Revision as of 13:35, 11 June 2012

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Perth wheel war

Initiated by P.T. Aufrette (talk) at 02:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• P.T. Aufrette, filing party
• JHunterJ
• Deacon of Pndapetzim
• Kwamikagami
• Gnangarra

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• User talk:JHunterJ
• User talk:Gnangarra
• Talk:Perth, Western Australia
• WP:ANI#Perth

There has been a fair amount of (somewhat unproductive) discussion at various talk pages. However, according to WP:WHEELWAR: "Wheel warring usually results in an immediate Request for Arbitration". Based on that wording, I am filing here. If the case should be declined, I would ask that arbitrators provide guidance or suggested replacement wording for the WP:WHEELWAR page.

Statement by P.T. Aufrette

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

  added:    and simultaneously to move Perth to Perth (disambiguation).

• May 27: Kwamikagami !votes "Support" in the requested move survey.
• May 31: Gnangarra !votes "Oppose" in the requested move survey.
• June 9, 12:38: JHunterJ closes the requested move survey, with the result of "moved", and moves the article.
• June 9, 16:49: Deacon of Pndapetzim reverts the move . There is no prior discussion, but there are after-the-fact posts shortly afterward that question the impartiality of the original closure by JHunterJ.
• June 9, 23:57: P.T. Aufrette posts to WP:ANI calling for the original closure outcome to be restored pending a review at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closure review (recently renamed to Misplaced Pages:Move review). 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". 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". 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. JHunterJ's part in this supposed "discussion" consisted of a single 12-word sentence posted at 11:08 pm his local time, which Gnangarra unaccountably claims to represent JHunterJ's acquiescence to Gnangarra reverting JHunterJ. 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 Misplaced Pages:Move review or similar mechanism. However, it is not clear whether any or all parties would accept a resolution via Move review , 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.

In summary my contention is this:

1. A wheel war did indeed take place.
2. 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:

1. His getting involved at a late stage, when the wheel war really should have been cooling down rather than being perpetuated.
2. 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.
3. 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." even after the admin in question told him on his own talk page that this was false.

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

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)

Comment by somewhat involved editor Orderinchaos

While I'm unhappy that things got to what they did in this situation, I think that the focus on individuals in this case is simply poking the Wikidrama beast. All of the four admins involved acted in good faith - there were two possible readings of the RM, which had a final vote count of 19 to 13. 1 - It had closed in favour of a move, with 60% in support. Or 2 - The sizable opposition was enough to consider consensus had not been reached. The end situation - the previous status quo - is a point from where an RfC of some sort could be initiated on the topic of where the page should be, and the move-warring can be regarded as an regrettable past incident and we can all move on. Orderinchaos 06:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Edited statement to correct an error as pointed out above (I'd previously said no admin tools were required to perform the move.) Orderinchaos 08:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Collect

Am I correct that Kwami was "involved" per se by his !vote in the move discussion, and therefore Kwami's revert of the "move" was the improper act here (albeit not likely intended to be improper - just improper as far as any "wheel-war" claims are concerned here)? In fact, it is the only improper act I see in the whole furschlugginer list. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Question from Cla68

You guys really can't talk this out without having to resort to arbitration? Cla68 (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

A point from peripherally involved Black Kite

The only people who were involved in a wheel war here were Kwamikagami (definitely) and possibly Gnangarra (depending on whether he had the agreement of the original admin, and even then it's still not a good idea). The original two editors were acting in accordance with WP:BRD which would have been fine if there had then been discussion. WP:WHEEL is quite clear - "Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion. Resolve admin disputes by discussing."

What is more concerning is that both Kwamikagami and Gnangarra had commented in the discussion and supported the version that they reverted to, thus violating WP:INVOLVED as well. Having said that, I don't think anything more than a very large trout and a admonishment not to do it again is needed here. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Deacon of Pndapetzim

This is not a very complicated issue. P.T. Aufrette started an RM discussion on moving Perth, Western Australia, to Perth. He did not gain consensus, and he's tried to intimidate various users (esp. Gnangarra), and made multiple posts, first on talk pages, then on AN/I, and now here, to try to get the name he wants. The AN/I thread he'd opened has already been closed. Everyone but Aufrette has already stepped out and been reconciled to the community's decision. At worst there are minor issues not worthy of ArbCOm's notice, but I'm not even sure "wheelwarring" is part of these 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, as BK reminds me on my page, such pages are supposed to be removable without reference to any admin/non-admin competence; see for instance). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

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

• 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  13:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)