Revision as of 09:26, 7 July 2012

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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 active arbitrators. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.

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

Proposed 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
3. SilkTork 23:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies 09:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Courcelles 19:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

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)
2. (Slightly duplicative of 1, but it's not really a problem.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
3. SilkTork 23:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies 09:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Courcelles 19:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
3. SilkTork 23:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies 09:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Courcelles 19:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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)

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
3. SilkTork 23:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies 09:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Courcelles 19:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
3. SilkTork 23:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies 09:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Courcelles 19:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed 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.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
3. SilkTork 23:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Courcelles 19:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
2. True as a statement of fact. Note that this is not an adverse finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
3. SilkTork 23:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Courcelles 19:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
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 00:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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)

Deacon of Pndapetzim

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

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
3. This was the first case of the now established Misplaced Pages: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 00:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Courcelles 19:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

3.1) 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 , and by making edits to the topic, sometimes in relation to the name, , , .

Support:

1. SilkTork 09:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Kwamikagami

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

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
2. True statement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
3. SilkTork 00:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Courcelles 19:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Gnangarra

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

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
3. Courcelles 20:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
4. SilkTork 21:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

He had been discussing the matter. and . SilkTork 00:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

Use of administrative tools

6) The page moves which occurred on 9 and 10 June 2012 required the use of administrative tools to delete the associated redirect. 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)
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)
3. Yes, all the moves, including the initial move, required the deletion tool. SilkTork 00:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Even the original move required admin tools in this case. Courcelles 20:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Thanks for the improvements in wording. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed remedies

JHunterJ advised

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

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages. SilkTork 22:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Deacon of Pndapetzim

Deacon of Pndapetzim advised

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

Support:

1. Thanks to ErikHaugen, who proposed this wording during the workshop phase. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Third choice. SilkTork 09:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

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 23:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 08:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim admonished

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 choice. SilkTork 09:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Deacon of Pndapetzim desysopped

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:

1. Second choice. SilkTork 09:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Kwamikagami admonished

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

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Wheel warring while involved calls for more than an admonishment. Courcelles 20:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Kwamikagami desysopped

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)
2. Second choice, would prefer to just admonish. PhilKnight (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Completely disproportionate and excessive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

It would be unusual (though not unknown) to desyop 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 23:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Gnangarra admonished

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

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. As per my vote on 3. Courcelles 20:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Gnangarra desysopped

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)
2. Second choice, would prefer to just admonish. PhilKnight (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Completely disproportionate and excessive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Move review procedure

7) The Arbitration Committee recommends that the availability of the new Misplaced Pages: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)
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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. I feel they should be allowed to develop the process as part of normal community development. SilkTork 22:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Well ultra vires of this body. Courcelles 23:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Enforcement

Standard enforcement

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

• 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)

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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) 21:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 09:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC) by SilkTork.

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Administrators	2	0	0		·
2	Learning from experience	2	0	0		·
3	Questioning of administrative actions	2	0	0		·
4	Reinstating a reverted action ("wheel warring")	2	0	0		·
5	Administrators involved in disputes	2	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Background	2	0	0		·
2	JHunterJ	2	0	0		·
2.1	JHunterJ	1	0	0		·
3	Deacon of Pndapetzim	2	0	0		·
4	Kwamikagami	2	0	0		·
5	Gnangarra	2	0	0		·
6	Use of administrative tools	2	0	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	JHunterJ advised	1	0	0		·
2	Deacon of Pndapetzim advised	1	0	0		·
3	Kwamikagami admonished	1	0	0		·
4	Gnangarra admonished	1	0	0		·
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
None proposed

Notes

Vote

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

Oppose

Comments