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

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

Case Opened on 17:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Case Closed on 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page unless you are an Arbitrator or Clerk, or are making yourself a party to this case. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; as such, they should never be changed. (In the case of lengthy statements, an exerpt only may be given here, in which case the full copy will be added to the talk page—where any statements by uninvolved editors during the Requests phase will also be saved.) Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should be added to the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but the other content of this page should not be edited. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of remedies to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information

Involved parties

P.T. Aufrette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
JHunterJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Gnangarra (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Preliminary statements

Statement by P.T. Aufrette

May 25: P.T. Aufrette starts a requested move survey, to move Perth, Western Australia to Perth. [1]

added: and simultaneously to move Perth to Perth (disambiguation).
May 27: Kwamikagami !votes "Support" in the requested move survey.[2]
May 31: Gnangarra !votes "Oppose" in the requested move survey.[3]
June 9, 12:38: JHunterJ closes the requested move survey, with the result of "moved",[4] and moves the article. [5]
June 9, 16:49: Deacon of Pndapetzim reverts the move [6]. There is no prior discussion, but there are after-the-fact posts shortly afterward that question the impartiality of the original closure by JHunterJ.[7][8]
June 9, 23:57: P.T. Aufrette posts to WP:ANI calling for the original closure outcome to be restored pending a review at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review (recently renamed to Wikipedia:Move review). [9] The issue of a perceived affiliation (of Deacon of Pndapetzim) is raised (also here).
June 10, 02:15: Kwamikagami re-reverts, restoring the original closure outcome, with edit summary "please don't wheel war". [10] It is not clear if this was done by way of response to the earlier call to do so, or was done independently.
June 10, 07:13: Gnangarra re-re-reverts the move with edit summary "as per discussion at closing admin talk page". [11][12] This edit summary is a particular point of contention: my claim is that no such discussion took place, and the aforesaid closing admin JHunterJ concurs.[13] JHunterJ's part in this supposed "discussion" consisted of a single 12-word sentence posted at 11:08 pm his local time,[14] which Gnangarra unaccountably claims to represent JHunterJ's acquiescence to Gnangarra reverting JHunterJ.[15][16][17][18][19] Gnangarra (in Australia) then carried out the revert during the overnight hours in JHunterJ's time zone, while JHunterJ was not posting and was presumably offline sleeping.

Regarding the contentious original move closure, that is not the topic of this arbitration request. It is my hope that it can be addressed via Wikipedia:Move review or similar mechanism. However, it is not clear whether any or all parties would accept a resolution via Move review [20], which leaves the original issue up in the air. An evaluation by Arbcom of the suitability of the relatively new and untried Move review procedure might be helpful, as would any suggestions for how a similar situation could be handled better in the future, or how the current contention over the move outcome can be steered towards a final resolution.

Vegaswikian (talk · contribs) has now started a move review — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In summary my contention is this:

A wheel war did indeed take place.
Per WP:WHEELWAR, RfArb is indeed the appropriate venue, per the wording "Wheel warring usually results in an immediate Request for Arbitration."

@Orderinchaos: You are mistaken, admin tools were needed, because the target Perth was/is a disambiguation page.

12:38, 9 June 2012 JHunterJ (talk | contribs) deleted page Perth (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
16:50, 9 June 2012 Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk | contribs) deleted page Perth (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
02:15, 10 June 2012 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) deleted page Perth (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
07:15, 10 June 2012 Gnangarra (talk | contribs) deleted page Perth (G6: Deleted to make way for move)

@Cla68: Gnangarra's role is the one that most concerns me, because of:

His getting involved at a late stage, when the wheel war really should have been cooling down rather than being perpetuated.
His disingenuous, if not absurd, claim to have gotten acquiescence from JHunterJ "per discussion". Please check the links provided. Given that "Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action.", it seems as though he invented a non-existent discussion in order to carry out a wheel-warring action while escaping sanction or censure for doing so. I think he needs a formal rap on the knuckles, at the very least.
The subsequent discussion with him on talk pages has been particularly unproductive and unsatisfactory. He continues to make the claim that "...its clear the admin had no issue with a reversal."[21] even after the admin in question told him on his own talk page that this was false.[22]

— P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Deacon of Pndapetzim:

~~I'm not sure how a non-admin can "intimidate" admins. Please post diffs.~~ (Deacon of Pndapetzim rewrote his original statement.)
~~Making multiple posts to talk pages would be the minimum expected prior to taking it to RfArb.~~ (Deacon of Pndapetzim rewrote his original statement.)
You carried out your action in the wrong way (reverting another admin with no prior talk discussion), and you were the wrong person to do it: as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland it could be inferred rightly or wrongly that you could possibly have had a pre-formed opinion about whether the former capital of medieval Scotland (Perth) should be considered a primary topic. No less than Kwamikagami and Gnangarra, you left yourself open to questions about whether you used administrator tools to further your own personal editing goals. When that concern was raised, you were a bit dismissive.[23] ~~And now you are trying to make this personal.~~ (Deacon of Pndapetzim rewrote his original statement.)
~~added: JHunterJ can speak for himself, but he didn't sound entirely reconciled to your actions and statements [24] or to those of Gnangarra.[25]~~ (Deacon of Pndapetzim rewrote his original statement.)

— P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"As far as I can see, every uninvolved admin, on AN/I and elsewhere, agreed with my decision." — that is a very sweeping claim. The original version of your statement here made a similarly broad everyone-agrees-with-me claim.[26] If the ArbCom wishes to authorize some kind of survey among admins, that might be helpful. In any case, even those who share your position on how the move request should have been closed might be troubled by the way you went about it reversing it: very hastily, without prior discussion, and as a possibly WP:INVOLVED party (broadly construed). — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite:

Deacon of Pndapetzim may also have been WP:INVOLVED, per:
"...administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community..."

[emphasis mine] — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnangarra:

~~In your statement there is the phrase "...along with a recommendation to consider how a similar long term RM progressed". Can you provide a diff to justify this?~~ OK, maybe he's referring to his own recommendation here. A poorly phrased run-on sentence led to confusion.

To be clear: JHunterJ's entire participation in the supposed "discussion" was this single 12-word sentence:

"You missed the part where someone else reversed my actions for me"

with edit summary:

"too late to reverse"

posted June 10 at 03:08 UTC just before he called it a day and went to sleep in his time zone. I interpret that to mean he was unaware of Kwamikagami's re-revert less than an hour earlier, and thought that the status quo was Deacon of Pndapetzim's reversal. Your immediate reaction (June 10 03:12) seemingly shared this same interpretation;[27] when addressing JHunterJ directly on his talk page in this and one subsequent post (June 10 03:40–03:45),[28] you did not say anything along the lines of "hey, I see you from your statement that you now question your own original decision, thanks for saying that you have no further interest or concerns... so, I guess you're happy if I revert again?"

On the other hand, in the following hours and days you have seemingly posted an endless variety of interpretations of this one short sentence, namely:

June 10 03:15 "the admin who closed the discussion has indicated otherwise [implying a change of mind]" [29]
June 10 03:24 "The last comment by J on the matter indicates that he also question his decision."[30]
June 10 07:13 "per discussion with closing admin" (in your edit summaries, implying that a discussion had taken place)[31][32]
June 10 07:23 "I take that as being JhunterJ isnt interested in discussing the matter and was happy that the reversal had occur. No other discussion has taken place to indicate otherwise" [33]
June 10 11:13 "JhunterJ response was to say his moves were reversed and he had no further interest nor any concern about the reversal" [34]
June 10 11:17 "JhunterJ said his move had been reverted, he raised no issue about that, I just complied with that." [35]
June 10 23:57 "the admin closing had dismissed further discussion by saying You missed the part where someone else reversed my actions for me, by which its clear the admin had no issue with a reversal." [36]
June 11 01:06 "actually you dismissed my request to discuss the mater saying its been reverted" [37]
"nor did it appear to me that he was willing to discuss the closure, in fact I said to me I've been reverted I'm happy to leave it at that" [your statement below]

This is already a bit contradictory (was your action "per discussion", with JHunterJ having "no concern" about your reversal, or was there no discussion at all because it was "dismissed" and refused?). ~~And now you're saying there was a "recommendation" embedded in there too?~~ OK, maybe he's referring to his own recommendation here. A poorly phrased run-on sentence led to confusion.

I really don't understand how you could possibly read so many different things into a single 12-word sentence! And your relatively long statement posted here hasn't clarified that at all. A person reading the above flurry of comments, in totality, would probably imagine there had been some kind of long discussion, which never happened. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS, When I found both you and Kwamikagami had !voted, in all honesty I had to add that relevant fact about him to the timeline. I do feel bad for Kwamikagami, who clearly felt he was trying to halt a wheel war instead of participating in one. In my WP:ANI post I had asked for "an uninvolved and impartial administrator to restore the original closure outcome" [38] I have not asked for any specific sanctions at all, not even against you, other than trout. The rest is up to the arbitrators to call it as they see it. My main goal is simply simply that this situation should not happen again. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PPS, "If the move was left in place the issue could spill over into some 10,000 articles"' — really? You are literally saying that ten thousand articles would have been modified or moved in a harmful way if you had waited even, say, half a day or took the time to have an actual discussion? ~~For instance, you could have also tried contacting Kwamikagami on his talk page and asking him to reverse himself; it did not hinge on JHunterJ alone.~~ OK, he did... implicitly.[39] And you repeat the "10,000" articles claim a short while later, so it wasn't just momentary hyperbole. How did you come up with this numerical estimate, which set of articles was at risk, and who exactly was about to move/modify all of them unless you took urgent emergency measures? — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In his subsequent edit, Gnangarra yet again (for the third time) invokes a half-baked 10,000-article emergency as justification for immediate reversal without discussion. I don't think that's grounded in reality. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Bidgee:

Categories are never renamed automatically. They must be nominated, either at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy or (if anyone at all objects to the speedy) they have to go to a full Wikipedia:Categories for discussion nomination. Even a speedy with no objections cannot be completed in less than 48 hours (at the end of that waiting period, a bot is unleashed to actually carry out the rename).
If the move request is carried out, Perth, Western Australia becomes a redirect to Perth. All old links work as before. Except perhaps for limited and specially-approved purposes, there is no bot currently operating that automatically substitutes redirects, which would be contrary to editing guidelines (see Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken). Any such wholesale link substitution would have to be carried out at human speed, not at bot speed. And why would anyone rush to do so within hours of the move request closure? All the old [[Perth, Western Australia|Perth]] links keep working in any case.
Perth was/is a disambiguation page, any incoming links are erroneous or outdated. As far as I can see, nearly all of them are from archived talk page discussions, very few people will be viewing those. There are only two incoming links from article space, and they're both redirects (a third is Perth (disambiguation) itself, which is what the old Perth would get renamed to). Someone who clicks on one of these old Perth links and ends up at an article about the Western Australian city will either 1) be exactly where they expected to be, or 2) click on the hatnote that sends them to Perth, Scotland or to Perth (disambiguation).

You and Gnangarra are making it sound like every rename of an article in Wikipedia is fraught with tremendous and immediate implications. That just isn't the case. There was no 10,000-article emergency here. There was plenty of time to have a discussion first. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kwamikagami

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. — kwami (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Deacon of Pndapetzim

Knowing the details of this case, I cannot foresee any useful "feedback" that either Kwami or Gnangarra (or indeed anyone else) could reasonably have that could possibly justify the activity of a full case. There were a total of 4 pages moves, and only 2 of them could be construed as "wheelwarring"; they were not repeated and did not alter the course of events. Even Kwami's, a hot-heated but understandable reaction to a personal reversal, was quickly overturned and did not cause any major issues. Gnangarra can hardly be at fault, since all he/she did was reverse involved party intervention when there was already consensus at AN/I for status quo; someone had to do it, so chastising Gnangarra is hardly a fair course of action.

I'm not even sure "wheelwarring" is at issue for anyone here, since moving a page is not a special ability of admins (though it is true that admins can in practice delete pages in the way, this is not relevant to an administrator's formal power as such pages are theoretically supposed to be removable without reference to any admin/non-admin competence; see for instance). I think SatuSuro's comments at Talk:Perth, Western Australia are pertinent here ("wheels of bureaucracy ...incredible waste of time and energy"). I suspect too few of you Arbs like football /soccer and want something to do with no other cases and Euro 2012 going on!

As my name has been raised, let me repeat what I said on the Perth thread and on AN/I: I reversed the close because it was done improperly (closing judgment referred only to the JHunterJ's own opinions, not the discussion being closed) and was clearly wrong (there was nothing like "consensus"). I have closed hundreds of RMs in my time here, I doubt there are more than a handful of admins who've closed more. When I learned the RM ropes you closed based on the outcome of the discussion, whatever your own preference. But these days more and more of them are being closed without any convincing reference to policy or to the discussion, where one admin exercises a "super vote" with little if any reference to the relevant parts of the actual discussion into which lots of users have already invested time and effort. This is bad practice, and will result in the weakening of the WP:RM system. RM after all is not part of official policy, and it only works at present because participants believe they have an excellent chance of a fair decision.

As far as I can see, every uninvolved admin, on AN/I and elsewhere, agreed with my decision. There were some questions about the method, i.e. doing it straight away instead of having a long discussion about it first. Often the latter method is good, but please don't be led to believe that slavishly following a "rule-of-thumb" like this is always the best way to do things. I did not think it was best here because the priority was to fix the decision before it created more hostility / drama between the participants or stress for JHunterJ. Indeed, if you confine attention to the original issue, you can see that this has been vindicated. However, in such an affair inevitably passions exist, and two of the discussion's support "voters" reacted to it in extreme ways; one by moving the page to his preferred choice, and the other, the original poster P.T. Aufrette, by launching AN/I and ArbCom threads targetting those whose actions interfered with his desired outcome. In hindsight it may be the case that I happened to be "wrong" to have acted quickly, but I don't think you can say I was at "fault" since these types of reactions are very rare.

As for accusations that I was "involved" because I am a member of WikiProject Medieval Scotland: being a member of a related wikiproject is not and never has been a criterion for "involvement". Indeed there are members of Scottish wikiprojects voting for the proposal, and Australian members against it (see data from Orderinchaos: it is not even clear that project membership was statistically important, save for likelihood to participate).

Finally, naming conflicts arise because wikipedia-article names are tied to wikipedia-page urls and thus have to be unique. This is not inevitable and could easily be avoided by a minor if traumatic one-off change to Wikipedia's software interface (c/f ODNB). The stress, conflict and wasted energy for this are extremely costly to the project. Perhaps there should be wider debate about how necessary such wasted wikienergy is. This case is fairly frivolous one that certainly would have been rejected out of hand by past ArbComs, but since you seem to be going ahead with it, perhaps more attention to this issue could be one way of making it useful. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two points of clarification, prompted by comments by P.T. Aufrette and JHunterJ above.

1. I did not accuse JHunterJ of partiality. I have never claimed / nor do I hold that JHunterJ's private opinions are relevant; these are unknown to me and by default I would expect JHunterJ to be able to ignore them. As can be verified very easily,[40] what I actually said was that JHunterJ's closing judgment resembled a support "vote", not a closing judgment.

2. I have not altered anything in this statement in response to anything written by P.T. Aufrette (which I had not even scanned until today).Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JHunterJ

I originally closed the move request, and I did so in accordance with WP:RMCI, WP:NOTVOTE, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and the guidelines and policies raised in the discussion, or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The move was reverted by Deacon of Pndapetzim without discussion; he did note it on my talk page. The revert was reverted by Kwamikagami based (I assume) on a brief conversation at Wikipedia talk:Move review#Perth. The revert-revert was reverted without discussion by Gnangarra, although his edit summary implies fruitful discussion with me. The only conversation he and I had before his reversion was his suggestion that I self-revert and my pointing out the impossibility of that (since D of P had already reverted). I do still continue to disagree with the reverts that I see countrary to WP:RMCI, WP:NOTVOTE, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the claim below that anyone was attacking D of P because he was Scottish is rubbish. Gnangarra's claim that "nor did it appear to me that [JHunterJ] was willing to discuss the closure" is at odds with the implied acquiescence of his move edit summary "as per discussion at closing admin talk page reversing closure to prior status quo" (and also at odds with my sleepy time, which was longer he gave the "discussion" a chance to occur). -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says that local consensus can't override "wider" community consensus. Which is why move requests aren't votes. Which is why I listed the relevant broader community consensus guidelines and policies raised in the discussion. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Arguments presented in the discussion should be evaluated along with the guidelines and policies raised in the discussion. Just because one conclusion is reached by such an evaluation is not an indication that the arguments against that conclusion were ignored; if that's mistaken, the guidelines need to be rewritten to recognize that unanimous consent is required to effect any change. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, any claims that my close was "clearly wrong" are clearly wrong. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now straying from the topic at hand, but in response to Black Kite,as I read it, yes, the vast majority of "Support" votes agreed with the proposers analysis that the Australian Perth is the primary topic per the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline, while many of the opposers used non-guidelines-based "it's fine as is" (not that the change wouldn't be an improvement, just that navigation is possible under the current navigation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica, Dicklyon, OohBunnies! (and predictably Neotarf and George Ho): open up an RFCU, ANI, or whatever about my actions, since we obviously disagree about them. This isn't that forum, and you're just over-dramaizing something that's already over-dramaed. Since Dicklyon and Noetica (and George Ho) disagree with WP:PRECISION and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (they feel more topics that are currently primary for their title should instead have added qualifiers), I understand you would rather have admins unfamiliar with those guidelines closing the move requests. I have a very hard time understanding the rationale behind Dicklyon's (and possibly Tony1's) equating familiarity with one particular area of the Wikipedia guidelines with a conflict of interest in discussions where those guidelines apply. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any instances of "JHunterJ responds to Deacon raising Scottish connection of Deacon" should be read "JHunterJ points out the absurdity of Deacon's accusations of lack of impartiality".[41] -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jc37, for the good faith. As for the bureaucracy of the disambiguation guidelines, they are all there for the benefit of reader navigation. My WP activity is centered around them (and they're why I got my mop). I contributed heavily to them, but they do not reflect my input alone (if they did, they would be somewhat different). I take those guidelines (even the ones I disagreed with when they were adopted) and apply them faithfully (not bureaucratically) to disambiguation pages and WP navigation. If the application of the existing guidelines is hindering the encyclopedia, we should fix the guidelines. I'm catching a lot of flak from a small group of editors over that application only very recently (and you're right, I'm probably acting as a lightning rod by the nature of some of the admin tasks performed), but requests for improvements to the guidelines to better guide improvements the encyclopedia have not gained any traction. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist, I have not "simply" said "Take me to RFC/U or ANI". My interactions with Noetica and George Ho (and Dicklyon and Neotarf to a lesser extent) have been much more extensive than that. In particular Noetica's inability to be civil or assume good faith during those interactions keeps me from expending much more than that with each additional iteration. I have no problems seeing it through; pointing out that this ArbCom bit is about wheel warring and is not an RFC/U is not a dodge. "Altenatively, you could settle the dispute" pretends I have some magical ability to please everyone. If that is required of admins, I will have to give up the mop (but I suspect the broom closet will be overflowing). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Or are you saying your peer is also, like those other editors, unable to assume good faith and act civilly?" What have I said about Black Kite that is anything close to that strawman? As to settling disputes, I have also done so in the past. If you know how to do so in this case, please tell me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gnangarra

I stand by my actions as being necessary and within the requirements of admins on Wikipedia. To consider only those events after the closure of the RM doesnt address the cause of the actions and will not actually resolve the matter. I realise that nine arbcom members have already indicated that this should only consider the actions of myself, Kwamikagami and possibly Deacon of Pndapetzim.

Yes I voted in the rm, I voted oppose to the move on the basis that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC metrics are flawed, I also commented after PT Aufrette responded to another oppose that prior discussions on the matter were irrelevent when an oppose quoted a 2004 discussion that said "lets shake hands and move on". That was an unnecessary attack on that person comment but it also indicates that the naming of Perth articles has been subject to alot of discussion over a significant period of time. The resolution from these discussion has always resulted in the compromise of no primary topic. If JhunterJ had rad the discussion and looked at the arguments presented he(presumed) would had to be aware that;

the naming affects more than one article
its been subject to previous discussion
the closure needed to be concise, well thought out, and clear to all who participated. something we expect all admins to do when handling such matters

JhunterJ closed the rm as move with the reasoning I will update the hatnote to include a direct link to the location in Scotland, so that readers seeking that will still be the same one-click from it. Both have long-term significance, but the readership usage does indicate a better efficient arrangement by putting the Australian city at the base name, and being the namesake is not one of the primary topic criteria the statement doesnt show any indication of being a consider closure it make no acknowledgement of arguments put and says stated both have long term significance the key factor to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This closure was never going to resolve the issue, in fact it clearly positioned itself for dispute and thats what happened.

Deacon of Pndapetzim reverted the move then responded the closure looks too much like a vote. JhunterJ responded with no it wasnt it was summary of guidelines brought up in the debate, I challenge that comment as there is no summary of the discussion no idications of policies. JhunterJ quoted WP:RMCI instruction on how to close, WP:NOTVOTE judge arguements base on presented arguments dont count and most importantly [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS] which says wikiprojects cant make policies/guidelines that override community guidelines. Why is this last one most important its because it clearly indicates that the closure wasnt based on the arguments presented but ignored the opinions of what was percieved as a specific group of editors. Deacon responded again and pointng out that JhunterJ didnt make any reference to the discussion, this was followed by P.T.Aufrette posting to AN/I asking for the original decision to re-instated and that the move decision be discussed at Wikipedia:Move review which I'll point out was a proposal and is still tagged as such at the time of writting this and the page also notes that it is draft subject to change and has yet to seek community approval.

To me it appears Kwamikagami responded from P.T.Aufrette request at ANI to reinstate the original closure if so to then request sanctions against him for carrying out his request is outright disgusting falls outside the expectations on every editor to be WP:CIVIL. IMHO Kwamikagami should be removed as a respodent from this ARBCOM discussion.

At this point is where I see actions should be considered based on the reasoning for the excluding the RM closures, by that assessment Deacon has also not participated in the events. In fact it leaves only my actions to be considered and possibly those of JhunterJ and P.T.Aufrette. It also means that I am no longer an involved admin as the actions are not related to the events of the RM.

P.T.Aufrette states in his statement of events that I came in late to the discussions, yes I did come in after some discussion had taken place but like P.T.Aufrette has said I should have considered that it was night for JhunterJ when asking for a response the same standard should also be applied equally to me and that it was night for me when the JhunterJ took his actions. I dindt come late to the events the events started without me and were occuring before I had any input.

When I came to the discussion it had deteroriated to point where P.T Aurfette and JhunterJ where attacking Deacon because he was Scottish. I intervened and pointed out that the majority of people who oppose were not Scottish and that the suggested place to take his concerns was to a process that doesnt exist.The focus of comments by JhunterJ and P.T.Aufrette continued to follow the Scottish line. I asked JhunterJ Clearly what should happen is that JHunterJ should reverse his actions including the closure and let the community continue its discussion as no consensus has yet been reached JhunterJ response was You missed the part where someone else reversed my actions for me along with a recommendation to consider how a similar long term RM progressed. Obviously JhunterJ wasnt following what was actually happening, nor did it appear to me that he was willing to discuss the closure, in fact I said to me I've been reverted I'm happy to leave it at that. Over on ANI I focused discussion on the fact that Wikipedia:Move review was a porposal and yet to have sort community approval as such admin should not be directing discussion to happen there.

I waited to see if any editor had any further input on the matter noone responded the ANI discussion was closed and linked directly to discussion on JhunterJ's talk page. I then made a decision to restore all articles to pre RM position, the reason being that it was obvious there was no consensus for the move. If the move was left in place the issue could spill over into some 10,000 articles, I didnt take the decision lightly nor did I do it to further an opinion I expressed in the discussion.

My decision to restore to the status quo were;

take the "scottish" issue[42][43][44][45][46][47][48] out of the discussion by two means
1. to have people focus on me where the fact that I'm Western Australian and live in Perth Western Australia means race is no longer an issue
2. and to refocus on the naming issue, only partly done as the matter was sent to arbcom before I could start it[49][50]
protecting Wikipedia from potential disruption across approxiamately 10,000 articles(Kwam also notes discussion will be a long drawn out process ahead[51])

(Submitted by e-mail to arbcom-l due to technical issues. Posted here at Courcelles 04:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

looks like the technical issues are fixed, thx Courcelles for posting Gnan garra 12:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

diffs No consensus observations by editors on the Perth, WA talk page During RM

comment by User:Hack who supported move that it be closed as NC 8 June [52]
response by User:Bjenks who opposed move "Hear Hear" [53]
oppose vote by User:Deskford agree with call for closure as there is no consensus [54]
comment by User:Orderinchaos who supports the move - seems to be 50/50 I tend to agree with this inspite of the fact that many opposers have questionable reasons [55]

these are the last four comments of the RM by people with an even split of positions in earlier discussion. Any admin closing should take note such of a discussion as a clear indicator that the discussion had advanced to probable conclusion.

post closure

you have got to be kidding! User:Sabrebd [56]
revert by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim, change to NC [57]
1. User:P.T. Aufrette notes his posting to WP:ANI [58] requesting RM decision be restored despite two editors already questioning the closure.
2. at this point JhunterJ responds with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:NOTVOTE and WP:RMCI. first clear indication that closure wasnt based on discussion as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is about Wikiproject making their policies contary to community policies. There is no policy about naming on Wikiproject:Scottland, contrary to the community policy WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Nor was any issue about WP:SCOTLAND having such a policy raised in the discussion.
User:Nyttend questions the closure [59]. note that Nyttend is an admin and has over 150,000 edits and didnt revert Deacons action.

Thats 3 people post closure who have disputed the closure, one person who supports it, exluding JhunterJ. JhunterJ is at this stage aware that his closure is disputed as is P.T.Aufrette, PT Aufrette never advised ANI that the closure has a number of people besides Deacon questioning it.

moved to RM closure decision by User:Kwamikagami [60]

restored to pre:RM Status Quo by myself [61]

This is the sequence of events on Perth WA talkpage we have seven editors who editted the page interpreting the discussion as no consensus, the closure as move, a reversal and one supporting the move. Of that 3 people questioning the closure post closure, one supporting and one from ANI just following the request there. That is a 3-1 or 7-1 ratio of editors who expressed the outcome of the RM as no-consensus excluding JhnuterJ who expressly said he isnt expressing an opinion.

On ANI prior to move by Kwamikagmi

post by PT Aufrette[62]
immediate comment by Robby The Penguin about no explanation by deacon [63]
next comment also by Robby noting that Deacon has explained[64]
followed by Nyttend supporting Deacons action and clear disputing the closure[65]
1. deacon posts to ani explains his action and also notes there is no procedure for reversing a RM closure[66] this starts a seperate thread
immediately followed by User:Dennis Brown also support Deacons action and advising JhunterJ and others to discuss it at move review [67]
JhunterJ responding to Dennis Brown saying D should take it to RM, and defneding the closure again citing WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, NOTVOTE and RMCI[68]
1. JhunterJ responds to Deacon raising Scottish connection of deacon[69]
User:Robby now says D action is fine and JhunterJ closure is clearly out of order[70]

There are now two more editors also agreeing that JhunterJ closure wasnt what the discussion had decided. There had been no new editors in support of the closure, and ANI discussion also endourses the reversal of the RM by Deacon.

Its after this that Kwamikagmi reverts to the rm closure, from then until I restored to pre:RM which is also the same as Deacon no new editors entered the discussion. Post closure there are 5 editors who dispute the closure and 1 who supports it, and an endoursement from ANI of the Status Quo.

Then add to this JhunterJs response to my request for him to revert. Yes my edit summaries could have been better phrased, but the Status Quo had clear consensus in all formuns. To have the article remain at Perth contry to consensus would have trigger edits to aproxiamately 10,000 articles, categories etc while this may be handled easily by a bot it would have needed to be reversed the flow on affects to other users isnt insignificant and during such a process it common for vandalism to be enshrined for longer then normal in articles causing even more issues.

Preliminary decision

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (10/0/1/0)

Accept to examine the conduct of everyone involved. As I see it, three distinct allegations have been made:
1. That Deacon of Pndapetzim and/or Kwamikagami and/or Gnangarra inappropriately reversed other administrators' actions, thereby violating provisions #3 and #4 of WP:TOOLMISUSE;
2. That Kwamikagami and/or Gnangarra inappropriately engaged in administrative actions while involved, thereby violating provision #1 of WP:TOOLMISUSE; and
3. That Gnangarra engaged in administrative actions under false pretenses, thereby violating provisions #1 and #4 of WP:ADMINACCT.
Each of these allegations is sufficiently serious as to warrant further investigation, and each is in and of itself potentially sanctionable if found to be true. Kirill ^[talk] 13:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Broadly per Kirill. There are kits if conduct issues here to investigate, so it almost goes without saying, but one thing we will not be deciding is where the article on a large city in Western Australia should live. Courcelles 14:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I do see Deacon of Pndapetzim as someone whose conduct needs review here. Courcelles 20:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept albeit somewhat reluctantly. Like DoP, this isn't really what I think of when someone mentions wheel-warring, but it does technically use the admin tools, and the conduct by everyone involved could certainly use a review. Given the nature of the dispute and the presence of the "delete to make way for move" checkbox, I'm ok with this going straight to us. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept: per Kirill, Roger Davies ^talk 14:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. And can the Clerks arrange an extra delivery of fish please - I think we might need it. Reverting a bold move is fine, but reverting a move immediately after a closed discussion is not how you do it - although it's not technically wheel warring, and the admin carrying out the action appears to be WP:INVOLVED. And any reverts after that are wheel warring, regardless of any other offences. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. In my view, the scope of the case ought to be the administrator actions of Kwamikagami and Gnangarra. AGK [•] 15:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. PhilKnight (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, per AGK. Not seeing Deacon as a key player here. Risker (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The Arbitration Committee has received email communication from Gnangarra that s/he has been experiencing extensive technical difficulties in posting to this page. This is in keeping with widespread reports of technical difficulties being encountered by many Wikipedians. The absence of a statement by Gnangarra should not be interpreted as an unwillingness to comment here. Risker (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further, he has sent a statement to the arbcom-l list. I've placed it above exactly as it was received. Courcelles 04:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Administrators

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

Passed 12 to 0 at 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Learning from experience

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

Passed 12 to 0 at 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Questioning of administrative actions

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

Passed 12 to 0 at 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Reinstating a reverted action ("wheel warring")

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)

Passed 12 to 0 at 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Administrators involved in disputes

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

Passed 12 to 0 at 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Reversal of administrative actions

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.

Passed 11 to 1 at 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Background

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

Passed 12 to 0 at 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

JHunterJ

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

Passed 12 to 0 at 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

JHunterJ (response to criticism)

3) JHunterJ's response to criticism of the move request close was at times problematic.[71][72]

Passed 7 to 2, with 2 abstentions, at 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim

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]

Passed 12 to 0 at 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim (involvement)

5) 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.[73] Over the course of several years editing, Deacon of Pndapetzim has also made a few edits to Perth related articles.[74], [75], [76] In this context, Deacon of Pndapetzim could reasonably be considered an editor who was involved with editing this topic area.

Passed 10 to 1 at 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Kwamikagami

6) 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]

Passed 12 to 0 at 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Gnangarra

7) 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]

Passed 12 to 0 at 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of administrative tools

8) The page moves which occurred on 9 and 10 June 2012 required the use of administrative tools to delete the associated redirect.[77] 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.

Passed 12 to 0 at 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Remedies

JHunterJ advised

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

Passed 8 to 2, with 2 abstentions, at 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim admonished

2) 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.

Passed 9 to 3 at 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Kwamikagami desysopped

3) 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.

Passed 11 to 1 at 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Gnangarra admonished

4) 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.

Passed 8 to 4 at 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. Unless otherwise specified, the standardised enforcement provision applies to this case.