaneously Talk page and ANI discussion at the time did also endorse my action, and was very unfavorable about Deacon's reversal." and claims I have not provided diffs when "badgered" (if repeating oneself amounts to badgering, as he claims)[24]
• Diff of simultaneous Talk page discussion provided.[25]
• The rest of Ncmvocalists "evidence" is evidence of discussion, with several of the problem turns of phrase being intentionally parallel to the problem turns of phrase in the comments being responded to, and my interactions in those discussions have been tempered and otherwise informed by the feedback he quotes.

Evidence presented by Jafeluv

Current word length: 247; diff count: 9.

Moving the article required use of administrative tools

Because Perth was a disambiguation page at the time the move request at Talk:Perth, Western Australia was closed, moving the article (or reverting such a move) required use of administrative tools.[26]

JHunterJ's close was disputed

JHunterJ closed the move discussion at Talk:Perth, Western Australia, providing their reasoning based on the applicable editing guideline, and moved the page to Perth. The closure has been disputed by several users and is currently being reviewed by the community at Wikipedia:Move review#Perth, Western Australia.

Deacon of Pndapetzim reverted and immediately started discussion

Deacon of Pndapetzim moved the page back to Perth, Western Australia, noted the reversal in the original discussion and immediately posted a message on JHunterJ's talk page explaining their action.

Kwamikagami wheel warred while involved

Kwamikagami reinstated a reverted administrative action by moving Perth, Western Australia back to Perth, after having supported such a move in the original discussion. After the move, they left a brief message on the article's talk page [27] and at Wikipedia talk:Move review [28].

Kwamikagami's edit warring has been brought up before

Concerns about Kwamikagami's edit (or move) warring have been raised several times over the years. Kwamikagami was briefly blocked in October 2011 for "long term edit warring", and examples of similar issues raised on the admin noticeboards in the last six months include [29], [30] and [31].

Gnangarra wheel warred while involved

Gnangarra reinstated a reverted administrative action by moving Perth back to Perth, Western Australia, after having opposed the original move in the discussion. Gnangarra cited in the move summary that the reversal was supported by "discussion at closing admin talk page". JHunterJ disputes that the discussion supported Gnangarra's action (archived discussion, follow-up on Gnangarra's page).

Evidence presented by P.T. Aufrette

Current word length: 990; diff count: 22.

Here is a link to my original statement.

Note: all the page moves (and reversions) in question required admin tools: specifically, ability to delete a file to make room for a move.

Deacon of Pndapetzim showed poor judgment in using admin tools, possibly while involved

1. He reverted a fellow admin with no prior discussion, in circumstances that did not justify any such urgency. A plausible title that had actually received the endorsement of at least a majority of requested-move participants did not require emergency correction.
2. He displays what might be termed "overconfidence in the inevitable rightness of his own position". For instance: "I think my closure should be relatively uncontroversial. No admin with any relevant experience could seriously claim that this discussion had consensus"[32] and "As far as I can see, every uninvolved admin, on AN/I and elsewhere, agreed with my decision."[33]
3. He did not !vote in the requested move survey itself, though he apparently did monitor its progress.[34] Nevertheless he may have been WP:INVOLVED, broadly construed, per: "...administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community..." [emphasis mine].

As a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland he may have formed a prior opinion on the "primary topicality" of Perth, Scotland, capital of medieval Scotland. His administrative action was seemingly aligned with his own world view, and therefore he should have recused himself from personally reverting the original closure even if he thought that to be the appropriate outcome. His reaction to this conflict-of-interest concern was perhaps a bit too dismissive.[35] In summary, regardless of one's opinion on whether JHunterJ's closure should have been reversed, it should not have been done the way Deacon of Pndapetzim did it, and it should not have been him who carried it out.

Added:  in response to those who have rightly pointed out that mere membership in a WikiProject is not in itself indicative: in years past (quite some time ago), Deacon of Pndapetzim has mused about the relative cultural significance of Perth, Western Australia as seen from a Scottish point of view [36] and has participated in titling issues, reverting two different users who wanted to move Perth, Scotland to Perth, Perth and Kinross, in one case with the edit summary "revert move; absolutely ridiculous name" [37][38], and has made some number of edits to Perth, Scotland. I don't want to belabor the point, but he seems to be a guy with strong opinions and the Scottish Perth does seem to have occupied a certain space in his mental outlook, over a number of years. It would have been more judicious to recuse himself from personally going about reverting the move closure, to avoid at least the perception of triggering the "have strong feelings about" clause of WP:INVOLVED.

Kwamikagami engaged in administrative actions while involved

Kwamikagami restored the original requested-move closure; however, he had previously participated in the requested-move survey,[39]. I personally had earlier called for "an uninvolved and impartial administrator to restore the original closure outcome";[40] unfortunately, Kwamikagami was indeed WP:INVOLVED.

Gnangarra engaged in administrative actions while involved

Gnangarra re-re-reverted; however, he had previously participated in the requested-move survey,[41] and thus was WP:INVOLVED. He had expressed an opinion as far back as 2006.[42]

Gnangarra engaged in administrative actions using incorrect or false justification

He took a single very brief sentence (12 words) written by JHunterJ at 03:08 [43] and declared it to constitute a discussion, whereby he reverted JHunterJ "per discussion" (in edit summaries [44][45]), while at times also contradictorily stating that JHunterJ had refused discussion (in fact he had merely gone offline to sleep in his time zone [46]). See the "@Gnangarra" response within my original statement for diffs and edit summaries. Gnangarra also claimed to have acted with JHunterJ's acquiescence, which was not the case; he first claimed this acquiescence in a message to Kwamikagami mere minutes later (at 03:15 [47]) and at 03:24 claimed that JHunterJ had questioned his own actions [48], yet he did not at any time seek a confirmation from JHunterJ himself of this subjective interpretation of JHunterJ's 12-word sentence (eg, at 03:12 [49] or 03:40–03:45 [50]). His remarks at JHunterJ's talk page at 03:40–03:45 (urging that JHunterJ should revert himself) are at odds with his earlier remarks to third parties (at 03:15 and 03:24) implying that JHunterJ had already changed his mind or was ready to do so.

Since part of the definition of wheel-warring involves actions taken without discussion, it is misleading to cite a non-existent discussion as justification for reverting a fellow admin, and to claim acquiescence from a statement that cannot be reasonably interpreted as such. At best, there is very poor judgment, wishful thinking, or very inadequate reading comprehension falling short of what would be expected for an administrator interacting with other users.

Gnangarra shows poor judgment or understanding after the fact, not merely in the heat of the moment

In his original statement, Gnangarra several times cites a "10,000-article emergency" (my term, perhaps a bit sarcastic) as justification for an urgent revert. He did not specify the nature of this claimed disruption peril; user Bidgee offered a possible interpretation in his/her own statement, which I sought to refute (see the "@Bidgee" response within my original statement). This doesn't hold water; Gnangarra still doesn't really have a good grasp of the limited circumstances under which emergency actions need to be undertaken (for instance, as enumerated in Wikipedia:ADMINACCT#Exceptional_circumstances), as opposed to situations where there is plenty of time for some prior discussion.

Some or all of the above may have engaged in wheel-warring

Since all of the page moves and reversions of page moves required admin tools (deletion), this was a wheel war rather than merely an edit war. Later participation may be more blameworthy than earlier participation.

Addendum: move review, move, new WP:RM

In a related development, a WP:MRV (move review) process was initiated by admin Vegaswikian for the original requested-move closure. The move review was closed by admin Mike Cline with a finding that the original closure had been endorsed.[51] SarekOfVulcan moved the page accordingly.[52] There had been some debate at Wikipedia talk:Move review#Perth and moving forward; one participant referenced an opinion about procedural issues in general from one arbitrator.[53] User Brendandh started a new WP:RM for Perth at Talk:Perth (disambiguation)#Requested_move. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

Current word length: 1010 (limit: 500); diff count: 27. Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.

JHunterJ's problematic approach/conduct in response to users who disagree with him

Examples of JHunterJ's unhelpful repetition, badgering users who criticise his actions/behavior, making allegations without evidence or a proper basis to support allegation, etc.

• Alleged Deacon partial on basis of Wikiproject membership "You are a member of the Scotland Wikiproject and not impartial."
• And again "You are an admin member of a Scotland project who disagrees with my closure."
• edit summary "WP:NOTVOTE, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and WP:RMCI"
• "As I've explained, WP:NOTVOTE, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and WP:RMCI indicate a move -- the !votes that were based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies were a consensus for the move."
• endorsing his own closure during the review "...the only guideline referenced in any of the !votes was WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, along with discussion of both its criteria, so the original close did not "override" the discussion but followed from it. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS shouldn't override the broader consensus (and in this case the local discussion mostly agreed with the broader consensus anyway), which is why the discussions are WP:NOTVOTEs. So naturally I endorse my original close as agreeing with WP:RMCI...."
• To Thumperward: "How so, since the close was based on the arguments and guidelines presented?"
• To Guettarda: "How so, since the close was based on the arguments and guidelines presented?"
• To SmokeyJoe: "...there was a consensus by WP:RMCI: by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions"
• To Guettarda: "What I did was explain in the closing comment how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applied in this case, not based on my opinion, but based on the consensus at the guidelines and on its application throughout Wikipedia."

Some feedback given to JHunterJ

• From Guettarda: "And why, pray tell, are you arguing for the sake of arguing? I expressed my opinion, my interpretation of the situation. I didn't say that you were under any obligation to agree with me. The other editors here are intelligent people - they will look at the facts, and either see my argument as nonsense or reasonable."
• From SmokeyJoe: "I think that you are badgering the participants, and that you shouldn't."
• From Vegaswikian: "Input yes, but basically repeating the same information over and over could be problematic. I think that you have established that you believe that your close followed WP:RMCI and that as you saw it, there was a consensus."
• From jc37: "I agree that JHJ may have gone a bit overboard in his quantity of essentially repetitive responses" and "consider each time you repeat whether adding more text in response is a help. If the arguement is essentially the same, there's not a whole lot of point to constantly say the same thing in response. There's a difference between someone being unsure or confused (or even mistaken) about what may have occurred, and that someone having an entrenched difference of opinion about what occurred."
• From Ncmvocalist: "The users who have expressed concerns about your badgering, or who otherwise feel that you have been badgering, are not expecting you to avoid explanation of your actions. Instead, they expect you to explain your actions without badgering them...That may mean, particularly when your explanation has already been considered by those users, making a greater effort to fully consider what it is many of these users are telling you, and reconsidering aspects of your approach hereafter."
• From MikeCline: "...I think the closer under review (this case JHunter)...if they choose too, should explain their rationale for the RM close and then leave it to other editors to decide if that rationale and decision was consistent with WP:RMCI. The constant back and forth by the closer with others contributes little...."

JHunterJ's lack of receptiveness to critical feedback & continuation of problematic approach/conduct

Further examples, and examples of JHunterJ refusing to consider criticism, attempting to deflect/dismiss/deny concerns raised about how his approach appears to others, etc.

• To Guettarda (unhelpful repetition + deflecting concern): "I don't know why, pray tell, you are arguing for the sake of arguing."
• To Vegaswikan (denying he is essentially being repetitive): "The quote from RMCI was newly introduced, in answer to direct question, in the allegedly badgerful note; not a repeat, and not over nor over."
  • Evidence that SmokeyJoe found it unhelpful too: "I don't read the reply as a direct or useful reply."
• Dismissing the suggestion that he should take more care by suggesting all those who found that there was an appearance of impropriety in his close rationale are being unreasonable "Or perhaps if those who unreasonably found it inappropriate had been more careful in their reading of the guidelines, no more than the usual care given would have been needed"
  • Feedback from Metao earlier in the same day: "I feel that his strong defense of the close is indicative that he either feels that the revert was a personal attack, or he has a strong opinion on the issue (reinforcing the supervote feel). An impartial admin would, in my opinion, be seeking to learn what went wrong here, rather than mounting a defence case over a fairly meaningless move."
• Asserts ANI endorsed his action and rejected Deacon's action (without evidence) "ANI discussion at the time did also endorse my action, and was very unfavorable about Deacon's reversal."
  • when asked to provide diffs, he fails to produce ANI diffs despite multiple requests (instead, asking that request not be made anymore as it amounts to badgering).
• Denying conduct concern - further indication of continuing problematic approach "No badgering has occurred."
• Dismissal of criticism on basis that it is coming from editors rather than admins, and continued unhelpful repetition: "conclusions by multiple participants that there was no consensus" is beside the point: multiple participants cannot close a move request, and multiple other participants (and others) have also concluded that the move was appropriate per WP:RMCI's instructions, WP:NOTVOTE, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC."
• Continuing unhelpful repetition to SmokeyJoe: "That's what I did. A consensus among the contributors to the discussion and among the relevant guidelines and policies used."
• Continuing unhelpful repetition to SabreBD: "I had no preference for either decision when I clicked through to the move discussion from the RM backlog."
  • From SabreD: "Thank you JHunterJ for proving my point about repetition"

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.