Administrator conduct

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Very good. AGK [•] 22:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Learning from experience

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Good. AGK [•] 22:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There's some copy-edits for clarity appropriate here, but this is a good principle: Everyone makes mistakes, that's how we learn. Administrators who do not learn from their mistakes should not be administrators. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Making a mistake is not a problem in itself - it's how we deal with that mistake, and what we learn from it that really matters. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Use of administrator tools in disputes

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Wheel warring

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

WikiProjects

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Responding to Ncmvocalist below, not to the proposal above, although I'm doing so here since I am a party inasmuch as I made the original administrative action that led to the wheel war that led to the arbcom, even though I did not wheel war, but Ncmvocalist is focused on that original move (which is being separately reviewed in an appropriate forum) instead of the subsequent misuse of admin tools: And it should be noted that the very brief "basis" presented there is even so much more than the non-existent basis provided by Deacon in his hasty reversal. Frivolous implication of partiality led to a response pointing out that the appearance of partiality is stronger the other way. Which has been explained. Several times. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Response to AGK above: In Deacon of Pndapetzim's reversal of my close, he said it was "too little like an impartial close." In response to that implication of partiality, I pointed out that he was a member of a Scotland project which would look more like partiality (since the should-be-primary topic is Australian and the Ur-topic is Scottish). That's the only extent. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Being Scottish wasnt part of the discussion, many participants who are Western Australian and Perth residents also opposed the move with sound reasonings. Had your response been about the merits of the discussion instead we wouldnt be here because it only reinforced Deacons conclusion that your closure appeared to be because of your own bias. Gnangarra 11:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Lifted from Ryulong. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Standing of Wikiproject participants

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Although mere membership of a WikiProject does not of itself convey involvement, extensive contributions to the associated topic could affect any decision to take administrator action in a related article. I suspect the issue of "membership" is best set aside, so that the sole focus in any question of involvement can be on the extent of a user's contributions to the related subject. Whether or not their signature is on the list of project members is of itself evidence of very little. AGK [•] 22:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with AGK. I've myself been accused of "membership" in a particular on-wiki group which I had assiduously avoided... turned out to have been based on someone else's editing of a Userbox I'd created to include a category. The whole business was silly then, and I don't see how membership is per se a problem anywhere: actions speak for themselves, and we do not do anyone any favors by assuming associations are significant absent actions. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand the thinking here, but the wording is not right. Perhaps, as AGK is suggesting, this should be "Membership of a WikiProject is not, by itself, an indication ..." - by the time someone is participating in a Project they are involved. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

agree, wikiprojects are there to enable collaboration on similar or associated articles an editors participation in such collaborations is irrelevent to any individual discussion. To use an editors participation in such collaborative efforts as reason to discount or ignore their opinion is a kin to commenting on the person rather than subject. Gnangarra 23:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• The wording of WP:INVOLVED does include a "have strong feelings about" clause. The significance of Perth, Scotland within Deacon of Pndapetzim's worldview over a number of years does go a little beyond mere membership in a WikiProject: it's a topic he knows well and cares about and, well, might "have strong feelings about". I reluctantly added a bit more to the Evidence page. Reluctantly because it's stuff from years ago, not quite smoking-gun material, and seems like belaboring a point, when I merely want to point out that he was injudicious to personally go about reverting the original move closure. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

PS, this is merely anecdotal of course, but several users at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland have recently lauded him as a key contributor on Scottish topics. Once again, I don't accuse him of bias or partiality, I'm merely pointing out that it was poor judgment to undertake an administrative action that left himself open to the perception of a conflict of interest. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Needs to be said, apparently ( ). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

JHunterJ, what was actually suggested to you by Deacon of Pndapetzim was that your close did not sound impartial, and if you wished to express a view, you cannot appear to make a supervote in the process. Your response of raising Wikiproject membership (or lack thereof) was not helpful as it was not in itself an indication of standing or involvement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

P.T. Aufrette, the reasoning that was behind these two principles (at the time they were made) was that it is inappropriate for users to accuse each other of being involved on the basis of membership to a Wikiproject; not because there is no other evidence or basis for involvement. If the evidence you have presented is that Deacon is involved for his contributions in relation to the Perth topic or views he has previously made known, that does not discount from the fact that JHunterJ did not cite this. It also does not discount the fact that he merely cited Wikiproject Scotland membership as the basis for the involvement allegation and that it was inappropriate. The evidence of his responses here suggests this was pointy at best, but no mistake. When admins accuse each other of being involved on the basis of their Wikiproject membership on an article talk page, that plants the seeds for future battles and is counterproductive to what Wikiprojects attempt to achieve - and similarly affects the collaborative environment of the project as a whole. The implications which arise from doing so are often difficult to reverse, especially when such allegations come from users who lead by example; that is, the level of responsibility on administrators to avoid such conduct from the outset is heightened by the fact that an user who participates in or views an article talk page discussion (where that sort of incomplete allegation is made) will not necessarily follow the comments which arise here, or at the same discussion several days later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a relevant factor - someone with a strong interest in a topic who indicates that by signing up to and participating in a WikiProject may have a bias to which they are blind, and which may be relevant in considering their actions on a closely related topic. That is not to say they will necessarily do so, but that a statement which appears to state the reverse is probably not helpful. (Disclosure: I'm a member of several WikiProjects.) Orderinchaos 18:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

True, certain types of participation could be an indication of their standing or involvement, so this is probably too broad. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment re the diff from WP:Scotland quoted above. With great respect to all, I don't have the time or inclination to read all the pertinent material on this page, but these are the facts as I understand them:

• The Deacon is a long-standing member of WP:Scotland
• His contributions to the encyclopedia are generally held in high regard by members of that project.

However, if in similar circumstances in relation to an article about the US one the admins happened to be an American, I wonder if we would be having this part of the discussion. I see nothing in WP:INVOLVED which suggest that nationality, ethnicity, or interest in a particular country or state are prima facie evidence of "involvement" in a topic under the purview of that project. In short, I am largely in agreement with comments above by AGK and Jclemens. Ben MacDui 19:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Background

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Worth including something like this as background. PhilKnight (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup, background. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

JHunterJ

Kwamikagami

Gnangarra

Focus on content

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

in light of the focus on being a member of Scottish Wikiproject as being a reason to deny/discount their opinion. Gnangarra 23:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No opinions were discounted by reason of project membership. As has been clarified many times through the various discussions after your wheel warring. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

disagree as per this dif that indicates WP:LOCALCONSENSUS was a consideration and the above observation of Ncmvocalist about you raising Wikiproject membership. In fact much of the discussion has been about membership even RM comments were counted based on membership of wikiprojects Gnangarra 01:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

resp to OIC - your link is just a clear example to demostrate that discussion has focused on the editors and what projects they collobrate in, otherwise you wouldnt have provided it to prove a point. Without proof of canvassing or meatpuppetry theres appears to be a lack WP:AGF in the opinion of editors who opposed the move, more specifically Scottish editors contry to WP:FOC/WP:DR. Gnangarra 06:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Occam's Razor informs us that the simplest explanation for something is often the best. When one sees a "bloc vote" from a group of editors who would have reasonable justification in holding a certain opinion, one would be reasonably safe in assuming that their votes are somewhat informed by that opinion. This impacts on different individuals differently, and indeed some not at all, as was seen at the RM. My link cited as "even RM comments were counted" was possibly misapplied, though - it was in reply to someone else to demonstrate that the votes were *not* exactly as they had expected, in particular from the Perth WA group. Orderinchaos 03:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, as long as it's understood that my purpose in providing the figures was to inform a discussion already taking place which I thought had reached a partially invalid conclusion. FTR I don't think it was meatpuppetry or canvassing - that would require a level of organisation that was outright absent, and the mover themselves linked the WikiProject's talk page to the discussion so canvassing was completely unnecessary - but I do think the votes in question failed to give a comprehensible rationale and appealed to emotion, and that's clear from reading the text of the votes themselves. The two (or three) most significant oppose votes came from Western Australian contributors. Orderinchaos 13:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No wheel warring

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Worth including. PhilKnight (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Admins might reach different conclusions

2) Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion. (WP:ADM#Reversing another administrator's action)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It might make sense to mention the Exceptional circumstances section describing situations when it is ok to reverse an administrative action before discussing it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Noting Erik's addition, agreed. Orderinchaos 06:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not counting virtual noses

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

ErikHaugen, I'd like to agree that it shouldn't be germane to this case, but since the proposals so far have been focused heavily on my original close and too little on the wheel war, I thought it best to get it on the table. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, the community didn't overwhelming support an outcome that would not be obvious under existing policy. In this case, the majority supported the original outcome as did the guidelines they cited; a minority supported a different outcome. And I have opened the topic of changing the guidelines anyway at WT:D (the talk page for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), but it has not gotten much attention. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

DGG, what "rights" are these (other than the right to change its mind about policy)? If the others are indeed community "rights", we'll need to update (or scrap) at least WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Unless you're referring to WP:IAR, which is only (to be) used when there is consensus that ignoring the rules would improve the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is true, but probably isn't germane to this case. Hopefully arbcom isn't going to weigh in on how the RM should have been closed :). ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with this. Arguments (whether support or oppose) which do not address policy or propose a reasonable case (or objection) on the facts do not inherently carry as much weight as those that do. Otherwise the closing admin is left with the unenviable task of trying to gauge the "vibe in the room" rather than something more measurable and objective, leading to more disagreement and more contentious outcomes. Closers should not be expected to be psychologists, they are facilitators of the community's decisions. Orderinchaos 06:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that view practically enables administrators to stifle discussion rather than facilitate it. You will appreciate that the Community comes to policy but cannot always envisage every single set of circumstances possible; that is why the Community reviews individual matters and comes to a consensus on particular circumstances as policy development cannot keep up by itself. It is not an administrator's role to apply rules mechanistically so that they can close a discussion in line with their personal view, particularly where it is contrary to the Community consensus in those circumstances. There is a limited situation where you can mechanistically stick to a particular policy despite consensus, one being WMF privacy policy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You have stated this "against community consensus" thing numerous times, with no evidence whatsoever, with a view to convincing the community that JHunterJ's close was egregious and unreasonable. Go back to the actual RM, read the opposing arguments, and identify the policy or factual points against each one. Most of them were emotional hand-waving with no substance whatsoever. Some of the support votes were too, but lesser by proportion. My point above is not about this particular close but about a growing sense I have about community discussions in 2011-12 that emotional hand-waving is the predominant mode of registering one's opinion, rather than making decisions based on what the policies say and based on facts - perhaps I'm an optimist or a nostalgist, but I actually think such !votes are unhelpful, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with them (and in some other debates, I have strongly agreed with them, even while thinking they belong on Facebook). What's a closing admin to do? In AfDs, policy is much more clear that such votes can and in many cases should be ignored. Why should RM be different? Orderinchaos 07:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The community not only has the right to change its mind about a policy; the community has the right to make an exception, even while not wishing to change the existing policy, and even without wishing to discuss whether to change the existing policy. (Of course, where the exce-tions are frequent, there usually is the need for reconsideration of the policy, or at least of the policy wording.) DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom is not a substitute for RFC/U

Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process (WP:Arbitration). Wheel warring usually results in an immediate Request for Arbitration (WP:WHEEL).

Comment by Arbitrators:

It's not absolutely necessary, but usually we prefer a RfC/U, however, in cases like this, ArbCom IS a substitute for a RfC, specifically in the use of administrator tools and possible wheel warring. SirFozzie (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Per SirFozzie. ArbCom can and does refer things back to RfC/U when they are brought to us prematurely, but the two big categories of things we accept are administrator conduct and issues the community has been unable to resolve. Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It is understood we accept cases which involve unusually divisive disputes among administrators, which is what has happened here. Wheel warring itself does not need to have taken place. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed since too much of the earlier discussion seems to be a misplaced WP:RFC/U (or bypassed dispute resolution) when the matter here is the wheel warring.

SirFozzie, right, in the use of administrator tools and possible wheel warring, not (as I understand it) in my usage of administrator tools before the wheel warring occurred. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wheel warring by Gnangarra

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Wheel warring by Kwamikagami

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Reversal without good cause by Deacon of Pndapetzim

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Ncmvocalist, are you claiming that Deacon of Pndapetzim did not revert an administrative action; that all three of good cause, careful thought, and some kind of courtesy discussion accompanied it; or that the action being reversed was a clear and obvious mistake? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, SarekOfVulcan. I'm trying to say that the standard from the principle--a set of 3 things to accompany the reversal--was not met. I am not trying to say that each of the elements of the standard was absent separately. How should I reword it? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

And redone after Jafeluv's note. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wholly without foundation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The "no careful thought" clause is inappropriate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

JHJ -- simplest change is to add "without explicitly demonstrating good cause". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the problematic thing here is that this was done "without good cause"; that is, there was no "good cause" that I am aware of why the reversal had to happen before a discussion could take place. I would like to see these kinds of administrative actions only reverted without discussion when there is some kind of urgency. I think the way it is worded now still suggests that there was no careful thought and courtesy discussion—I would say there was courtesy discussion and I don't think we have any reason not to assume there was careful thought. Maybe "...without explicitly demonstrating good cause for reversing immediately prior to a community consensus for doing so. The administrative action in question was not a clear and obvious mistake." or something. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

And I just noticed Phil's wording; that is probably better. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with the key contention here, and Erik's comments above - there was no emergency. As I said earlier, Deacon's actions and the manner in which they were carried out precipitated the entire chaos which led to this ArbCom - everything that happened after was simply a snowball effect growing its impact. Had they not been taken, at the risk of WP:CRYSTAL, I believe the move request would have stalled, those involved (including supporters such as myself) would have asked those doing the move not to proceed until discussion had concluded, the discussion would have not produced a consensus either way. After a few days, the discussion closer would have seen the to-and-fro, changed the RM to "no consensus", and those of us wanting a move would have to settle for convincing others to change their minds down the track. In short, Deacon's actions were unnecessary and stifled discussion which would have actually resolved the thing for now without needing to haul three perfectly good admins before ArbCom. Orderinchaos 06:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If you feel that not all of requirements A, B and C were met, it's better to just state directly which one(s) of the requirements that was. That way the reader is not left guessing which requirement you think was not fulfilled. "Not B" is a much clearer statement than the cryptic "not A, B and C". Jafeluv (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Administrators

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Learning from experience

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questioning of administrative actions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Is it "accountable to" or "accountable for"? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That's how I would read it. I've tweaked the wording accordingly. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reinstating a reverted action

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrators involved in disputes

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Background

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tool use

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

JHunterJ

2) JHunterJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) closed the move request as successful at 12:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC) and moved the pages in accordance with the request.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

IMO this only makes sense if there's a parallel extension of the finding re Deacon about his poor implication that the origial close lacked impartiality, both in his closing comments and his subsequent comments, since those comments elicited my responses about how his project work could be interpreted as partial. Otherwise, yes, my comments were problematic in that they illustrated existent problems. If someone makes similar baseless insinuations about my partiality in the future, I see no problem in pointing out those problems as well, but I will phrase it as a more direct correction to avoid this issue. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of learning from the mistake directly above: next time someone makes a similarly baseless oblique insinuation that a close of mine was partial, I'll correct them directly instead of pointing out how they might also be perceived as partial. The rest of your diffs of discussion (when other people are engaging in it) or badgering (when I'm engaging in it) have also been given due consideration. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What is it that is problematic about this? JHJ is replying to some pretty harsh criticism, so I hope the answer isn't that JHJ replied at all. Is it the comment about DoP's membership in a wikiproject? I find it extraordinarily frustrating when closers are unwilling to discuss what seem like enormous problems with their closes, so I hope this finding doesn't have any kind of chilling effect. This is similarly in reply to some very harsh language "No admin with any relevant experience could seriously claim that this discussion had consensus" etc. Again—is the problem the wikiproject comment? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's the wikiproject comments. PhilKnight (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's worthy of pointing out that both comments linked in 2.1 post-date the undiscussed reversal of the close. I'm not seeing what's problematic - had those sort of responses come *before* the actions, they might be seen a little differently. It's worth stressing once again the very short timeline over which this all occurred. Orderinchaos 22:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Why does it matter when JHJ made these comments? I think the comments they were in response to were more objectionable than the comments in the linked diffs, but they were still unnecessarily combative, regardless of when they were made. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with saying "You are a member of the [WikiProject X] and not impartial"? I am a member of several WikiProjects and it wouldn't be a problem if someone said that to me. As a RM closer (for an admittedly short time), I have avoided closing RMs where there is a primary topic debate and one of the candidates has a strong tie to Australia, Aussie rules, and cricket. As to the second diff, it's not ideal, but if that's the sort of thing that gets you an advisement from ArbCom, then you guys will need to start dishing out about 20 a day (and yes, I'm just talking about admins here). Jenks24 (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "you guys will need to start dishing out about 20 a day" (just for admins) by giving this advisement; there are plenty of admins who have maintained their composure and responded appropriately to criticism when much more (and much less) controversial actions have been made - and I am also referring to incidents where the criticism has been much more strongly expressed than what was seen throughout this matter. Those admins have also avoided fanning a dispute after involved editors inflame/escalate it further (than necessary). For me, even an isolated "spurt" in the heat of the moment may come down to (in part) being human, but being human would also mean there is evidence of actually learning from the mistake. On the other hand, when there is a pattern of that admin using a problematic approach in responding to feedback, one hopes that an advisement will be sufficient to persuade the admin to revise the approach. The diffs provided in this are just a couple of examples in relation to one particular issue; I don't think the purpose (especially as far as the final decision is concerned) to outline every single issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

JHunterJ, the approach expected of admins for accountability isn't one where only after a drafting arb explicitly indicates there will be ArbCom intervention that there is evidence of making attempts to learn. And another thing, this proposal was made prior to the evidence I submitted on the evidence page as you are already aware; although I had hoped there would be no necessity for placing it on the evidence page, when I noticed your recent comment directed at Deacon (which was made sometime after your comment at 21:24, 26 June 2012), it seemed to me you weren't sufficiently learning from experience. It also gives clarity to the fact that this was just examples of one aspect. If you seriously believe the rest of the evidence has no merit as far as arbs are concerned, I am sure you can find an arb who will have no hesitation in confirming that explicitly for you. But really, underestimating the significance of the approach will only lead you back here in future, and the idea is to avoid the need for that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim

3) Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reversed the original decision by moving the pages at 16:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC) without discussing the matter first.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Kwamikagami

4) Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) participated in the request for move discussion, and reinstated the original decision by moving the pages at 02:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC) without discussing the matter first.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gnangarra

5) Gnangarra (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) participated in the request for move discussion, and reinstated the reversed decision by moving the pages at 07:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC) without discussing the matter first.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

JHunterJ advised

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Deacon of Pndapetzim advised

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

I fully understand that the purpose of any such ruling would be to indicate that ArbCom are not happy with my role in this situation, and that the advice is a way of communicating the level of unhappiness. It's a big dramatic waste of time for those who've decided to get involved, and I possibly deserve some like communication for my brief role. I would request however that you rephrase such a ruling to keep it less contentious, in line with verifiable facts, and thus fair to me: something with a comparative, like "take more care when reversing another administrator's decision"; something like that would be fairer, I think. No-one can fairly say I am opposed in general to "careful thought" or acting on "good causes". If nothing else the specific of this ruling wouldn't be very useful to me as an admin, since even if you take the view that I was an idiotic incompetent, you also know I thought at the time (and incidentally still think) I did have good cause and believed I had given thought sufficient for a good decision.

Firstly, I had good cause (or cause that one could--and I did--argue and reasonably believe to be "good"), and that was confirmed by almost all uninvolved parties in the aftermath in the AN/I thread and elsewhere. The original close was somewhere between controversial and wrong. If ArbCom believes that admins should have supervotes in RM discussions, fine, most admins can be trusted to carry out such things fairly; but be explicit (as in a ruling here) so every admin knows in future and so there is no experience- or friend-based inequality among us. Something like "first admin there after closing date ought to close, not vote in RM discussion" would appear to be the de facto rule under the logic endorsed, even though this may only be known to experienced users/admins.

Secondly, I most certainly did think it through, as I explained in my comment. Think it through better? Well, I try my best already. I would have made a better decision if I'd known the likely participants better, but really the decision I made wasn't very distinctive from others regularly made by me or other admins. The only difference here is what happened afterwards and the politics and momentum of events therein (in which I have refrained from engaging, even [here excluded] to defend my own action).

Thirdly, I fully admit that I didn't precede the reversal with a courtesy discussion. No denying that at all. My intention was to be quick and decisive. Bad call maybe, and it is possible I was wrong (we don't know what would have happened otherwise), but really advising me on this matter has no real purpose. I know already that it is generally better that admins should discuss things like this with each other in most situations. Honestly, at the time my thoughts were "oh dear, what's this guy done, better cut this out before it starts up" (which I appreciate may look a bit ironic now). The discussion heuristic is generally useful, but I have a brain that thought another heuristic was more appropriate at the time

Finally, big real life matters at hand just now, so please understand and do not treat it as a sign of disrespect that my involvement in this case will be limited. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

R to Orderinchaos below: IMO "strong admonishments" are in line with wheel violations; while I obviously disagree with Deacon's action (either in result or in urgency), it's not a wheel violation. The ArbCom's alignment with WP:WHEEL, if a problem, would mean that the wheel stuff would need to be rewritten to put stronger burdens on the initial reversal instead of kicking in with the second reversal. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Deacon has some good points here—Phil, as you noted here, it's kind of harsh to imply that Deacon did this without any careful thought. I think this should be rephrased to make it clear that the problem was that an administrative action was reversed without prior discussion when there was no emergency. I think we can all assume that Deacon thought carefully about this. I also think that "courtesy discussion" means when you do reverse another administrator's action without a full discussion, you should at least let that administrator know what you did and why—Deacon did this for sure. What Deacon did not do was have a full discussion before reversing an administrator action. That needs to happen unless there is some kind of emergency, which there obviously wasn't in this case. Perhaps "Deacon of Pndapetzim is advised only to reverse an administrative action taken by another administrator after discussion unless there is an emergency." or something. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Kwamikagami admonished

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If we can ignore for a second that Kwami participated in the discussion, this is an example of where the second mover can get away with a lot, but the third mover (and fourth) get slammed for wheel warring. In my book, the second mover is just as much at fault was the third and fourth, although in this case that's mitigated by Deacon not being involved in the discussion, while Kwami and Gnan were. As more of a general comment about ArbCom cases, I'd really like to see the AC getting tougher on second movers who act without getting approval from the first admin or a consensus at a noticeboard. Jenks24 (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Focusing in that way on what you refer to as a "second mover advantage" would have a counter-productive effect, and does seem to run contrary to the nature of this project in my opinion (which is a wiki rather than a crat society whose hands are completely tied). The Community doesn't give admin tools on the basis that their actions remain stuck in stone by default, or with a view that an action should stick merely if it ticks boxes as far as the letter of policy; you have the ability to make judgments - from getting the ball rolling or being bold, to amending/reversing something in the first instance. If an admin has exercised judgment to do something, an explanation should usually be given from the outset (and further discussion can follow). If an admin has exercised judgment to reverse something though, then generally, a consensus must follow before reinstating the action - rather than just continue the reversals/reinstatements/amendments to make it look like a war. When the Community can be very divided on an issue, usually it is best to stick to the last accepted consensus version (often the version prior to the first move) until the subsequent discussion leads to the consensus for reinstating the first action. The "advantage" for a "second mover" seems to amount to a very limited time (which the "first mover" also has), though really, when a clearer consensus can emerge from that subsequent discussion, that can be more of a disadvantage too. If an action is reversed, and it is decided that should be reversed (so as to reinstate the previous action), principle 2 applies the other way too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, but isn't the point of the 2nd mover advantage so that problematic things like blocks can be undone quickly? There's just no urgency with a page move like this; no reason not to wait for discussion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There are often also claims that blocks or undoing blocks are not an emergency, so that is another tension which underlies all this. Blocks are perhaps the most significant, but moves can occasionally become significant too. In this case though, there was no emergency. However, we do appreciate the thinking behind why a reversal was made at the time at which it was. Many users were in a dilemma as to whether to accept the original close (as they ultimately also wanted a move), or whether to express concerns about it (even though that may ultimately mean a delay in the move). I think the fact that those users were in favour of the delay does indicate two things. Firstly, a subsequent discussion may lead to a clearer result and reduce the scope for dispute in the future; if that can be accomplished, the indication is that a short-term delay is worthwhile. Secondly, it indicates they want admins to take more care rather than in the name of backlog, effecting closes which could end up (even unintentionally) giving a certain appearance. Here, best practice suggests a courtesy discussion between both admins should have taken place first in any event. Judging from the comments since then though, the reversal outcome was inevitable shortly after such discussion would have taken place between them both, so it is more of a reminder of best practice than anything. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Gnangarra admonished

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

My only reservation is whether or not the strength of this admonishment should be relaxed (given the sketches of past similar-type behavior raised in the evidence by Jafeluv for Kwamikagami, and that past similar-type behavior has not been raised for Gnangarra - though a suggested alternative would be that the former warrants a separate admonishment). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree that "strongly" is probably overdoing it. Regarding Kwami's behaviour, I'm a bit lost, has he been reprimanded for wheel warring before? Jenks24 (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Similar conduct concerns as far as move-warring, edit-warring, personal attacks, were raised in this discussion re: kwami - where a pool of concerns and feedback was given, and noting his administrator status. I don't think it is strictly identical conduct, but if he absorbed the principle which he should have learned from that experience, I'm sure he would have really thought twice in this situation before completing the action in the way that he did. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"Strongly" is a bit harsh considering we are talking about an administrator of 5½ years standing whose judgement has otherwise been sound and who has never been to ArbCom before. A wording like "reminded" or "advised" would be more appropriate. Orderinchaos 15:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree; move warring is not cool and created a mess, but it is more like edit warring than blocking. If its the first time for Gnangarra (and I dont see evidence that suggests otherwise), a "reminded" or "advised" would be better, or even "admonished" instead of "strongly admonished". Regarding the assertion by an arb that culpability increases with each action taken, I think this should be reconsidered. Gnangarra was the third person to reverse the move, and therefore Gnangarra was undoing the action which was "wheel warring", being the move by Kwamikagami, thereby returning everything to the status quo before the mess started. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Five pillars

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Disambiguation

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Significance of disambiguation conflict

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General problem with disambiguation-related conflict

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Consultation

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

@NYB 23:48:

The potential final outcome could be pages with urls unrelated to article names. Thus both Perth articles would be titled "Perth", but located somewhere else. As an example, ODNB, which has:

http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/12949

Rather than

http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/Henry_II

Move review would, like all move related process pages, be pointless afterwards, since pages would be unmovable.

Such a change for Wikipedia would be extremely traumatic, and I'm not by any means certain it would be worthwhile. The useful outcome of the consultation would be to determine if it would be worthwhile. Of course, this is actually a technical issue too, over which no-one as a member of the Wikipedia community has any power to change directly. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

Err, I am wrong. I stumbled into Wikipedia:WikiProject Unique Identifiers and see that mediawiki has a curid param that can be used to create links to an article. e.g. . And there is some discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_86#UID_interface_to_Wikipedia. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)