Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 June 14: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:08, 17 June 2012

	Move review archives: 2012 June	2012 June 15 >

2012 June 14

First Transjordan attack on Amman

RM was closed while discussion was still in progress less than 2 hours after the last comment. A similar close was done at Talk:Second Transjordan attack on Shunet Nimrin and Es Salt#Requested move where there has been some further comment after the close, but it would make more sense to discuss of the naming of the two raids at one location.> Neotarf (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by closer See WP:PRECISION for the consensus to avoid unnecessary precision. Unanimous opposition to the new name after it made it to the backlog at WP:RM for why it was closed after more than a week of discussion. If consensus for the naming of the two raids is reached at a discussion at a new location, no problem, but consensus was reached at those requests not to move to the proposed name. This isn't the forum to run a new RM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three points :

1) This is certainly the proper forum to "Relist if the close was premature, or if significant relevant information was not considered during the discussion," per Wikipedia:Move review#Commenting in a deletion review. In the last two days there has been significant renewed discussion of the proposed title, and there have emerged significant objections to both the existing title and the proposed title. Links to appropriate scholarship have been posted, and more scholarship may become available, if editors have time to look for it. An individual who has done much work on the article admits there are "numerous possibilities" for a title, so it is entirely possible that a workable title might emerge from continued discussion.

2) It does appear that "significant relevant information was not considered" in moving the title from "First Transjordan attack on Amman (1918") to "First Transjordan attack on Amman". Amman is historically one of the most attacked places in the universe, from the 2005 al-Zarqawi bombings going all the way back to Solomon and Bathsheba. In the summer of 1918 alone, there were 9 raids by Allenby's Egyptian Expeditionary Force. One of the contributors to the talk page states clearly, "The year has been added to avoid confusion and locate all three articles within World War I." JHunterj appears to have overlooked this information. When he deleted the year from the title, he called the year an "unneeded qualifier". JHunterJ introduces this as a new argument in discussion without allowing for rebuttal, since his closure cuts off further comment. He should either close the RM or join the discussion, not both.

3)Finally I would have to point out that his derogatory remarks about me and his speculations about my motivations and judgment [1] are highly personal and wildly inappropriate here. Unfortunately this type of uncivil behaviour is becoming more and more commonplace in RMs. Neotarf (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neotarf I have added nothing to this discussion since 13 June, as I became disengaged from your rhetoric. There are in fact three articles which are all related; the first, second and third transjordan attacks. I have been involved in editing these articles for about 18 months and wonder why you are suddenly demanding their names be changed when its clear from a number of your comments that you are not very familiar with the operations and you have only been editing Wikipedia since February. Have you even read the articles concerned? Where do you get 9 attacks on Amman from? --Rskp (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator has a perspective that I respect. I'm sure the argument regarding appending the year to the title was noted and in fact the redirect acknowledges this and I'm happy with the new names. --Rskp (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Please don't move these comments down to the discussion as they relate to Neotarf's 14:31 post.)--Rskp (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they should be in order since this is a direct response it is in the correct place as shown by the indent level. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, it was my error. --Rskp (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Reasonable close. If a move request is formally listed at WP:RM, then the procedure is that an admin will close it after a fixed time. If you don't want a time limited discussion, don't list it at WP:RM. Feel free to continue an informal discussion on the article talk page and good luck at finding a clear consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season 2

Link to requested move survey (archived)

The conclusion of this requested move contradicts with the consensus at Talk:Season 4 (30 Rock). Moreover, article of the album has now become a redirect, and the hatnote is added in its parent page: Andra and The BackBone. There have been two opposes and two supports. Opposers cited WP:PRECISION and lack of any other articles with the same name as reasons not to move. Supporters cited ambiguity of this title as a reason to me. Both are valid but inadequate to me. However, the closer said: "no consensus". Somehow, 2econd Season... it wasn't included in the previous discussion, but maybe it'll help this discussion process well? --George Ho (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have contacted the closer before this review about Season 2 and Season 4, and he consider these types a different situation without explaining further reason why these cases are different from each other. --George Ho (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close at Season 2, since there are only partial title matches and no real ambiguity, as the closer noted. If you'd like to also discussion the move at Season 4 (30 Rock), Overturn that one for the same reasons: lack of actual ambiguity, as can be seen by the sorry excuse for a dab page Season 4. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hunter, if you want, try to establish a move review. Before you do that, contact the closer of Season 4 (30 Rock) when you can. --George Ho (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my close. To reiterate, not only was there no consensus for the move in the discussion, the parenthetical was unnecessary by Wikipedia practice. There are no other articles of that title, and "Season 2" was already a redirect.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a Move Review should be based on the arguments presented at that articles Requested Move, not another one. At best you could read no consensus to move from that discussion. I don't think this is the best place to decide the fate of "Season #" articles. Maybe a RFC? AIRcorn (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To me, opposers have not proven that policy or guideline cited triumphs ambiguity of "title". I'm not sure if supporters have proven that ambiguity triumps the rule, as well. People say that irregularity of disambiguation either overcomes or does not overcome typicality of using hatnotes based on rules. Anyway, I tried WT:DAB, but it led to redirecting "Season 2" because an album is non-notable. An RFC won't help matters either. If this move review results as "endorsed", then I would go to either WP:village pump (miscellaneous) or WP:village pump (idea lab). --George Ho (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The other response is to recognize that "Season 2" isn't a possible title for more than one topic currently covered by Wikipedia. If the album didn't exist, which article would you suggest be moved to "Season 2"? What reader is going to think, hmm, I'd like to see information about the second season of The Simpsons (or of Gunsmoke, or of Gran Hermano (Spain)) and enter "Season 2" all by itself in the search box to find it? You've got a proposed solution with no problem to solve. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus was against the move, or at best it was no consensus – either way the page remains at the same location. The only policy/guideline-based arguments were made by Mr. Stradivarius and JHunterJ, both of whom opposed the move, while the supports simply claimed that Season 2 is "very ambiguous" – about as useful an argument as saying that an article is "very notable" at AfD. Comments about the notability of the subject were not relevant to the RM and can safely be dismissed. The fact that this resulted in a different outcome to a similar discussion is irrelevant; in a perfect world the outcomes would have been the same, but the world (and Wikipedia) is not perfect and sometimes there are discrepancies. Jenks24 (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, I think, agreeing with Jenks. I found this case very hard to get my head around. I wonder of these debates should have a brief summry of the history. From the beginning, I find it very unsatisfying to think that we'd have an article titled "Season 2". It is very unclear what the topic is if you are not already familiar. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perth, Western Australia

Link to requested move survey (archived)

The close on this move has been changed, I believe 3 times. This is wheelwarring which must be avoided. It is clear from these move that it is not clear that there was a consensus for the move. So bring the discussion here to resolve if there was a consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that since this process is under development, there is some reluctance to use it. However there seems to be a strong consensus to do something to review moves that are being questioned. so lets give this a try. If it works, as many hope, it may avoid future discussions at ANI. Also, I believe that I commented on a previous move on this topic and I have not read this discussion so I have no opinion on how the discussion was closed. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the transclusions of this page, so it's now visible. Now then, back to this discussion, I must say: endorse "no consensus". All arguments have good points. Perth is ambiguous, yet one of topics with same name is most popular of all "Perths". Nevertheless, "support" arguments that cite "WP:PRIMARYTOPIC" as reasons for support are too flimsy. JHunterJ and Deacon are not at fault for making such explicit closing rationales, yet more analysis should have been done before either relisting or concluding, as Deacon did. ...No offense, Hunter.... --George Ho (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original close That is JHunterJ's close as I could see this getting confusing with all the reverts. This should basically come down to whether he analysed the discussion and reached a reasonable conclusion. He referenced Primary Topic in closing and from the discussion that appears to favour WA. He also acknowledged the arguments regarding long-term significance and page hits. In my opinion the original close falls well within administrative discretion. AIRcorn (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse "no consensus" With such a small sample of valid votes, I feel the majority was too marginal to claim as a consensus. Disclosure: I'm a Perth (WA) resident. I did not vote, as I have no particular opinion on the matter, but I was reviewing the discussion as it happened, and at no stage did I feel that there was a consensus evolving. Metao (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse/Overturn (?) to no consensus It seems pretty clear to me that there is no real consensus in the discussion. A 60-40 split isn't really a consensus at all and the whole "nationality" line thing confuses the situation a bit more. If it was a more clear cut split, it would be easier to make a decision, but this seems very much like a no consensus. Disclosure: I have nothing to do with this discussion or with either Perth or their nationalities. Silverseren^C 07:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse "no consensus". 60-40 indicates no consensus and the only calls for close were by editors who saw that there was unlikely to be consensus. What is more, as pointed out in the discussion, having the debate at Perth, Western Australia may have skewed the balance of the debate, making anything less than an overwhelming majority unreliable as a guide to consensus on the issue. If the balance of "voting" was not the justification for the initial close, then the arguments given all needed to be addressed. I pointed out in the discussion that there are two criteria for finding a primary topic, "use" and "long term significance", just saying they both have long term significance did not, in my opinion, sufficiently address that issue. If it is possible for admins just to close disregarding the balance of consensus then there seems little point in seeking it.--SabreBD (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Considering that the original close/reversion etc. are currently at ArbCom, and look likely to be accepted as a case there, this use of an untried review process does not seem like a good idea. Better, instead, to allow the ArbCom case to run its course. It seems likely that this discussion is only going to confuse matters even more than they already are. I suggest shutting down this review. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, I have no objection in general to Move review as a process; indeed, it seems like a good idea to me. It's only in this specific situation that I think it's likely to be more of a hinderance than a help. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The move review is looking at the move, not the actions which occurred subsequently - the ArbCom is very narrowly focussed on the latter. Orderinchaos 08:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Arbcom has specifically stated that it is not in charge of determining where the article should be moved and it is up to us editors of the community to determine that. A Move review is just one such option to take in order to redetermine consensus for the RfC. Silverseren^C 09:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Opinion of an Arb - Arbcom is looking at the behaviour of all the admins concerned in the preceeding set of moves. In addition, JHunterJ's closing of RMs in general has been raised as something that might be looked at as part of that. As often stated, Arbcom doesn't do content, and in my opinion the case shouldn't hold up the community discussing the article title. A move made at the conclusion of this process, or after a rerun RM if that's what folks decide on, should not be a problem. You can always check that out at the time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The above comments are noted, and thanks to all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus. I personally feel that 60-40 is sufficient (and agree entirely with AIRcorn above), and I note very few arguments in opposition to the move at the RM touched upon Wikipedia policy, but the status quo is sustainable, while having the Western Australian city as the primary topic seems to be untenable for a minority who are sizable enough to require consideration. Further discussion - and I mean discussion aimed at achieving a compromise - is needed to develop a workable, sustainable outcome. I believe this was essentially Gnangarra's position when he moved it back - although the headlong rush to ArbCom prevented him from getting such a discussion going. I feel really sad writing this, as I feel that heavy measures rather than reasoned discussion have won the day, but nothing is worth the hostility this seems to have brought out. Note: Voted support in the RM; saw someone else's action in creating it as an opportunity to right something I've always seen as an anomaly and had to explain to people while doing Wiki outreach / community liaison work, etc. Orderinchaos 08:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked to explain - I support the close, but regret that it does not appear possible for that close to stand in light of the circumstances. Short-term, yes, we could do that. Long-term, we'd have a slow-burn RM war that could create quite some instability, as well as a level of needless personal hostility between groups of editors who otherwise wouldn't even interface with each other. In an ideal world my vote would be to endorse, but it is not an ideal world. And the status quo is liveable and no-one can perceive they have "lost". I hope this explanation is satisfactory. Orderinchaos 14:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. It's a sticking point in many primary topic discussions that editors often interpret it as a competition to win or lose, rather than a process to best navigate the readers to the articles they're looking for. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus. Although I followed the RM, I did not participate in the original discussion. To me, Perth should be a slam-dunk primary topic for the city in Oz (and no, I am not Australian), but clearly this is far from a universal perception. The title should be reverted to the original before all the overturnings, if it is not already. Neotarf (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has been - the four admin actions cancelled each other out in outcome terms. Orderinchaos 14:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse "no consensus" The discussion was certainly split and suject to a longterm history of discussion. There was no overriding policy that forced the original closer to override the discussion. Reverting the original close was especially important as this process was not ready yet and the large number of links effected. Agathoclea (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to how you regard the discussion as having been "overridden" - if it was 13/19 instead of 19/13 and there was clear, rational opposing arguments I could see your point, but neither was the case. Orderinchaos 14:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the close and the subsequent arguments of the closer gave that impression to me. The close declared the primary topic to be what is was accourding to factors the closer saw as more important. PRIMARYTOPIC is a little more difficult than that. Also in RMs that involve disambiguation the guideline is so central to the discussion that is does not need to expressly stated. Instead - And I have taken another look at the oppose comments just now again - often just some metric was given that to them identified the primar topic or lack thereof. Discounting those because you don't agee with their metric is not in line with the guideline. Discounting those who point to past discussions is equally bad as it discounts the opinions and arguments of a larger number of contributors than the RM itself has garnered. Personally I always like to challenge issues that are refered to as "we always have done it like that" with a "why?" - The beauty with being on a wiki is that we can look into the archives to find out. Of course consensus can change, but still the discussion here does not call out "We - with the exception of a few nutters/POV-pushers ect pp - find that the primary topic is x" rather the discussion says "there are some arguments for either side" and I think there is quite an agreement even by the people who personally would like to see a move of that reading of the discussion. While I was writing this up there was some discussion on the subject of supervote elsewhere on this page - which effectivly is a shorter way of saying what I said. Agathoclea (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said "clear, rational opposing arguments", not "vague handwaving in the general direction of debates conducted years ago with no reference as to why the arguments raised in them are relevant beyond simply stating that they somehow are" or "generally expressing inexplicable tiredness at a debate that has not exactly continued exhaustively over its duration" (for some reason the main argument used by Scottish opposers). In particular, the evidence I presented in my support vote on the first day of the discussion was never countered or even addressed/spoken to, and some people argued over whether 7:1 was significant for a hit rate. Beyond that, only Moondyne's oppose contained really solid grounds; Gnangarra's did somewhat, although it ignored perfectly valid counter-positions. I acknowledge in saying so that a number of the support votes were equally vague, but if we're not basing things on rational argument and Wikipedia policy, then it becomes the "mood of the room" rather than something which can be worked meaningfully into a later consensus or compromise. And that doesn't help the encyclopaedia, or anyone/anything else. Orderinchaos 16:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from original closer I agree that counting virtual noses does not yield a crystal clear consensus. However, 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 and, more importantly, as beneficial to the encyclopedia users, who overwhelmingly are looking for the city in Western Australia when they look for "Perth" according to the discussion in the original move request, and the hatnote I placed on the article after I moved it meant that readers looking for the place in Scotland would be unaffected, still being only one click from their destination. The only people served by forcing a "no consensus" interpretation on the discussion are some Wikipedia editors. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As it's the original close that appears to be under discussion, I'd also recommend the earlier discussers here amend their earlier notes to say "endorse" only if they agree with that close", and "overturn" (or "no consensus" or something other than "endorse") if you're not endorsing the earlier move, for clarity. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it is not quite clear which close is under discussion, so being clear which of the possibilities one endorses makes sense - unless someone suggests a totally different outcome like relist. Back to the subject: PRIMARYTOPIC does not mandate a particular outcome, it explicitly allows for consensus to decide which if any is the primary topic. Agathoclea (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And so it did. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a re-run of the page move: it's an examination of the close. And the argument that the close was a supervote is cogent. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How so, since the close was based on the arguments and guidelines presented? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because the close provided little in the way of rationale to back that up. Your responses here also indicate you've got a very strong feeling of exactly what PRIMARYTOPIC entails and were closing on that basis rather than on an evaluation of what the participants thought it meant, and unless there's evidence to suggest that the participants were wrong as opposed to simply split, a close other than "no consensus" would seem out of order. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the opposing votes application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC represent(s) some other feeling of what it entails? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original close, but I probably could have endorsed a well-reasoned no-consensus close as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the discussion, I would read this as no consensus (which is, I believe, an overturn of the original close). Head count aside (which falls a little short of "consensus") there's nothing disproportionately more convincing in the arguments of one side over the other. Though I'm sure it wasn't the intent, I agree that the close has the feel and effect of a supervote. Guettarda (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How so, since the close was based on the arguments and guidelines presented? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because both sides used PRIMARYTOPIC as their justification. So saying that the move was "per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC" as you did was to say that one side's interpretation of the guideline was correct, and the other side's was wrong. The closing admin can't take sides. Unless one side of an argument completely misrepresents a policy or guideline, an adjudication like this ends up functioning as a supervote. Guettarda (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My closing comment was longer than "WP:PRIMARYTOPIC". I suppose I disagree that the closing admin can't apply the relevant guidelines if some !votes that reference a guideline misapply or misinterpret it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said - you can apply the relevant guidelines if some !votes that reference a guideline misapply or misinterpret it. The problem is that it has to be an obvious misinterpretation, the kind of thing that would be apparent to just about any well-informed Wikipedian. That was clearly not the case here. What you did was adjudicate between two reasonable interpretations of the guideline, made by reasonable and well-informed community members. What you did was let your own opinion of how the policy should be interpreted weigh in your decision whether to close the case as a move or as no consensus. When you allow your own opinion of the "right" interpretation of policy come into play when you close a debate, your close becomes a supervote. Guettarda (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Which of the opposing votes application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC represent(s) this "other interpretation"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are two major aspects to PRIMARYTOPIC: usage, and long-term significance. Many of the support votes, including Orderinchaos, Hack, Kwamikagami (and the others who referenced them) cited usage. On the other hand many opposes, including Moondyne, The-Pope and SabreBD, raised the issue of long-term significance. In your close you acknowledged that there are two aspects, so you can't say that prioritising long-term significance over usage is a misinterpretation of the guideline. Long-term significance is a perfectly valid rationale. More to the point, you said: Both have long-term significance, but the readership usage does indicate a better efficient arrangement by putting the Australian city at the base name (emphasis added). No one, AFAIK, who argued in support of the move used long-term significance as a rationale. This was something you introduced in the close. Your rebuttal of the long-term significance argument in the close amounted to a supervote. Guettarda (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orderinchaos introduced Perth, Western Australia's significance on 22:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC) -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Long-term significance. Not significance. And no one made the argument that you did - that the long-term significance argument was essentially a wash. 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. I don't care whether they do or don't. I don't care whether Perth is a dab page, hosts the Australian city or hosts the Scottish city. It doesn't affect my life in any way. But I care about process, and the arbcomm case caught my attention. Guettarda (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't just checking off buzzwords; I read the content. Orderinchaos' note of 22:56, 26 May 2012 spoke about its long-term significance. I don't know why, pray tell, you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm here to review a move closure, which, as far as I can tell, involves discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: would someone please explain how the reversal of the move better serves Wikipedia readers, since the vast majority of readers are overwhelming looking for the city in Western Australia (according to the information presented in the RM)? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're suggesting this was an IAR close, that doesn't seem relevant. Closes should be an evaluation of the responses presented, and the responses presented were split (not in terms of numbers, which are irrelevant, but in terms of good arguments on either side) to an extent which doesn't seem to be in line with the conclusion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the arguments against the move were fairly weak, many of them amounting to "it's fine the way it is". Powers ^T 18:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider that to be a fair assessment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? "There is no good reason to remove the current disambiguation page, which works quite well." -- RGloucester. "per previous lengthy discussions at Talk:Perth/Archive 1" -- Ben MacDui. "As per previous debates. ... Come on folks, there are more pressing issue that re-opening this particular debate." -- Akerbeltz. "I don't see what's wrong with the current disamb system." -- OohBunnies! "Nothing in the stats has changed appreciably since the last proposed move. Disambiguation is fine." -- Mark. "As someone commented in 2004 on this worn-out emotional debate, 'Let's shake hands and move on to more productive work.'" -- BJenks. That's at least half of the oppose !votes. All essentially amount to "it's fine the way it is." Powers ^T 20:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid the danger of reopening the RM here. IMO most of the supports were also of low quality, particularly of the "its bigger" and "what he said" variety, but if we keep revisiting this we are going to get distracted from the issue of the close.--SabreBD (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even close to reopening the RM here. I'm supporting my statement that many of the !votes in opposition were weak, and thus justifiably discounted by the closing admin. Powers ^T 15:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Improving the encyclopedia isn't relevant" is a problem with move requests then. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you were making a supervote, you should have made that clear in your close. It may not have prevented people from appealing it, but it wouldn't have had a significant number of editors suggesting, apparently quite rightly, that the close was not an assessment of the debate but rather a unilateral decision on your behalf. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't making a supervote. OTOH, in this move review I'm asking a question. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, thank you, LtPowers, for simplifying my vote and leaving out the part where I actually based it on educational value, which is part of the primary topic policy. Because that's what my oppose was based on, really, long-term significance, as a former capital and the namesake of Perth, WA, as well as the educational importance which I do not believe is out-weighed by that of the Australian Perth. I am a Scottish editor so of course I may be biased, location-wise, but I tried to keep my vote in line with policy, and don't appreciate seeing that part cut out and having me quoted as simply saying disamb is fine. Anyway, I'm not going to vote here because I commented on the original RM, and although I'm not familiar with this newfangled move review stuff, if the people in that were part of original discussion come here to vote then it just ends up being the same RM discussion all over again. Best to leave it to uninvolved people, I'd say. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 20:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (to no consensus). In the discussion, I do not see a consensus. Was there a WP:Rough consensus? Maybe, at a stretch. However, I can't find clarification on whether closing admins are entitled to apply discretion in calling a "rough consensus" as they do at XfD. Countering the notion that a "rough consensus" call is within discretion is the written policy/guideline on what to do when there is "no consensus", such as WP:RETAIN. Here, failing any clear consensus or applicable rule, WP:RETAIN would appear to say that Perth should remain as originally created, which is as a disambiguation page. I can't see any serious trouble for readers that can justify any IAR calls. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussion, 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. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you are badgering the participants, and that you shouldn't. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is introducing a quote from the relevant guideline "badgering"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have made 16 of the first 100 edits to this subpage. It is a review of your close. I think you should leave it now to be reviewed by others. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then we disagree here as well. I think the closer's input is useful in such reviews. But again I ask, how is making 16% of the edits "badgering"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I don't read the reply as a direct or useful reply. I think this converstation is better continued at WT:RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original close. Well within admin discretion as, in my (possibly biased) opinion, the support votes were stronger and grounded in policy/guideline. One thing I would note is that I think some of this could have been avoided if, instead of writing "per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC" in his closure, J had written something more like "the consensus is that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies in this case". I believe this is what he meant, but using "per" makes it look like a vote, which in turn makes it look like supervoting, even if it actually wasn't. Finally, I'd say it's dreadful shame that this has ended up at ArbCom. Jenks24 (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for the first "Well", I almost completely agree. But I think there are open questions: Do admins have discretion in closing RM discussions? How much? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - There should be no question: admins do have discretion in closing RM discussions. That's well established precedent. Powers ^T 23:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jenks24, for the language advice. I would love to have a phrasing that avoids the appearance of supervoting, and it hadn't occurred to me that "per" wasn't being interpreted the way I was thinking it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original close. Disclaimer: I was the one who proposed the original move request. Nevertheless, this case reminds me of the earlier Jelena Dokić closure, which was closed as "move" (which I had !voted against), in terms of both the results of the survey (enough to modestly tip the balance) and the tenor of the closing admin's remarks. In both cases, the closure was within the closing admin's discretion, and by no means the kind of outlandish result that would warrant instant reverting without discussion. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus. I agree with the comments of Metao and Guettarda. JHunterJ's apparent carelessness (alluded to in Jenks24's endorsement in my opinion) was not limited to the closure itself; it extended to this review of his closure ([2] [3]). I am also somewhat troubled by the lengths that JHunterJ has gone to try to have his original close accepted; be it the accusation of involvement/partiality ([4] [5]) or the badgering in this discussion, the conduct is not, in my opinion, befitting of an administrator who asserts he was uninvolved. If there was an exercise of discretion in this case, it was substandard; a sensible and appropriate use of discretion does not lead to (or fuel) the type of disruption and spectacle now subject to arbitration. Further discussion (as suggested by Orderinchaos) was practically essential before a move could be made, and accepted (reluctantly or otherwise) in this instance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What lengths did I go through, exactly? I initiated nothing after my (still appropriate) close was reverted, but have responded to allegations of partiality and allegations of misapplication of the guidelines. So, yes, I may have been badgered about the close, but responding to that badgering is responding, not badgering. And if you think that the only sensible move closures are the ones that instantly result in universal harmony, you haven't been involved in move closes much. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 *'''Endorse original close'''. Disclaimer: I was the one who proposed the original move request.  Nevertheless, this case reminds me of the earlier [[Talk:Jelena_Dokic#Requested_move_2|Jelena Dokić]] closure, which was closed as "move" (which I had !voted against), in terms of both the results of the survey (enough to modestly tip the balance) and the tenor of the closing admin's remarks.  In both cases, the closure was within the closing admin's discretion, and by no means the kind of outlandish result that would warrant instant reverting without discussion. — [[User:P.T. Aufrette|P.T. Aufrette]] ([[User talk:P.T. Aufrette|talk]]) 16:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * '''No consensus'''. I agree with the comments of Metao and Guettarda. JHunterJ's apparent carelessness (alluded to in Jenks24's endorsement in my opinion) was not limited to the closure itself; it extended to this review of his closure ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2012_June_14&diff=497695074&oldid=497649012] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2012_June_14&diff=497695973&oldid=497695074]). I am also somewhat troubled by the lengths that JHunterJ has gone to try to have his original close accepted; be it the accusation of involvement/partiality ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perth,_Western_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=496774303] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perth,_Western_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=496831120]) or the badgering in this discussion, the conduct is not, in my opinion, befitting of an administrator who asserts he was uninvolved. If there was an exercise of discretion in this case, it was substandard; a sensible and appropriate use of discretion does not lead to (or fuel) the type of disruption and spectacle now subject to arbitration. Further discussion (as suggested by Orderinchaos) was practically essential before a move could be made, and accepted (reluctantly or otherwise) in this instance. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 08:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
+*:What lengths did I go through, exactly? I initiated nothing after my (still appropriate) close was reverted, but have responded to allegations of partiality and allegations of misapplication of the guidelines. So, yes, I may have been badgered about the close, but responding to that badgering is responding, not badgering. And if you think that the only sensible move closures are the ones that instantly result in universal harmony, you haven't been involved in move closes much. -- [[User:JHunterJ|JHunterJ]] ([[User talk:JHunterJ|talk]]) 12:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)