Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

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

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 7
1–2 6
3–4 5

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.


Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Administrators[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Thanks to everybody who took part in the workshop. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 09:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 19:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] 18:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Learning from experience[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. Thanks to Ncmvocalist who put forward this proposal, and several others, during the workshop phase. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (Slightly duplicative of 1, but it's not really a problem.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 09:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 19:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] 18:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. This is perhaps more important in moving forward. Risker (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I think this is a good addition to the stock "Administrators" principle. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Questioning of administrative actions[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 09:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 19:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] 18:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Risker (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Reinstating a reverted action ("wheel warring")[edit]

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. (WP:WHEEL)

Support:
  1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Full support, as this is quite true as far as it goes. But it doesn't speak to the ever-problematic questions of (1) when is the initial reversal acceptable, and (2) what happens when after the initial action-and-reversal, there is no consensus either way for what is next to be done? Of course, these are policy issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 09:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 19:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] 18:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. While we have discussions about the second mover advantage, no one can deny the third action is wheel warring. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. While I appreciate Newyorkbrad's points above, at minimum the action/revert cycle returns matters to status quo ante where any initial discussions can be reviewed and a broader (or different) consensus developed. Also per SirFozzie, there's little doubt the third move requires a revisiting of the decision leading to action. Risker (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Administrators involved in disputes[edit]

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

Support:
  1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 09:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 19:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] 18:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. There are very limited exceptions to this rule, none of which apply in this case. Risker (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Reversal of administrative actions[edit]

6) Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and, if the reversal is likely to be objected to, some kind of courtesy discussion.

Support:
  1. From WP:ADMIN. The fact that subsequent reversals cross a brighter line should not be taken to mean that an initial reversal without discussion is acceptable in and of itself. Kirill [talk] 01:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I like this principle. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (Minor copyedit.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 07:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 00:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. While I disagree with Newyorkbrad's analysis of the situation in his comment below (i.e., I am not persuaded that discussion with the initiating admin would have prevented this situation from arising), I concur that this principle is important and relevant. Risker (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 01:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I do not believe anything in this case hinges on the failure to follow such a best practice. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the goals of arbitration decisions is to outline principles that the Committee thinks important, for guidance of the parties in this and hopefully of others in future situations. If we think that it's the best practice for an administrator to consult before overturning another's administrator action, unless there is some urgency (such as with clearly bad blocks), we should say so. And if one thing is clear in retrospect, it is that if this practice had been followed, this entire situation could have been avoided. Note that supporting this principle (or any principle) of course doesn't mean that I would support automatically desysopping anyone who violates it in a particular instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Background[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In other words (as I understand it), the disagreement was whether the page Perth should be the article on Perth, Australia, or whether it should be a disambiguation page because Perth, Scotland has a comparable degree of prominence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Courcelles 19:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] 01:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

JHunterJ[edit]

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.[reply]

Support:
  1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. True as a statement of fact. Note that this is not an adverse finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Courcelles 19:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] 01:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Only as a simple statement of fact. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

JHunterJ (response to criticism)[edit]

3) JHunterJ's response to criticism of the move request close was at times problematic.[1][2]

Support:
  1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Unhelpful, unnecessary, and cranking up the tension. Worth pointing out that such behaviour is unwanted in all users, and is especially unwanted in admins who are expected to assist in calming down situations - particularly where they are acting in an admin role. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. While this would not ordinarily rise to the level of an arbitration finding, it is useful to note here to give more context to the subsequent dispute. Kirill [talk] 01:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The patent assumption of bad faith in these comments (assuming that membership in such a broad wiki-project as Wikiproject Scotland would necessarily taint the actions of another editor/administrator) raises this to the level of a finding, in my opinion. Risker (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. After having left my vote open for several days, I've concluded that the case for this hasn't been made out to the point of warranting an arbitration finding. I think that JHunterJ has benefitted from discussion concerning this issue, on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not sure that this warrants a finding in the end Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Administrators should respond to criticism of their actions appropriately; these responses do not appear to be appropriate. However, I'm not entirely sure that it is relevant to the issue at hand, that being the matter of the wheel war. I may reconsider this, and likely won't oppose, but I can't quite support just yet. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
The references to Deacon of P's membership in the Scotland wikiproject were not especially helpful, but I'm not sure they are so "problematic" as to call for an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon of Pndapetzim[edit]

4) 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.[reply]

Support:
  1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. True as a statement of fact. A key issue here is that as far as I am aware, at the time Deacon of Pndapetzim reversed the closure, there was no well-recognized venue for contesting the closure of a move request. It's been true as long as I've been editing that a disputed XfD can be taken to DRV; a disputed block can be taken to ANI; but there was no clear procedure for what to do with a disputed move. The creation of a move-review process to address this type of dispute may help alleviate further disputes of this nature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This was the first case of the now established Wikipedia:Move review. The case opened on June 14, because of the reversions; so, yes, at the time the venue was not yet open, and this case acted as a trial. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Courcelles 19:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] 01:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Again, as a statement of fact. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. As a statement of fact. Risker (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Deacon of Pndapetzim (involvement)[edit]

5.1) Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was involved in the topic by having previously given his views on the matter [3], and by making edits to the topic, sometimes in relation to the name, [4], [5], [6].

Support:
  1. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. From my perspective, this is worded a little too strongly. PhilKnight (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles 18:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] 01:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice. Jclemens (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 2nd choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. My thanks to SilkTork for assembling the data below. Having reviewed them, this strikes me as a pretty borderline "involved" situation. Although it's obvious that Deacon knows something about Perth (Scotland) and has the pages on his watchlist, most of these edits are innocuous and have nothing to do with the pagename dispute. There is one edit from 2009 in which Deacon expressed his view on the name, but it is isolated and I accept Deacon's statement on the talkpage that he had forgotten last month that he'd made that edit. All in all, it might have been better if Deacon hadn't used his tools in this matter, but here the finding of "involvement" is being invoked as cause for a desysopping and I cannot agree the level of involvement rises to that level. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As NYB Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Don't see this as involved. Several of these are perfectly legitimate vandalism reverts and appropriate maintenance-type editor/admin action. Risker (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
PhilKnightSilkTork, could you more specifically identify the edits that you believe demonstrate "involvement"? Other than the specific one you cite, they are not jumping out at me from the page history. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brad, this finding was written by SilkTork. PhilKnight (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What happened was I looked at the history of each article and did an "Isolate history" search using Deacon of Pndapetzim's name, and copied the url, thinking it would would link to that specific search but it does not. I'll copy and paste the search results and put them in a collapsed section for you to consider. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edits to Perth pages
Perth
  • (cur | prev) 17:49, 09 June 2012 Deacon of Pndapetzim m (79007 bytes) (Deacon of Pndapetzim moved page Perth to Perth, Western Australia over redirect: revert move; discussion is no consensus)
  • (cur | prev) 04:39, 10 February 2011 Deacon of Pndapetzim (75857 bytes) (→ The Swan River Colony it's not a point of doubt)
  • (cur | prev) 24:26, 10 November 2007 Deacon of Pndapetzim m (44152 bytes) (Reverted to revision 170629342 by Deacon of Pndapetzim; there is nothing in discussion that would place any doubt on this; plus the sentence is uncited . using TW)
  • (cur | prev) 23:47, 10 November 2007 Deacon of Pndapetzim (44152 bytes) (→ History remove funny statement ... of course the place was named after Perth, Scotland!)
  • (cur | prev) 23:43, 10 November 2007 Deacon of Pndapetzim (44298 bytes) (et wik refers to Scottish Perth)
Perth, Scotland
  • (cur | prev) 19:35, 01 June 2012 Deacon of Pndapetzim (49572 bytes) (later medieval)
  • (cur | prev) 19:34, 01 June 2012 Deacon of Pndapetzim (49582 bytes) (as far as it has a written form, it is perth ... this kind of tag is very misleading to unwary readers)
  • (cur | prev) 04:55, 04 June 2009 Deacon of Pndapetzim (38645 bytes) (→ History this history section is appaling ... perth wasn't a town before alexander i ... it became a town because alexander invited english merchants to establish a trading site there to supply his palace at scone with luxury good)
  • (cur | prev) 11:52, 27 January 2008 Deacon of Pndapetzim m (38420 bytes) (moved Perth, Perth and Kinross to Perth, Scotland over redirect: rv)
  • (cur | prev) 04:39, 19 January 2008 Deacon of Pndapetzim m (38078 bytes) (moved Perth, Perth and Kinross to Perth, Scotland over redirect: revert move; absolutely ridiculous name)
  • (cur | prev) 23:52, 12 November 2007 Deacon of Pndapetzim (37358 bytes) (→ Late 14th and 15th century link)
  • (cur | prev) 23:29, 10 November 2007 Deacon of Pndapetzim (37403 bytes) (→ 12th and 13th centuries link Blackfriars, Perth)
  • (cur | prev) 02:11, 26 February 2007 Deacon of Pndapetzim m (29690 bytes) (Fixing links to disambiguation pages using AWB)
Perth (disambiguation)
  • (cur | prev) 17:58, 09 June 2012 Deacon of Pndapetzim (4725 bytes) (correct restore)
  • (cur | prev) 17:58, 09 June 2012 Deacon of Pndapetzim (4402 bytes) (restoring)
  • (cur | prev) 17:50, 09 June 2012 Deacon of Pndapetzim m (4426 bytes) (Deacon of Pndapetzim moved page Perth (disambiguation) to Perth: returning)
  • (cur | prev) 15:28, 14 August 2010 Deacon of Pndapetzim (3731 bytes) (i believe they are like this because of age and derivation, not because of anyone's opinion of "relevance")
  • (cur | prev) 21:14, 06 August 2010 Deacon of Pndapetzim m (3731 bytes) (Reverted edits by 188.61.63.170 (talk) to last version by Xqbot)
  • (cur | prev) 13:11, 23 March 2006 Deacon of Pndapetzim m (1295 bytes) ()


Deacon of Pndapetzim (involvement)[edit]

5.2) In 2009, Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) took part in a discussion about the relative merits of a page move.[7] Over the course of several years editing, Deacon of Pndapetzim has also made a few edits to Perth related articles.[8], [9], [10] In this context, Deacon of Pndapetzim could reasonably be considered an editor who was involved with editing this topic area.

Support:
  1. First choice. PhilKnight (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Note that this is an alternative to 3.1. 3 is compatible with either, and neither 3.1 or 3.2 depend on 3. (Striking previous sentence as numbering changes have clarified this) Per Phil, I think this takes a measured approach to the diffs in question. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] 01:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second Choice. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Equal choice. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak support, because it is clearly superior to 5.1, and because it recognizes that reasonable people could disagree about the finding of involvement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 1st choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my comments above. Risker (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Same question as on 5.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon of Pndapetzim (prior sanctions)[edit]

6) Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was admonished for edit-warring by the Arbitration Committee during the Eastern European disputes case.

Support:
  1. As context; this is not Deacon's first time before the Committee. Kirill [talk] 01:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Useful context. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Whether it passed 6-3 or 18-0 means little in this context; it indeed did pass, making this a true statement and an important part of the historical background. Courcelles 05:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This is an undeniably true statement—but the admonition was based on a finding adopted by a divided 6-3 vote, with even a couple of the supporters describing Deacon's conduct as relatively minor in the context of the case, plus it was three and one-half years ago. To use this to support a desysopping now strikes me as unfair. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that an arbitration finding passed by a divided vote is somehow less legitimate than one passed unanimously? That strikes me as an extraordinarily dangerous precedent to set. Kirill [talk] 03:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if I opposed it, then.... I understand your point. I'm not suggesting that the finding and the associated remedy weren't duly adopted and fully valid. But the multiple dissenting votes (coupled with the comments of even some of the supporters) suggest that the misconduct found in 2008 was less serious than might otherwise be thought to be the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. True statement, but of peripheral relevance to this case. PhilKnight (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As Phil Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This doesn't seem relevant to the matter at hand. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not relevant to this matter. Risker (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Kwamikagami[edit]

7) 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.[reply]

Support:
  1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. True statement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Courcelles 19:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] 01:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. And now the third mover strikes... SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Gnangarra[edit]

8) 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 clear discussion leading to a consensus decision.[reply]

Support:
  1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Also a true statement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Agree with PhilKnight's copyedit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles 20:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] 01:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Based on PhilKnight's edit. Risker (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
He had been discussing the matter. [11] and [12]. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced 'without discussing the matter first' with 'without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision'. PhilKnight (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of administrative tools[edit]

9) The page moves which occurred on 9 and 10 June 2012 required the use of administrative tools to delete the associated redirect.[13] Consequently, these actions are covered by the more stringent restrictions of the wheel warring portion of the administrator policy, rather than those applied to edit warring.

Support:
  1. This is based on a finding proposed by Jclemens. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. An initial move is usually an editorial-only action, but a subsequent move requires the use of admin tools. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC) In this specific case, SilkTork and Courcelles are correct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC) And Kirill is correct too. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, all the moves, including the initial move, required the deletion tool. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Even the original move required admin tools in this case. Courcelles 20:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Thanks for the improvements in wording. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I would also characterize the act of closing a controversial move request as being an administrative action per se; cf. Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Non-admin_closure. Kirill [talk] 01:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Echoing Kirill; there are certain actions which by convention are reserved to administrators. While not strictly part of the admin tools, they are nonetheless administrative actions, as they would almost certainly be overturned (or generate even more drama) if conducted by a non-admin. Somewhat beside the point as the finding notes, though. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per all of the above. Risker (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies[edit]

JHunterJ advised[edit]

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

Support:
  1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, this is enough. I don't see any other problems in JHunterJ's history. He made what he felt was a reasonable close, gave a rationale, and using the new move review process his close was upheld. He over-reacted slightly during subsequent discussions, but we all do at times, and as long as he recognises that such behaviour is unacceptable, then it's all part of the learning experience of Wikipedia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't know if I would have closed that RM the same way, but this is more than sufficient here. Courcelles 23:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Some sort of AGF reminder might have been good too,  Roger Davies talk 02:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my vote on the finding of fact and per the comment below. Having said that, I think that after the discussion on the talkpage, JHunterJ understands the spirit in which this advice is being given. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As I did not support the applicable finding. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not sure this is necessary Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not having supported the corresponding finding, I can't support this. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I'm not yet convinced this is necessary, though I do agree it is sufficient. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon of Pndapetzim[edit]

Deacon of Pndapetzim advised[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Thanks to ErikHaugen, who proposed this wording during the workshop phase. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Third choice. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is a reasonable remedy. Discussion before reverting an administrator action is appropriate in most cases, unless there is some time-related urgency or the like. Given Deacon's reflective comments on the talkpage, and the other factors discussed elsewhere on tis page, I believe this remedy is sufficient. (Minor copyedit.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice, although I don't think this is strong enough. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. Risker (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 02:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice to admonishment. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Far too mild. Courcelles 18:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This risks making discussion before the first reversal normative. I don't see that as part of WP:WHEEL. Furthermore, it doesn't address the involvement. I think it overall lacking too much to be fixed by a simple copyedit. Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Jclemens. Kirill [talk] 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per JClemens. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Having already received an admonishment for revert warring, and being well aware of revert warring, an advisement is inappropriate. Edit warring, page move warring, and wheel warring are all revert wars, and only differ by degrees of seriousness. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Evidence has been presented, such as this, that Deacon of Pndapetzim was WP:INVOLVED. Should we not mention that? Two of the other admins were also involved, and this involvement is part of the problem. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it really should be, and IMO, this should be at least an admonishment, as this user was the one that "lit the fire" of wheel warring by a barely discussed, highly controversial, "over-ruling" of the first admin. Courcelles 23:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a finding that Deacon of Pndapetzim was involved. I think it is easier to see Kwamikagami and Gnangarra's involvement as they took part in the discussion, and we have findings which include that ("participated in the request for move discussion") - but we'll need a separate one for Deacon of Pndapetzim because his involvement pre-dates the move discussion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon of Pndapetzim admonished[edit]

2.1) Deacon of Pndapetzim is admonished for use of administrative tools while involved, and for reversing another administrator's legitimate administrative action without first entering into discussion.

Support:
  1. First [Only] choice. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. Kirill [talk] 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice, with a notation that if there are further issues, the consequences will be known beforehand. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support unless something stronger than this is passing which would render it moot and/or redundant. Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice, prefer 2 because of the borderline nature of the "involvement" (see my vote on the finding). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Given the history, I can't support anything short of a desysop. Courcelles 22:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't think there is really sufficient evidence to consider him involved in the first place, so cannot support this. I would consider something stronger than an advisement for acting without prior discussion, but not on the point of involvement. Risker (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Risker,  Roger Davies talk 02:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Looking through Deacon of Pndapetzim's contributions history, I don't see a need to go further than an admonishment - he does not make a habit of misusing the admin tools, and is a very good and valued contributor to Wikipedia, especially in the area of Scotland. I found one move related dispute regarding the Jogaila article, but that was six years ago and a different user name (Calgacus), and he handled it well. Though because he was involved in the topic, and because his actions precipitated the wheel war, something more than an "advised" is appropriate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the closest of the three to what I prefer, but I can't support it with the second clause intact, because a discussion is not a prerequisite to a first reversal, and we should not be in the business of issuing admonishments for first violations of best practices. Jclemens (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon of Pndapetzim desysopped[edit]

2.2) Deacon of Pndapetzim is desysopped for use of administrative tools while involved, and for reversing another administrator's legitimate administrative action without first entering into discussion. He may regain the admin toolkit through a fresh request for adminship.

Support:
Second choice. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Third choice. PhilKnight (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]
  1. Only choice. Courcelles 18:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. While this would indeed be rather harsh for an isolated mistake, it is considerably less so in view of Deacon's history of poor conduct. Kirill [talk] 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Completely disproportionate and excessive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Deacon of Pndapetzim's comments on the workshop here reflect his understanding that his action here was problematic, and am confident that he won't do this again. In view of this and his long record of service, I still think that desysopping here is quite disproportionate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. On the balance, I find this just over the line of excessive. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer 2.3. I just can't support this with the reversal-without-discussion justification intact. Jclemens (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cannot see that this warrants a desysopping - or that the various policies as they stand would have led anyone to expect to be desysopped for this action. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. On reflection, I think it would be a mistake to desyop Deacon. PhilKnight (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Deacon was the second mover - by definition he was not wheel warring. I believe an admonition is sufficient here, especially as he seems to recognize the problem. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 02:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Given that Deacon of Pndapetzim has already been admonished for revert warring, I am giving serious thought to making this my first choice; though, like Newyorkbrad, I am taking his other contributions into account. I have considered a Topic Ban on page moves, but, on the whole, I think that would be worse than a desysopping as it would deprive us of a useful contributor in that area, and would be hitting Deacon of Pndapetzim in one of his primary areas of interest. The question for me is how many times do we admonish someone before stepping up the sanction. And Deacon of Pndapetzim has himself stepped up the level of revert warring from edit warring to page move and wheel warring. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support the second move without discussion being part of a desysop rationale. I am, however, sufficiently concerned about the involvement and prior sanctions that I may propose an alternative desysop'ing measure. Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon of Pndapetzim desysopped (2)[edit]

2.3) Deacon of Pndapetzim is desysopped for use of administrative tools while involved, and in light of his previous admonishment for edit warring. He may regain the admin toolkit through a fresh request for adminship.

Support:
  1. The above desysop'ing motion makes explicit reference to reverting another admin without discussion ("second mover") which, while not in line with our best practices, is not covered under WP:WHEEL, and thus I cannot support as a rationale leading to a desysop or any other sanction within the facts of this case. In its place, I've noted the prior admonishment, which I still find sufficient rationale for desysop. Jclemens (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. If Deacon's culpability for provoking this dispute by unilaterally reversing another administrator's decision is removed as a factor, then he is not guilty of any offense that warrants desysopping; his level of involvement is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify such a harsh sanction. Kirill [talk] 11:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As Kirill Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Completely disproportionate and excessive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. On reflection, I think it would be a mistake to desyop Deacon. PhilKnight (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per my vote on 2.2 and my opposition to the prior sanctions finding. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 02:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Kirill, I'd rather see him go un-desysop'ed than set a precedent that failing to follow a best practice, for which we have never before sanctioned any administrator to the best of my knowledge, contributes substantially to a wheel warring finding. If you can show me that I'm wrong--that we've done this before and being the "second mover" in a wheel war is, in fact, a primary offense, I may be persuaded to reconsider. But it's not in WP:WHEEL, and in light of that, reverting an admin action without prior discussion as the second mover isn't itself an issue that I believes merits any mention in sanctions whatsoevere. Jclemens (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear why we're limiting ourselves to considering only WP:WHEEL here; WP:TOOLMISUSE is no less a policy, and I think it's clear that Deacon's actions here have violated both the spirit and the letter of its provisions.
More generally, I think it's more useful to view wheel-warring, move-warring, edit-warring, and so forth as variations on a common theme—which I would express as a disregard for the consensus editorial process and a tendency towards battleground behavior—rather than treating one as being wholly different purely on a technicality as regards the order of the reversions. Kirill [talk] 01:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kwamikagami admonished[edit]

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.

Support:
  1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not exactly as I would word it, but far more proportionate than 4, which is effectively an alternative, although not labelled as such. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. Kirill [talk] 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. A distant second, if nothing more substantial passes. Jclemens (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice. Risker (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Wheel warring while involved calls for more than an admonishment. Courcelles 20:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No, wheel warring is a bright line. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No, following statement above under Deacon, ANY admin should have expected serious shit for this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per all three of the above. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 02:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Kwamikagami desysopped[edit]

4) Kwamikagami is desysopped 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. He may regain the admin toolkit through a fresh request for adminship.

Support:
  1. Almost necessary given the severity of the misconduct required to wheel war while already involved. Courcelles 20:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice, would prefer to just admonish. PhilKnight (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice due to previous history of edit and move warring. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. Kirill [talk] 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First Choice SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 02:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Second choice to admonish. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Second choice, and I am only supporting this because of Kwamikagami's controversial move actions with respect to Animal rights movement during this case. Risker (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Completely disproportionate and excessive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Kwamikagami has been an administrator for six and one-half years and is an active contributor in topic-areas where experts are few and far between. Kwamikagami's statement at the acceptance stage of this case was: "I restored a move that was reverted without discussion, but wasn't willing to repeat when that was reverted. I don't have much more to say about it than that." We can all agree that this was not the right action to take, but stepping away rather than further escalating reflects understanding of the need to disengage; and I am prepared to anticipate that this understanding will similarly stop Kwamikagami from any further incidents of move-warring (or edit-warring, for that matter), without the need to desysop. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
It would be unusual (though not unknown) to desysop for a single instance of wheel warring; however, as the community have ongoing concerns regarding Kwamikagami's edit warring and move warring, and he has been blocked for edit warring, it is not out of the question for a desysop to be considered. I am giving this very serious thought as a look through Kwamikagami's history is showing me a person that doesn't appear suited to be an admin. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upon first hearing the skeleton of facts in this case, I thought that the issue was likely administrators simply not realizing that move warring is wheel warring, not edit warring, and a few trouts all around would be sufficient. The level of prior involvement and issues of concerning behavior was not something I expected to see, and am chagrined that the logical conclusion seems to be that the conduct was more severe than it initially seemed. Jclemens (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gnangarra admonished[edit]

5) Gnangarra is 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.

Support:
  1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not exactly as I would word it, but far more proportionate than 6, which is effectively an alternative, although not labelled as such. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. Kirill [talk] 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Only if nothing more substantial passes, otherwise this is an oppose. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. Being the fourth mover is the crunch factor here,  Roger Davies talk 02:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Only choice. Risker (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As per my vote on 3. Courcelles 20:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As per above. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As previous. This was the fourth move without any reasonable discussion or consensus. Where was that fire? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ditto. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
While "reminded" or "advised" is not appropriate for someone who has wheel warred while involved, and an "admonishment" is appropriate, I wonder if "strongly" is too harsh. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would be ok with 'strongly' being removed. PhilKnight (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gnangarra desysopped[edit]

6) Gnangarra is desysopped 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. He may regain the admin toolkit through a fresh request for adminship.

Support:
  1. Almost necessary given the severity of the misconduct required to wheel war while already involved. Courcelles 20:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice, would prefer to just admonish. PhilKnight (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First choice. Kirill [talk] 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. While I am sympathetic to NYB's point, the facts involve both involvement and wheel warring, so I find it hard to excuse the fourth mover in a wheel war, regardless of a prior unblemished administrator record. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First choice. I too find it hard to overlook him being the fourth mover.  Roger Davies talk 02:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Having read the talk page, leniency is probably the right approach,  Roger Davies talk 22:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice to admonish. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Completely disproportionate and excessive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, reiterating my opposition to this desysopping, as to the others that have been proposed. Gnangarra's view that he took the right action in this dispute was clearly incorrect, but I am confident that if we tell him so (as the rest of this decision clearly does), he will not do the same thing again. Gnangarra has been an administrator since passing a unanimous RfA five-and-one-half years ago, with no record of prior problems. The incident that gave rise to this case was unacceptable, but I think would be a terrible overreaction to desysop a good administrator over it, much less three of them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Due to previous clean record, some attempt at discussion, and what appears to be a (albeit mistaken) belief that this was the right thing to do in the circumstances. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer just to admonish. PhilKnight (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This was a spectacularly poor decision on the part of Gnangarra, but it appears that it has been his only genuinely poor decision as an administrator, and was an entirely reparable error in judgment (i.e., nobody's got a block log because of it and the major effect is some drama and a longer page move log). A repeat of similarly poor judgment would lead me to support desysop in the future. Risker (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Risker. Kirill [talk] 23:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Move review procedure[edit]

7) The Arbitration Committee recommends that the availability of the new Wikipedia:Move review procedure be more widely publicized within the project and that editors wishing to dispute the closing of a requested move should utilize this procedure in appropriate cases.

Support:
  1. Proposed for consideration. If a move-review procedure had been available when this dispute arose, I expect that this entire drama could have been avoided or mitigated. Just as editors disputing an XfD close are expected to go to DRV rather than try to revert the close, except in extraordinary circumstances, we can develop a similar expectation here. However, I am concerned that I would probably never have heard that there is now a "move review" procedure and page if I weren't arbitrating this case. It needs greater publicity and more people watching the page. (Alternatively, perhaps it could be posted on the same page as DRV so that all the experienced editors who already watch that page would see it.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We're not mandating, the community created it, and I don't see how putting MORE power back into the community's hands to deal with such disputes via a consensus-based, intermediate decision-review process is outside our remit. We encourage editors to use other dispute resolution methods all the time when we decline premature requests for arbitration, so how is it inappropriate for us to encourage the community to publicize its own processes to increase visibility for future disputes so that they won't need the committee's input in such future cases? Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Academic, I suppose, as this is unlikely to pass but per Jclemens,  Roger Davies talk 02:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't think this is or should be within the role of the Committee; and when the Committee start to go beyond their remit the community start to grow uneasy. There are a body of very experienced people who deal with requested moves, and they are aware of Move review - it is linked at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves. I feel they should be allowed to develop the process as part of normal community development. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Well ultra vires of this body. Courcelles 23:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In regard to wider publization, this could be achieved by linking the to the WP:Move review page. I've added links to WP:Closing discussions, WP:Requested moves, and the WP:Admin noticeboard, but I guess there are probably other pages. PhilKnight (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absent credible evidence that the community as a whole has accepted this new process, this is indeed ultra vires. Kirill [talk] 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. per those above. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Out of remit I believe Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Out of remit. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I am not persuaded that these processes are any less susceptible to the problems that led to the initial rather shaky closure of the initial move discussion; neutral editors who have been driven away from the requested moves processes are not particularly likely to participate in move reviews, and more recent history of other review processes indicates to me that they are often failing in their primary objectives. Thus I cannot support creation of a new process. Risker (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I'd be interested to hear about these recent failures, Risker. I hang out at DRV regularly and am not seeing widespread failure, so if that review process is included in your comment, I may be blind to the problem you perceive with the review processes. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement[edit]

Standard enforcement[edit]

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page.

Comments[edit]
  • If the proposed decision passes in its original form, this standard provision will be unnecessary, as there are no restrictions to enforce. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you're right. -- Lord Roem (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Lord Roem (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 07:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Administrators 12 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Learning from experience 12 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Questioning of administrative actions 12 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Reinstating a reverted action ("wheel warring") 12 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Administrators involved in disputes 12 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Reversal of administrative actions 11 1 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Background 12 0 0 PASSING ·
2 JHunterJ 12 0 0 PASSING ·
3 JHunterJ (response to criticism) 7 2 2 PASSING ·
4 Deacon of Pndapetzim 12 0 0 PASSING ·
5.1 Deacon of Pndapetzim (involvement) 8 4 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
5.2 Deacon of Pndapetzim (involvement) 10 1 0 PASSING ·
6 Deacon of Pndapetzim (prior sanctions) 5 7 0 PASSING ·
7 Kwamikagami 12 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Gnangarra 12 0 0 PASSING ·
9 Use of administrative tools 12 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 JHunterJ advised 8 2 2 PASSING ·
2 Deacon of Pndapetzim advised 7 5 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
2.1 Deacon of Pndapetzim admonished 9 3 0 PASSING ·
2.2 Deacon of Pndapetzim desysopped 2 10 0 PASSING ·
2.3 Deacon of Pndapetzim desysopped (2) 1 9 0 PASSING ·
3 Kwamikagami admonished 7 5 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
4 Kwamikagami desysopped 11 1 0 PASSING ·
5 Gnangarra admonished 8 4 0 PASSING ·
6 Gnangarra desysopped 6 5 0 PASSING ·
7 Move review procedure 3 9 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
None proposed
Notes


Vote[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support
  1. I'm done voting, and it appears as though most issues are decided. Even if everyone who hasn't voted yet does so, it doesn't appear as though things will change significantly unless someone changes their vote. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Everything we're going to pass here currently is passing, so we're done. Courcelles 03:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It's done, people have had enough time, and one of the non-voting arbs has indicated he will remain inactive. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Have reviewed talkpage and left a comment there. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PhilKnight (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
I'd prefer to give the arbitrators who have not yet voted or not yet finished voting a bit more time to do so. Some of them are busy at Wikimania this weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have one more colleague who has yet to finish voting on the remedies, after which I'll withdraw my oppose to closing. I've considered adding additional remedy proposals (i.e. something in between the admonitions that were initially proposed and the desyoppings that are passing instead), but won't do so unless other arbitrators indicate they might support them. I do ask any colleagues who have not followed the discussion on the talkpage (I know that several have) to read through it before voting to close the case. In my six years of following the work of this Committee, I cannot think of a case in which there was a a more unanimous lack of agreement between the community input on the proposed decision talkpage and the remedies adopted in the case. This does not, of course, mean that the outcome is necessarily wrong, but it is nonetheless worthy of some consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitrators whose votes on the remedies were ambiguous have now clarified their first and second choices, without changing the result. No arbitrators in the majority have indicated they are reevaluating their positions or would support intermediate remedy proposals if I offered them. That being the case, I have no principled alternative but to withdraw my opposition to closing the case, even though I continue to disagree with the desysopping outcomes (particularly as to Gnangarra) more strongly than I have disagreed with any other decision in my four-plus years as an arbitrator. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since I wrote these words, the result has changed with respect to one of the proposed desysoppings. I personally do not support the other proposed desysopping either, but am not sure whether any arbitrators are reconsidering their positions on that one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Proposed_decision&oldid=1079525700"