Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence

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

Case clerk: Liz (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Courcelles (Talk) & DeltaQuad (Talk) & Thryduulf (Talk)

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators and clerks may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Writ Keeper

Preliminary statement by Writ Keeper

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The crux of this matter is Kww's use of admin tools and interpretation of the policies relevant to that use. The focal point is Kww's recent block of The Rambling Man, a user whom Kww had been having a disagreement--in fact, arguably an edit war--with over the lists List of awards and nominations received by Philip Seymour Hoffman and List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman. The dispute originated in the Hoffman list; Kww claimed BLP exceptions to further the edit war there, despite Hoffman having been deceased for a year and a half. When the dispute spread to Jackman, after TRM reverted a month-old edit of Kww's there, Kww ended up blocking TRM. Georgewilliamherbert, feeling that this was an edit war and that the block was a breach of WP:INVOLVED, blocked Kww, and I, feeling the same and finding agreement on ANI, unblocked TRM. In the discussion above, and in his unblock requests, Kww has persistently refused to recognize the strong opinions of most commenters that this was a breach of INVOLVED, citing a rather shockingly loose interpretation--in my opinion--of the word "controversial" in the BLP policy to justify his actions.

Secondary to this case is Kww's use of edit filters here and elsewhere to effectively perform admin actions virtually without oversight; I gave an example in the ANI thread of an edit filter Kww made that was basically a permanent, invisible block of an IP address (only in the article namespace, but then the IP editor in question had barely ever edited any other) without warning or notice to other editors. I suspect there are other problematic edit filters. I know that Arbcom doesn't make policy, and that there is little policy around the edit filter, but without policy and without any practical oversight, we must rely on admins' judgement and discretion when it comes to the edit filter, or indeed any situation outside of the strict letter of policy, and I'm not sure I can trust Kww's after seeing these things.

I'm not necessarily condoning either Kww's or TRM's actions prior to the block, but I think Kww's use of the admin tools, both blocking and the derived permission of edit filter manager, is the thing most in need of review here. Given Kww's response to the ANI thread, and the fact that this involves the admin permissions (which is solely Arbcom's territory), I think that Arbcom is the only viable place to resolve this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writ Keeper (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kww blocked TRM in violation of WP:INVOLVED

ANI thread, with commentary and responses from KWW: [1]

Kww and TRM were involved in a content dispute when Kww blocked TRM; thus the block was involved. The dispute started with Kww's edits to the list of awards received by Philip Seymour Hoffman; they removed content--admittedly unsourced--from the list and ultimately converted it into a redirect. TRM reverted, posting a request for more refs on the talk page, and Kww re-reverted, initiating an edit war, which Kww justified by citing the BLP policy [2]. TRM used rollback in this edit war (e.g. [3]). Note that Philip Seymour Hoffman has been dead for over a year, so it is questionable whether BLP can even begin to apply. The edit war spread to a similar list about Hugh Jackman, in much the same style (though no redirect), which led to Kww blocking TRM. Hugh Jackman is, of course, alive, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't an edit war; the exemptions to 3RR include Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.(my emphasis) I don't think that a list of prestigious awards would be considered contentious to any reasonable person. Kww claimed on ANI that miscrediting the award does do harm to the person that actually won, which, frankly, is weaker than weak. And even then, the Hoffman list was on even shakier ground. There are no exemptions at all from 3RR about verifiability or burden of proof, so Kww's argument here that his actions didn't constitute an edit war because of those policies is fundamentally flawed. I would take it as axiomatic that an admin who is currently engaged in an edit war is too involved to block the other party of the edit war (even if they warrant it!), and so Kww's block of TRM was unacceptably involved.

Kww's use of the edit filter is problematic

Kww is a fairly prolific user of the edit filter extension, and some of his filters are problematic, to say the least. One example (only visible to edit filter managers) is edit filter 616. This edit filter in its current state prevents the IP user 187.109.239.254 from editing anything in mainspace; it is effectively a block performed through the edit filter, especially as the IP user had little to no inclination to edit any other namespace. Kww's defense was that the filter was an experiment, but even if that's true (which I must beg leave to doubt), it was so poorly thought out that I can only view it as a serious error in judgement. For one, the filter is set to be hidden, meaning that only edit filter managers can see what it does; this makes the block effectively invisible to all but the handful of EFMs on Wikipedia. Kww re-used a completely unrelated older filter of his for this purpose, which had the effect, if not the intention, of further avoiding scrutiny. Needless to say, invisible blocks are a problem for transparency and admin accountability. Moreover, if this was an experiment, why did Kww not notify, discuss, or seek feedback from anyone, including the IP editor, when he made it? That's not the way to conduct an experiment. Edit filters being what they are, the effective block was also indefinite, as edit filters run until disabled, and it would have been active even today if MusikAnimal hadn't happened to disable it for lack of hits a month later. Finally, what is the purpose of the notification that was shown to the IP when their edit is blocked by the filter? This is not the tone of an innocent, well-intentioned experiment: Until I see progress in this regard, you will not be allowed to edit articles...You can ask to have this lifted at User talk:Kww (emphasis mine). The blocking admin is *not* the admin that gets to have sole jurisdiction over the lifting of the block; in fact, they should be the *last* admin for that. This is a serious misuse of the edit filter; though policy around the edit filter is far from well-defined, it should be perfectly obvious that this kind of thing is not allowed. Dragons flight, a much more capable EFM than I, performed a review of Kww's edit filters on ANI; it is worth a read.

TRM's actions don't require Arbcom

TRM has not been blameless here--he edit-warred just as much as Kww--but I don't think his actions solely in this affair rise to the level of Arbcom sanctions. The worst abuse of tools he perpetrated was a misuse of rollback: a bad thing, certainly, but much less so than an involved block. Moreover, TRM has responded positively to criticism of his actions, promising to improve on his admitted "snippiness", and opening a discussion about his admin bit [4]. Especially given the trend of that discussion, I don't think Arbcom needs to intervene over just this issue regarding TRM.

Oh well

I was hoping to not get drawn into a bickering match at the last moment; there was enough of that at ANI. But here we are. Kww, consider this: the material was challenged because you challenged it. Challenging material that is not obviously controversial or harmful--and the awards are not--is an editorial, content decision, which puts paid your excuse about only being involved in an admin capacity. Thus, any admin action you took was as a result of a content dispute, and so you were involved. Nor do violations even of the verifiability policy excuse you from the rules about edit warring. There was no overriding BLP concern to mitigate this involvedness. That you still can't see or accept this is why we're at Arbcom. We expect editors to work out their disagreements through discussion, using dispute resolution where necessary. You are no different.

Evidence presented by Kww

Preliminary statement by Kww

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The key issues here is actually not WP:BLP. First, as I have stated, I will freely admit one error on my part regarding WP:BLP: I was operating under the belief that the 2-year rule was absolute. I see that it is now 6 months to 2 years, depending on other factors. That misapprehension was the reason I cited BLP in relation to Hoffman.

The main issue here is not WP:BLP, however: it's WP:BURDEN and WP:V. The requirement for inline citations after material has been challenged is absolute: it harbors no exceptions. Once material has been challenged on sourcing and validity grounds, it cannot be restored by any editor without an inline citation that supports it. TRM did this repeatedly, and, leaving the article with around oa third or the material he ad restored, declared himself "[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Rambling_Man&diff=prev&oldid=668521853 done]". He described my warnings on the topic as pathetic, repeatedly referring to it as a "crusade". In retrospect, my error was not blocking him for intentional policy disruption at the point: his edits were clear and intentional efforts to insert unsourced material in violation of multiple policies. For TRM to stop editing the Hoffman and shift to Hugh Jackman to perform precisely the same disruption after I had told him that I would provide him with an opportunity to repair the issues with Hoffman was a clear indication that he intended to widen the scope of his disruption. I would have blocked any less experienced editor at that point, and few would have complained. In terms of the Hugh Jackman edits, those were BLP violations, regardless of the uproar. The AE decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive160#Cwobeel applies. For those that would claim that they are somehow "different", they aren't. Cwobeel was responding to precisely the same kind of awards removals as TRM, and providing exactly the same kind of sources. The only substantive difference is that TRM is an experience admin as opposed to being a newbie.

Editors constantly argue that admins should not be a privileged class. This problem is an effort to treat TRM as a privileged editor.—Kww(talk) 23:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

TRM, I will politely point out, once again, that the sequence is to find the source before restoring the challenged information. If you had not been so insistent on restoring data before finding the sources, there would not have been a problem. You portray this as a hasty response on my part, when the root issue is that you would not let the unsourced material remain out of the article, even for a few hours, while you said you were searching for sources. Given your edit summaries and talk page comments, I didn't have a lot of reason to take that on faith. It's not a claim that you violated WP:BURDEN and WP:V: you restored challenged information to an article without providing an inline citation. That's an unambiguous and inarguable violation.

Salvio While I'm quite willing to engage in the discussion as to whether removing unambiguous violations forces an admin into the WP:INVOLVED state, I'm curious as to why you don't recognise that the unambiguous WP:BURDEN violations performed by TRM make that the issue.—Kww(talk) 13:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to spend a few sentences here clarify my WP:INVOLVED position. So long at TRM's edits remained unambiguous policy violations (the restoration of challenged material without providing inline citations supporting it) and my edits were restricted to reverting those violations, WP:INVOLVED doesn't come into play, as I was acting in an administrative capacity. For those that cry "why don't you look for sources yourself?", it's because that would make me involved in article content. I don't want to be. I don't care about Hoffman or Jackman, or what kinds of awards they may have won, whether the article is prose or tables, or any of a myriad of content issues. I only care that policy is followed.—Kww(talk) 14:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TRM's discussions gave no evidence of an intent not to disrupt

Faced with removal of material that violated policy, TRM did not respond in any manner that could be interpreted as coming from an editor that intended to make a good faith effort to comply with policies. I maintained the firm but polite tone that I have always found best for dealing with disruption, and his responses were unconvincing to say the least: using words such as "pathetic" and "crusade", "would you let me know which other lists you're going to destroy",l and generally maligning me on talk pages [5]. Note that the "crusade" comment is after an edit that would seem to indicate that he felt he was done, despite the fact that he had included large amounts of material that remained unsourced.

This is the kind of response I typically encounter from a juvenile editor that has no intention of following our policies. In fact, given his frequent statements that sourcing isn't required, he shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both WP:BLP and WP:V, which unambigously do require inline citations of the material he was restoring. Not blue links, not general reference sources, but inline citations.

As soon as I agreed to give him some breathing space to correct his policy violations, he stopped working on that article and proceeded to begin anew on List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman.

Note that his initial attempts on both articles were completely without sourcing: [6] and [7].

In summary, TRM's behaviour here was not the "calm, measured and pretty much exemplary" response that Dweller mischaracterizes it as. It was the response of an editor that was intent on violating policy and attacking anyone and everyone that would attempt to prevent him. As I've said before, if TRM had been a new editor, no one would have blinked an eye over me blocking him. There's not an admin here that hasn't been in the position of finally getting an abusive editor under control on one article and then finding that the editor simply shifts articles in response. That's what TRM did, and I responded as I would to any such editor: by blocking him.

WP:BLP and WP:V both forbade restoration of the material

The material had been challenged and removed for lack of sources. At that point, both WP:BLP and WP:V kick in:

• WP:BLP:"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation."
• WP:V: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material."

There's no argument that the material being restored by TRM violated both of these policies in the case of List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman. It's unambiguously in violation, even if the material is not material that would normally be classed as contentious. That's an important emphasis, so I will repeat it: even if the material is not material that would normally be classed as contentious. All discussions about whether a false award is contentious or harmful are, to some degree, red herrings. TRM's actions on the Hugh Jackman article would have violated WP:BLP regardless of how innocuous the material was, simply because the material he was restoring had already been challenged.

This section is the fundamental flaw in Georgewilliamherbert's analysis. His analysis hinges on whether the material is contentious, which is not the only standard contained in WP:BLP.

TRM was restoring material that even the sources he provided didn't support

I can't find any reliable source for the 1999 London Film Critics: London Film Critics Circle Awards 1999 says it was Kevin Spacey that won that year. Neither of the two reliable sources (the BBC or The Guardian) mention Hoffman. Now, our article on London Film Critics Circle Awards 2000 does mention Hoffman, but none of the reliable sources used in that article do. IMDB does, but it calls it a 2001 award.

The Vancouver Film Critics Circle awards are another case in point. After TRM's wholesale restorations of challenged material, I tried to go through line-item by line-item and remove only the policy violations. One of those was this edit, that removed references to nominations by the Vancouver Film Society. TRM immediately reverted, without any explanation. Now, the reference that TRM was relying on says that he was nominated once in 2008. The official website says it was "Best Actor in a Canadian Film" in 2003 (assuming the 2004 announcement is for 2003, something not clear in the source). I can't find any source for the nominations but our own Vancouver Film Critics Circle Award for Best Supporting Actor and Vancouver Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actor, an article completely lacking in references that has been categorised as such for six years. Looking at those dubious piles of assertions, I find that it claims that Hoffman won in 2012 (supported by the 2013 winners list, so the year is off at the very least). Without inline citations anywhere in the chain, it's difficult at best to track these things down.

There are other defects: did Hoffman win the 2012 award from the International Cinephile Society? No, but he did win the 2013 award.

This illustrates the crux of the issue: people seem to have the feeling that I have acted in some vandalistic fashion, cutting huge swaths of material out of articles without justification. In fact, what I have found is that any of the "List of awards and nominations received by ..." articles that aren't sourced are nearly universally inaccurate, and, unfortunately, are being maintained by experienced editors that assert that the material they added isn't covered by the "likely to be challenged" clause of WP:V. That's an untenable position, and leads to us building an large pile of unsourced assertions about living people. Are they completely and absolutely inaccurate? No. Are they credible reference items suited to an encyclopedia? No.

TRM never provided inline citations for any of his edits

Despite clear and unambiguous direction in WP:V, TRM never provided inline citations for his material. That policy violation is how this happened: Cowlibob made a good faith effort to provide inline citations for the article and still missed that the Vancouver awards weren't supported by any known source. That's because of instead of being responsible for the content and providing sources when he restored it, TRM only provided mass references mass tables without providing any indication of which reference supported which award. There's still no evidence here of a good-faith effort on TRM's part to comply with WP:V.

The WP:3RR restriction is not limited to contentious material

The WP:3RR exemption is not limited to contentious material: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." So, what kinds of material does the 3RR exemption apply to? Material that violates WP:BLP and is either

1. libelous material
2. biased material
3. unsourced material
4. poorly sourced contentious material

The word "unsourced" stands alone, so removal of unsourced material that violates the policy on the biographies of living persons is covered under the exemption, even if the reason the material violates BLP is solely that it was challenged.

My belief that the edits were protected by BLP were in good faith

As above, but it bears repeating. The edits TRM was making to Jackman violate WP:BLP both in letter and in spirit. Some would argue that my interpretation is somehow "wikilawyering", but Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive160#Cwobeel is certainly enough to support a claim of good-faith belief on my part.

As for Hoffman, based on the biography that TRM was relying on, he isn't even dead yet, but that speaks more to source quality than anything else. As for whether BLP applies to him, the policy used to use only the ambiguous "recent", and my memory of discussions was a two-year rule-of-thumb. Today, the policy reads "the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside". That's a guideline that 16 months neither unambiguously fails nor passes.

Involved status

From WP:INVOLVED:

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area.

My involvements in this topic area qualify under one or both of these exemptions. I limit myself to removing material which violates WP:V, WP:BLP, or both. These come under "minor and obvious edits" or "an administrative role", depending on your point of view, but it's hard to see a POV where one or the other doesn't apply. I don't have any agenda about Hoffman, Jackman, or any artist in any effort to portray them in any particular light, which prevents the "bias" wording from coming into effect.

My involvement with TRM was precisely the same as I would have with any disruptive editor: he was knowingly and intentionally violating policy, and I was reverting and warning him. I've had no previous involvement in any dispute with TRM that I can recall or find in searches.

Again, people ask why I don't search for sources. The answer is that I do my best to stay content-neutral. I really don't care what awards are listed, how they are prioritised; how they are formatted; how they are selected, grouped, or sorted: I simply care that they follow the most basic of policies. Since they are material that is likely to be challenged, they need citations.

BLP concerns override WP:INVOLVED

Many believe that my actions violated WP:INVOLVED. As stated above, I disagree, but even if they did, that does not make my actions subject to sanction. We have historically found that administrators working to enforce BLP restrictions are protected by good-faith belief in the correctness of their own actions. Let's, for example, take one of my own blocks: 21 May 2011, by Scott MacDonald. This was from the end of the Pending Changes trials, and several admins, including myself, were stepping through all the articles that were under pending changes protection and moving them to either semi-protection or unprotection. Scott objected quite strenously, and resorted to wheel-warring and blocking me, despite the fact that I was following community consensus. Was Scott desysoped, or did he face any of the normal sanctions that would accompany a wheel-warring exercise? Per BLP and flagged revisions, no. That was, at least in part, justified by this motion, which was interpreted as protecting Scott even if everyone thought he was wrong, simply because he was undeniably acting according to what he thought was necessary under WP:BLP.

Good faith administrative actions under personal interpretation of BLP generally protected

This motion is worth reading and considering its application to this case. In this case, admins were systematically stepping through and deleting unsourced articles about living people, on no basis other than the lack of sourcing. They were not admonished and were, in fact, commended.—Kww(talk) 17:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Contributions to this evidence page by blocked user

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP should provide adequate context for the "evidence" from 201.220.244.227.—Kww(talk) 16:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Further, the edits mischaracterised by Ritchie333 as "edit-warring" were simply reverting edits by the blocked editor in question.—Kww(talk) 15:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

TRM's policy violation was unambiguous and straightforward

Writ Keeper argues that TRM's edits were part of a "content dispute" rather than unambiguous policy violations, and User:Georgewilliamherbert argues that I "interfered" with sourcing. Neither assertion holds up under examination. It wouldn't matter who had challenged the material, from an IP to a bureaucrat: once challenged, no editor could restore it without an inline citation. Since it wouldn't matter who challenged the material and there is no doubt that material lacked an inline citation, it is, at the very least, a straightforward case under WP:INVOLVED. There's no complexity here, and no doubt as to the policy violation. GWH's argument fails simply because it's impossible to interfere with sourcing that wasn't there: it was TRM's responsibility to provide the inline citation when restoring the material, not at some indeterminate later point. While I'm being accused of IDHT behaviour, the other side of this dispute is at least as guilty of that: TRM had not provided inline citations for much of the material he restored, and his edit summaries and talk page messages gave no indication that he intended to provide inline citations that accounted all of the material he restored. At this time, he still hasn't provided a single inline citation, and has provided only general citations that satisfy neither WP:V or WP:BLP.

Evidence presented by The Rambling Man

Preliminary statement by The Rambling Man

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I noticed that the Hoffman list had been incompletely censored under some interpretation of "contentious BLP content" ([8]), so after battling with that odd to filter to restore the missing text, I then added a {{ref improve}} maintenance tag to the page ([9]) to ensure all readers knew it needed work. Within seven minutes, the incompletely censored version was restored by Kww ([10]) I re-added the incompletely censored material and set about referencing it. As quickly as I was adding references ([11]), Kww was deleting sections ([12]). I warned him ([13]) and asked him to spend his time adding refs rather than removing material. I asked him then why he was deleting information I was trying (and he knew I was trying) to reference ([14]). I told him I was going to continue to add refs ([15]) and yet he continued to revert me, finally blocking me ([16]) after a warning, for 36 hours. It is regretful that Kww claimed I was blocked for "intentional violation of WP:BURDEN" when I had made it abundantly clear that I was determined to reference the items in question, if he didn't keep racing to delete them.

Anyway, post his block of me, I did not edit for more than 36 hours ([17])], should the community have decided that this was the right thing for Kww to have done. Ironically, the the censorship applied to this and the Jackman list maintained perceived BLP violations, to that extent Kww falls foul of his own BLP transgressions. I regret the edit warring, but I was disappointed that Kww wouldn't let me improve Wikipedia (I'm pretty keen on referencing articles, as those who are aware of my work and standards will testify) and I was then disappointed that Kww blocked me to keep his preferred version of each page intact, despite me making numerous pledges that I would reference the "contentious" material he kept incompletely removing. I have since put myself up at WP:ANI for sysop recall ([18]), and although I have pretty much maintained a clear delineation between editing as an editor and editing as an administrator, it's clear from the feedback there that I need to do better with communication, which I have already pledged to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww as I noted, you were protecting pages which themselves were BLP violations according to your own interpretation. To that end, you have also failed the same policies and guidelines you keep accusing me of failing. On top of that you made an ill-judged block, clearly in violation of WP:INVOLVED. It is with some irony that I note you have not removed unsubstantiated claims, or those sourced from IMDB, from the Hugh Jackman biography, despite it receiving around 50 times the traffic ([19], [20]). I have nothing more to add, you have spent a large volume of edits at ANI explaining why I was in the wrong and why you hadn't made any errors of judgement, and you continue to do so here. I will get back to doing what I have been doing for the last several years, improving articles, adding references, updating the main page etc. I'm sure someone will let me know the outcome of this drama, in a few months time. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nothing more

I have nothing more to add. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Georgewilliamherbert

Preliminary statement by Georgewilliamherbert

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I will respond in more depth Monday assuming my current illness passes. In brief, it looks like the filing party's statement accurately showed what I did and was thinking, I have been somewhat mollified by KWWs' responses but they have not addressed his central problems as I saw it. Those were that I judged and I believe the community discussion consensused that his actions were disruptive, his judgement on BLP enforcement was suspect in these two articles, and the INVOLVED block. I have not caught up on the noticeboard since Friday PM and will do so before further comment. I was hoping things were going to end up differently than having to file or participate in a case but here we are. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I apologize in advance if I have missed any significant edits in the sequences below.

KWW edit warred rather than discuss in good faith

Hoffman page

Article edits:

• [21] (reverting Dr Blofeld's reversion of deletion; TRM refimprove between ommitted)
• [22]
• [23]
• [24] (two small reverts after long series of ref adds by TRM)
• [25]
• [26]

Talk page:

• [27]
• [28]

User page:

• [29]
• [30]
• [31]
• [32]
• [33]
• [34]
• [35]
• [36]
• [37] (block final warning)
• [38]

The talk and user page notices were abusive and prefunctory and did not constitute a collegial discussion. It was in the nature of warnings to a vandal or abuser.

Jackman page

Article edits:

• [39]
• [40]
• [41]
• [42]
• [43]
• [44]
• [45]
• [46]
• [47]
• [48]

Talk edits:

• ...

User talk edits:

• [49]

There was essentially no attempt during this time to constructively discuss the Hugh Jackman awards list, other than reverting and eventually blocking.

KWW was involved at the time of his block

Context and history are sufficient. For the record, the block: [50]

TRM edit warred rather than discuss in good faith

Hoffman page

Article reverts:

• [51]
• [52]
• [53]
• (sequence of fixes) [54]
• [55]
• [56]

Discussion:

• [57]
• [58]
• [59]
• [60]
• [61]
• [62]
• [63]
• [64]
• [65]

Hugh Jackman page

List of TRM reverts:

• [66]
• [67]
• [68]
• [69]

Article talk page:

• [70]

User talk:

• [71]
• [72]
• [73]
• [74]

KWW BLP assertions

KWW continues to this day in evidence to argue that the BLP policy applied here and covers admin actions in this regard. ANI and other administrator consensus opinion is that it did not apply as the edits were in no way controversial or questionable as to their truthfullness (while proper sourcing is required, short google searches show that the list was essentially completely accurate prior to sourcing, and awards are not derogatory or controversial).

KWW's actions in this regard are significantly outside community norms and other administrator consensus on this issue and he has insisted that he would continue with these actions.

KWW has rejected the community consensus on this issue.

KWW not allowing time for other editors to make improvements

As the sequences show, KWW failed to allow TRM or others to make incremental fixes and reference improvements, fighting repeatedly to remove material in a manner that is aggressive, confrontational, contrary to assuming good faith, contrary to collegiality, and unacceptable editing style. The claim that it was BLP protection is belied by his interfering repeatedly with proper sourcing activity despite being told and shown that was what the other editors were doing.

I warned both parties to stop and was willing to block both if it continued

On reviewing the situation it was evident that both parties were abusing the situation and I intended to issue an equal bidirectional warning:

• [75]

However, as it turned out, I had missed the KWW block of TRM by about ten minutes. So the warning was not made in time. Once I realized that the KWW block of TRM had happened I believed that he had exceeded both acceptable editor and administrator behavior and blocked him:

• [76]

As quickly as possible then notified ANI due to the obvious severity of the situation and need for independent review:

• [77]

As I stated there I believed and still believe that both parties were not covered by policy, the edit warring was equal on both sides.

Evidence presented by Dennis Brown

Preliminary statement by Dennis Brown

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Writ Keeper has summed it up fairly well, do I won't rehash it. What is disturbing is the lack of accountability and unwillingness to consider the possibility of being WP:INVOLVED here. Kww has come under the microscope before, and by insisting on digging in each time, removes any hope that he can learn from his mistakes. In this instance, it is overzealousness in enforcing BLP to the point of using poor judgement and lumping all edits to BLPs together, whether they are minor, easily sourced, or blatant negative hate mongering. The role of admin should be to differentiate and react according to the actual threat to Wikipedia, else we could just get bots to block people. In this instance, it has already caused a questionable block, for TRM to file a recall petition on himself, and has caused a tremendous amount of drama across ANI. As this is arguably a misuse or abuse of tools and bad judgement on the part of Kww (including the filter), I ask that Arb review, for there is no other venue that can do so. TRM is not blameless here, but his transgressions could have been / can easily be handled at ANI as they didn't involve using the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I think everyone else has the evidence covered, so I have nothing else to add. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jusdafax

Preliminary statement by Jusdafax

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I strongly urge ArbCom to accept this case. As my statement in the linked AN/I thread above states, I have felt Kww's temperment unsuited for extra buttons since before he became an admin, and I trust ArbCom will take this case and duly desysop him. TRM is a bit more subtle, and as a regular at WP:ITN I have observed him with growing concern for years. The day before this edit war incident I asked him to stay off my Talk page, as it appeared to me he was looking for a fight. I feel strongly that this case should take a deep look at TRM's long-term abusive rhetorical tactics, which backed by the power inherent in adminship are intimidating, uncollegial, and a detriment to the encyclopedia. In short, he's a classic big bully who is often in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Again, I urge ArbCom to take this case, and may justice be done. Jusdafax 16:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evidence presented by SNUGGUMS

Preliminary statement by SNUGGUMS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've seen Kww around for a while removing unsourced/poorly sourced content from articles, including various "List of awards and nominations received by ______" pages. All my previous interactions with him have been just fine. He's also quite good at detecting sock puppets of blocked users. While BLP might not always be an applicable rationale, and I haven't really followed his edits over the past month, I do commend his intent to keep pages reliably sourced. Here's what I'm not sure of: is this Kww's first time going against WP:INVOLVED? Prior to this incident, what administrative actions of his (if any) have been questionable since he became in admin back in April 2010?? Same question for The Rambling Man aside from WP:INVOLVED (since he didn't go against that in this case) and the fact that he became an admin in May 2007. I'm less familiar with The Rambling Man, and haven't really interacted with him, but do know he's done lots of work with FL's, FA's, and GA's. It's a shame that two experienced admins have gotten into this. In any event, we should definitely hear from both admins before accepting or declining this request for arbitration. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

On another note, a permalink of the ANI thread that lead to this can be found here. For those who did not get a chance to read it while participating in arbitration. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow-up statement

All I have left to say is that I really wish neither of these admins had to face this since they've both very much benefitted Wikipedia with their work and clearly mean well even if their executions haven't been perfect. It would be a shame to lose either of them, but that's beyond my control. Edit warring, rollbacking, and blocking shouldn't have been used, though. Best of luck to both for the future. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Rschen7754

Preliminary statement by Rschen7754

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not sure how this will relate to this case, but Kww was admonished by ArbCom in early 2014. TRM was admonished by ArbCom in 2009. I don't think that I have more to add that hasn't/won't be said by other editors. --Rschen7754 17:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evidence presented by Ritchie333

Preliminary statement by Ritchee333

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In addition to what has been mentioned, Kww's conduct in dealing with the Best known for IP has been contentious. This includes controversial use of WP:RD5 (eg: [78], [79], [80]) which some admins have deemed inappropriate (eg: Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP#A few thoughts) This may be useful to include in the case. I personally did not feel Kww's conduct should have risen to the level of starting a case, but we are where we are. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revision deletion

To add some more context to the problems with revision deletion (which includes acts such as edit warring on Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion here), I recovered the IP's edits on Alex Lowe and did some further copyediting. There doesn't seem to be any reason to revdel in my view, as it didn't help improve the article, and it stopped any non-admin evaluating the copyedits on their own merits. (For the record, the summary I struck on The Holocaust in Poland, which accompanied an edit war, reads "don't revert for no reason. also, if you're going to snottily demand that someone uses the talk page, then check first whether they already did. failing to do so may leave you looking like an idiot.") Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Beyond My Ken

Preliminary statement by Beyond My Ken

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An aspect of this case which should not be overlooked if it is taken up by the Committee - as I believe it should be -- is whether "abuse of admin tools" is the only criteria by which admins can be sanctioned, an opinion that appears to be held by a significant portion of the community, judging by various discussions on the noticeboards. If this were the case, then the "Administrator conduct" section of WP:Administrators, which says:

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. 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, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.

would be reduced to meaningless boilerplate. It is my belief that this requirement, for "respectful [and] civil" behavior, is just as important for administrators to follow as is proper use of the tools, and would hope that the Committee would verify and underline that proposition if the case is accepted. BMK (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Courcelles: I have absolutely no doubt that what you say is true, but the word seems to have not filtered down to the community very well, since a standard response to any complaint about the behavior of an admin is "show me where they abused their tools". I'd point out current examples of the genre, but I have no desire to be unnecessarily provocative. So, despite the precedent, I think it would still be a very good thing if ArbCom was to, once again, make it explicit that "behavior unbecoming of an admin", backed by evidence, of course, was a legitimate reason for sanctions to be applied. BMK (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evidence presented by IJBall

Preliminary statement by IJBall

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

First, I would like to say that while I think Kww's use of a block in this case was uncalled for and unjustified, I think that overall Kww's Adminship has been a net positive for the project, and if ArbCom deems to take this case, I would hope they would look at other disciplinary actions besides just desysop'ing, as I don't think it's in this project's interest to desysop here, nor would it be justified in this particular case. Kww's greatest "sin" here is perhaps over-zealously "enforcing" Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines. There's no real "malfeasance" here... Aside from that, I would like to second Beyond My Ken's statement – there is an unfortunate prevailing opinion right now that Admins should only be disciplined for "abuse of the tools", and if that is the case, 1) it is completely unfortunate, and 2) it should be clarified in the policies as BMK suggests. And if this is not the case, and Admins are subject to disciplinary actions for "non-tool use" offenses, it would be very good if ArbCom would clarify that publicly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evidence presented by Anthonyhcole

Preliminary statement by Anthonyhcole

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kww lied to his fellow editors about a non-existent "consensus in the archives" in order to keep his preferred title at Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Diff. I don't trust him with WP:BLPs: He collaborated with another admin to make and keep that article a nasty insult to the victim's mother. Example. Check out his grasp of WP:BLP as demonstrated by his commentary on the redacted text in this BLPN thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Updated 10:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't take this case until you've dealt with the latest Eric Corbett performance. In the past, you've proven incapable of concentrating on anything else while the Eric show is in town. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It will take you 15 minutes to read the Talk:Natalee Holloway thread referred to in the first ANI discussion linked above. (Link to the full archived thread) No uninvolved user in that ANI discussion read that linked thread. I'd appreciate it if you (arbitrator) took the trouble. He's unrepentant about the lying. The other two links in my above comment will give you an insight into his actual level of respect for WP:BLP. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Clarified 06:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by B

Preliminary statement by B

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In addition to this being an obviously inappropriate block, arbcom should remind both parties not to use rollback in a content dispute. (The Rambling Man did three times on each of the two articles in question (six times total) and Kww did once on List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman. Non-admin Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) also used rollback to revert Kww on List of awards and nominations received by Philip Seymour Hoffman [81].) Using a tool intended for combating vandalism in the midst of a content dispute only increases tensions. --B (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evidence presented by SchroCat

Preliminary statement by SchroCat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As I have said elsewhere, TRM has done nothing to warrant an ArbCom sanction here: his actions on the two articles would never have reached ANI, let alone anything more severe if it had not been because of the awful and clear-cut WP:INVOLVED block by Kww, especially on a spurious claim of BLP in an uncontentious topic.

I do have a problem with Kww's approach in general, and this in particular. Not only is there a flagrant misuse of admin tools in this block, but this is followed up on the ANI thread with a, WP:IDONTHEARYOU approach to criticism and his refusal to see any other point but his own. I have previously seen this utterly inflexible approach when trying to discuss a more constructive, less blinkered and rule-bound approach here, where Kww was happy – even proud – of reverting good-quality content back to a poor state because it was made by a previously blocked IP (and systematically redacting text on a spurious claim of WP:RD5). Such narrow-minded thinking and knee-jerk adherence to his personal interpretation of "the rules", even when counselled otherwise by highly-experienced admins, does not build an encyclopaedia: it causes disruption and pointless dramah. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kww should not have the mop, and other thoughts

A note on the awards lists themselves. As lists of high-profile awards these are not exactly contentious in and of themselves (they're not exactly "biographies" either, but that's more of a moot point). As one of the only people in this thread who actively develops such lists to a higher standard, I have always found the unsourced lists to be something of a blessing rather than a curse. They tend to have very few errors and those that are not harmful. It's difficult for normal editors like me to keep an eye on every award ceremony, or every award received by an actor, so all those good faith additions—even unsourced—which go to make up the list are actually helpful to us, not harmful. In my not-so-humble opinion, we do more of a disservice to the subjects of these pages if we under-report their awards hauls. By the time Kww finished deleting perfectly good information, we were woefully misrepresenting the award tally of both Hoffman and Jackman: that is a more of a BLP misdemeanour than having in one or two awards that they didn't win. I went through adding sources on some of the Jackman list: it was about 20 minutes work in total, done while I was at work and being distracted by other bits. Kww could just have well have done that, if he wasn't on an unhelpful knee-jerk reversion of someone else adding sources. This does not build an ancyclopaedia: it makes us look like a joke, if we can't keep up with the awards of a high-profile actor.

I've said before that TRM has done nothing to warrant even a visit to AN/I, let alone ArbCom over this, but the rather petty and spiteful rollbacks used by Kww to delete information while TRM was adding sources does need to be addressed. This is an inflexible and by-the-rulebook approach that does no-one any favours. (On the main case page his statement ends "I only care that policy is followed". That's at odds with 99% of people on this site: we only care that an encyclopaedia is being written – "policy" comes way down the list of priorities). If Kww had flagged a message on TRMs talk page pointing to BLP and saying 'I'll be back in an hour or two to clear out anything unsourced', that would have been a positive (or reasonable, or normal, or even barely passable) step to take, but to let the red mist come down and revert information while citations are being added, is just ridiculous and rather pathetic.

Kww's subsequent attitude (at ANI and on the main case page) of refusing to accept he had done anything wrong is a massive red flag to me. The consensus at ANI was that he had erred in judgement and deed, and yet he continued to argue "those were BLP violations, regardless of the uproar". Uproar, I presume being his description of a consensus he doesn't agree with.

That's my statement. If an Arb wants me to come back any clarify anything, could they please ping me; I'll not have this on my watchlist. – SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by JzG

Preliminary statement by JzG

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In a sane world, Kww would have apologised to TRM for getting carried away, and they would shake hands and agree to settle the content issue through an RfC. Kww's block of TRM was ill-judged. Kww should have unblocked promptly. That's the worrying thing to me: on Wikipedia you're allowed to make mistakes, but when you do, you should put your hands up and apologise. I think an edit war between admins over trivia is pretty bloody silly, and for that to escalate to blocks and arbitration is farcical. Kww definitely deserves the WP:TROUT. Tarring and feathering? Not so sure. Sadly this is Arbitration, soi a parade of griefers can be guaranteed to appear from the woodwork. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kww's use of the abuse filter

Some comment is made re Kww's use of the abuse filter. These filters filters were most recently edited by Kww:

1. Special:AbuseFilter/81 - 8,491 hits enforcing WP:BADCHARTS (edited but did not create)
2. Special:AbuseFilter/517 - 0 hits, train station removal. (edited but did not create)
3. Special:AbuseFilter/526 - 560 hits, disruptive addition of refspam.
4. Special:AbuseFilter/529 - 913 hits, disruptive addition of twitter chart links.
5. Special:AbuseFilter/550 - 62,169 hits, traps nowiki tags in mainspace.
6. Special:AbuseFilter/554 - 12,943 hits, again, disruptive addition of charts, but this includes some serious technical issues caused by the filter.
7. Special:AbuseFilter/593 - 2,764 hits, monitors links to archive.org, changed to disallow by Kww (edited but did not create)
8. Special:AbuseFilter/605 - 0 hits, "animal welfare issues"
9. Special:AbuseFilter/616 - 13 hits, traps edits to fluoridation articles by a single IP
10. Special:AbuseFilter/617 - 242 hits, Mathias Sandell
11. Special:AbuseFilter/622 - 235 hits, genre edit warring.
12. Special:AbuseFilter/644 - 0 hits, "Mitrabarun Mitra" preventing comments from IP ranges on pages named *Kww*
13. Special:AbuseFilter/662 - 0 hits, appears to be in development to control genuine abuse.
14. Special:AbuseFilter/693 - 4 hits, WP:BLP enforcement ([82]).

This does not seem to me to show a pattern of ill-faith, but does highlight a possible lack of process and quality control around the abuse filter. This is under discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Edit_filter_policy.

In the apparent absence of clearly defined standards, it is hard to state what, precisely, has been done wrong, but it does seem likely that there should be a process around granting of rights, formalised logging and some kind of peer review of the filter, as we have at Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist.

I would like to review Kww's filters in more detail if someone could please show me how to find all filters created by a given user (at present it seems only to show the last editor of the filter).

Thanks to Dragon's flight, this should be a complete list: [83]. Italicised filters added. So, the pattern is a bit of a curate's egg. I think the abuse filter usage is not evil, it is well intentioned, and the lack of community oversight of edit filters is the problem, not what Kww was doing. I strongly support a more robust framework about edit filter management, given the potential resource cost and obscurity of filters. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED

I would argue that WP:BLP would override WP:INVOLVED, but the critical missing piece here is WP:CLUE. Kww's actions violated WP:CLUE without any doubt. Blocking people over this kind of disagreement is extraordinarily lame. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: The application of WP:CLUE also applies to deciding whether WP:BLP applies in the first place. I am not convinced it did here. The material at issue had a high lameness index. Guy (Help!) 07:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by GoldenRing

Preliminary statement by GoldenRing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

All I can do here is shake my head slowly and sadly. My reading of the community mood is that this could have all been avoided if Kww had just seen the consensus against him at AN, put his hands up and said, "My bad. I'll learn from it." Instead here we are, probably minutes away from a full case before the ARBs. I'd urge him to still try to use the time to make peace. As someone else has said during this saga, this is not a good hill to die on.

"Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison," as they say. GoldenRing (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have no intention of being involved in this case beyond what I have said above. GoldenRing (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by KoshVorlon

Preliminary statement by KoshVorlon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This issue (at least the issue I commented on ) started with | this diff where KWW removed a list of awards cited to IMDB. It's pretty well understood that IMDB is not a reliable source for anything. The Rambling Man re-added | this same information back in, still unsourced with a refimprove tag and an edit summary stating "(tag, we'll fix it, so DON'T JUST ARBITRARILY DELETE IT)". The Rambling man is an admin, and thus knows that IMDB is not a reliable source, and per WP:BLP, needs to be removed, not placed in any article. KWW followed WP:BLP to the letter by | removing that information once again. The Rambling man simply | reverted again with IMDB still showing as a reference. He did the right thing and added a reliable source for that information. That information stayed in , no more edit warring. KWW removed more | unsourced information which The Rambling man put right back in, which started another tit-for-tat revert and replace. Yes, KWW blocked The Rambling Man and yes it lead to a shite storm on ANI, however, the main points here are:

• WP:BLP is policy, and that policy specifically calls for removal of any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced. KWW did just that.
  
  
• The Rambling Man reverted in unsourced items back into a BLP , which outright goes against WP:BLPREMOVE.
  
  
• WP:3RR recognizes an exemption in cases of BLP, in effect making KWW not guily of Edit Warring per the exception granted in 3RR.
  
  
• WP:IAR which is just as much policy as anything else is, allows for decisions to be made that might normally be seen as being against the grain . IAR states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This is just what KWW did when he blocked The Rambling Man.

I'd say his conduct is more egregious and therefore should be looked at. KWW did what was right. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 16:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evidence presented by Cavarrone

Preliminary statement by Cavarrone

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think the ANI discussion and the relevant consensus, the evidences above, plus the previous Arbcom admonition he had received, clearly lead to KWW's desysopping. KWW just arrived to the point that enforcing his interpretation of rules (sometimes clearly right, sometimes blatantly wrong, sometimes questionable, sometimes just bizarre) is more important than using common sense, to the point of impeding improvements in articles. Reading the User_talk:Kww#Edit_war section is quite enlighting in this regard. KWW was given enough time to realize his mistakes and to apologize, and to end everything with a WP:TROUT, but all his comments in talk pages, at ANI and here (except the final acknowledgment about P.S. Hoffman not being a BLP) read like "I am 100% right and I am ready to re-do everything again" which is inacceptable. At this point he is more a damage than a benefit for the project, not for the single mistakes he could do, but for his unwillingness to collaborate with other editors and for his IDONTHEARTHAT attitute. I would had suggested to follow Salvio's comment about just desysopping him without all the unnecessary drama of a full case, but that suggestion seems moot at this point. --Cavarrone 17:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evidence presented by TheRedPenOfDoom

It is a terrible precedent for ArbCom to send messages that create a chilling effect in attempts to uphold BLP

I believe that occurred in the AE case, not this one. We just send notifications that the case was opening. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Dragons flight

Kww has used the edit filter without due care

My previous comments at ANI about Kww's edit filters are here: [84]

The edit filter is one of Wikipedia's most powerful tools. In my opinion, Kww used the edit filter with good intentions but with inadequate caution and care, which ultimately speaks to a question of competence in this highly technical area. Rather than repeat what I said at ANI, I will elaborate on a couple examples.

For Edit Filter #693, Kww aimed to prevent vandalism like [85][86] to Drake Bell focusing on the "trans" aspect of the vandalism. However, as implemented, Kww's filter would have prevented anyone from writing the stem "trans" in any page that included "Drake Bell" in its title (currently 40 pages [87]) including Talk:Drake Bell where the vandalism was being discussed. The stem "trans" of course appears in neutral words like "transmit", "transfer", "transit", etc. This filter should have been designed with more care regarding the potential for collateral damage (e.g. avoiding restrictions on neutral words and discussion pages). It was also created at full "disallow" with no warning message, so a user who tried to write "transit" wouldn't even have a hint of why their edit was rejected. Standard practice at EF is that nearly all new filters should receive a trial run in log-only mode before adding stronger options. Reaper Eternal disabled this filter within hours of creation [88] so no false positives actually occurred. Kww's reaction to criticism of this filter was not to improve it but rather to deny a problem existed.

For Edit Filter #526, Kww aimed to warn users that references to the Brazil Hot 100 music chart were not suitable for Wikipedia (per WP:BADCHARTS). A critical technical weakness was present in the design of this filter. Kww did not implement the filter to distinguish between users who added new references to Brazil Hot 100 and users who merely edited paragraphs that already contained an existing mention of that chart. As a consequence, some users received warnings about Brazil Hot 100 while making unrelated edits, such as typographic changes [89][90], or rephrasing other sections [91][92][93]. I examined the last 50 warnings, and in my estimation 26 were for user actions other than adding a new reference to the Brazil Hot 100 chart or updating a record's placement on that chart. 26 out of 50 is a pretty terrible false positive rate, and nearly all of these could have been avoided by a more carefully implemented filter (using techniques many other filters already apply). Kww later denied that improvements were necessary [94].

Edit filter policy and oversight needs to be expanded

While I believe Kww showed inadequate care in the handling of edit filters, I do not believe the problem rests solely with him. The instructions for managing edit filters lack detail explaining best practices and the community has been lax in providing oversight of edit filters. For example, #526's false positive rate went unnoticed for years. For additional comments on the need for better edit filter guidelines, see: [95][96]

Evidence presented by Dweller

WP:INVOLVED

Kww's block of TRM was a breach of INVOLVED. A classic example.

WP:ICANTHEARYOU

Kww's continued refusal to admit that he has done wrong, despite the near unanimous decrying of his actions from a wide range of uninvolved users even more worrying than the breach of INVOLVED and brings his suitability for adminship into stark question.

The role of User:The Rambling Man in this dispute

1. TRM's actions in the early part of the dispute were in line with what we're here for. Building an encyclopedia. I could nitpick his manner, but not his intention, or actions.

1. That the other party that Kww blocked was also an admin made wheelwarring a strong possibility. That TRM's response to all this has been calm, measured and pretty much exemplary, to the point of offering up his own mop for recall, should be noted.

Definition of "Contentious material" in BLP needs to be addressed, urgently

Kww is not the first user I have come across wiping innocuous material from biographies because it's "contentious", ie the definition of contentious is that Kww says it is. BLP is a vital policy and one we must all uphold, but this approach does nothing to uphold the values we tried to create with BLP and merely damages this project for the sake of a mindless wikilawyering approach.

It may be outside ArbCom's remit to 'fix' this problem, but perhaps you can individually or as a group push for a resolution, using your creativity and combined experience.

Evidence presented by Rlendog

Despite the noble intent to preserve WP:BLP, I think there are several problems with Kww's behavior.

There is no blanket prohibition against using IMDB as a reference

IMDB can be a problematic source. But we do have a long-standing essay, WP:CITEIMDB that lists several inappropriate uses for IMDB, several appropriate uses, and several "disputed" uses. And "awards" are one of the "disputed" uses. While this is an essay and not a guideline, the fact that it states (and has for years) that this is merely a "disputed" use indicates that using IMDB for this purpose was not an "unambiguous policy violation." Further, the most relevant guideline, WP:USERG states that sites like IMDB are "largely not acceptable" (emphasis added), it also notes exceptions.

BLP is generally not interpreted to require the information and the reference to be given in the exact same edit

WP:BLP of course requires that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." But editors often add the reference in a separate edit from the fact. While this may not be ideal, it is often more convenient to not have to format and put in all the reference information in the same edit as the fact itself. While there may well be situations, such as inflammatory information, where it would be appropriate to err on the side of caution, stating that "BLP X won a particular award" hardly needs an immediate source the way that a statement like "BLP Y was convicted of child molestation" does. TRM stated that he was in the process of adding the more appropriate sources, and indeed did start adding such sources, so it is not clear why it was so critical for Kww to edit war over it within minutes and while TRM was adding sources, especially when WP:IAR is policy. And of course, that puts aside the fact that Philip Seymour Hoffman was not technically a BLP. If ArbCom wants to clarify that the source must be included in the same edit as the fact because we cannot tolerate a few minutes lag time under even non-inflammatory circumstances, that ought to be made explicit in the NLP policy, and that would also necessitate other significant changes (such as semi-protecting all BLPs, since new editors are unlikely to regularly reliably source their edits).

Kww was WP:INVOLVED and should not have been the one to block TRM, even if a block was warranted

Kww relies on the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive160#Cwobeel case as "precedent" for his actions. But one admin's action in one particular case under those particular facts and circumstances is not how we make policy for all superficially similar cases. But even to the extent BLP applies to this situation, as it does not with Philip Seymour Hoffman, only contentious material requires a source, and to the extent the Cwobeel case establishes precedent, the admin in that case stated that "The material at issue was contentious because at least one person objected to its inclusion." So while no one disputed the accuracy of the material TRM added, Kww was correct to the extent that the material was contentious because another editor objected. But that editor was Kww. So Kww's action in objecting is what caused the Hugh Jackman list to fall under BLP policy and be subject to administrative action to enforce it (and would have for the Phillip Seymour Hoffman list had that been subject to BLP). An admin cannot take action to make administrator action necessary and then claim to be WP:UNINVOLVED for purposes of taking that action. And had Kww permitted another admin to take administrative action, the error with respect to whether BLP applied to the Hoffman list would have been moot.

Edit filters

I do not deal with edit filters so I do not have much to say on the subject, but it would be helpful to have some guidance as to when they are appropriate, especially when they conflict with Wikipedia being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Evidence presented by 201.220.244.227 (talk)

As this case is about Kww's misuse of administrative tools, I think a few examples that I've experienced are worth submitting as evidence. Kww has been misusing administrative tools in pursuit of a grudge against me for quite some time. I list some examples here:

Mass reversion for no reason

[97]. He falsely claimed "block evasion" for that series, which was neither the first nor the last occasion on which he has made false claims like that. When asked to point out which block he thought I was evading, he was unable to do so.

Abuse of revision delete

Policy states that Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal, and that If deletion is needed, only redact what is necessary (i.e. leave non-harmful fields visible). Kww deletes whatever edits of mine he can find.[98] None of them have ever been even mildly offensive, let alone grossly, and there is not even a consensus that they should be reverted, let alone deleted. He usually deletes every field. He has yet to elucidate the harm he perceives in an IP address, or an edit summary clearly explaining the change being made. You'll see if you check any of those deletions that they were all clearly explained edits, typically correcting obvious policy violations.

Restoring serious policy violations to the encyclopaedia

Among the worst examples was Alex Lowe. I obviously can't post diffs because he deleted my edits, but you'll be able to see the history. Kww has explicitly stated that he has no concern for the quality of the encyclopaedia: "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP&diff=649991782&oldid=649987785 If everyone would leave the reversions in place and not wring their hands over whether their edits were improvements or not, we could keep up the solid wall of rejection that is necessary to be rid of this editor].

I believe his actions have encouraged others to behave in a similarly abusive way. Ritchie333, for example, also began abusing the revision delete tool just a few days after becoming an administrator, claiming that an edit summary containing the word "idiot" was "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive". [99]

Evidence presented by Andrew Davidson

The evidence relates to incidents of blocking but I'm not sure how to present the blocks as diffs. So, I am providing diffs for the corresponding talk. Please inspect the corresponding block logs if you wish to check the exact details of the blocks.

Kww has made involved blocks before and previous remedies have not been effective

Case 1

Kww made an indefinite block. There was a lengthy discussion at ANI where the block was thought to be bad. For example, DGG condemned the block saying, "Overturn and block KWW for blatant and outrageous disruption. What arb com may want to do is their lookout; we should do what we can. ... But that Kww actually has the lack of judgment to defend his action shows that more is needed."

The block was reverted by Drmies whose summary for the unblock was: "incorrect block: involved, and insufficient rationale. see ANI".

In the discussion, there was talk of having Kww desysopped. Kww seemed to accept the point that he was too involved and made undertakings not to repeat this:

• "If you want me to agree not to block him again, I can voluntarily do that."
• "I recognize that consensus is that I should not have blocked, and won't do so again."

Kww subsequently reneged on these undertakings by blocking again on another occasion. Again the block was indefinite and made out-of-the-blue without any proximate cause for action, warning or discussion. The block was subsequently undone without much fuss and so I have not troubled to complain about this before. But the matter is still concerning because, in my view, there were elements of harassment and outing in this continuing action.

Case 2

The second example is an approval request for a bot. In the course of this, Kww peremptorily blocked an editor who opposed his request, doing so without due process, and then struck their !vote. The discussion was then closed against Kww and Kww reverted the close. Another editor then redid the close and Kww then edit-warred over the close by reverting yet again. There seemed to be general discontent with Kww's high-handed behaviour in forcing through this request.

Andrew D. (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by slightly involved 50.0.136.194

collateral damage from contested revdel

I got blocked (by Chillum, not by Kww) after commenting[100] on a revdel described in Ritchie333's section and being misidentified as the block-evading OP. I still think the revdel was dubious and that DRV was the right place to discuss it, but was demotivated by the block from opening a thread there. Kww later did several more of them resulting in further ANI's closed due to the unclean hands of the reporter.

I obviously can't blame Kww for a block done by one of his critics, but it still felt to me more like fallout from the revdel than Chillum being trigger-happy.

50.0.136.194 (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit filters: I mostly agree with JzG except about filter 661 which was worse than the others. Rather than any particular ZOMG, I see a general pattern of persistently suboptimal judgment with the filters. However, Kww gets some points for turning the filters off when people asked for that on the ANI thread.

PSH awards: I agree with Schrocat's analysis. Kww and others should understand, if a verifiable fact is represented with due weight in an article (sourced or otherwise) and someone removes it, that introduces an error of omission. Errors of commission are usually worse than errors of omission: how much worse? Depends on the actual content. Effectively infinitely worse in the case of the type of "John is a serial murderer" BLP vios Kww equates this award stuff to. Something like a minor film award in the middle of a big list, that has high likelihood of being right: wiping out the whole list is complete overkill, an error of that size is worse than getting an award wrong someplace. Taking out a specific item where there's a concern arising from actual engagement with the content is fine (though it should still be WP:PRESERVEd on the talk page. Going "challenge ALL the Wikipedia!!!" and wiping everything in sight is gaming the system.

There were two different academic studies in the 2005-06 era saying Wikipedia had accuracy comparable to conventional encyclopedias, at least in science and history. That was before we had the citation fetish that we do now, and we were still doing fine. I don't see any evidence for Kww's assertion that the movie award articles are unacceptably full of errors. Of course there are probably some errors but if we're as accurate as traditional reference works (Leonard Maltin's Movie Encyclopedia or whatever) then I'd say my expectations as a reader are fulfilled. Based on Schrocat's report I don't feel worried.

Regarding the year of the Vancouver award: it's listed as 2012 but documented by a 2013 link because it's a 2012 film and the awards for 2012 films were presented in January 2013. There's a similar situation with the Oscars, e.g. 2014 Oscars is a dab page pointing to both the 86th Academy Awards (held in January 2014 and honoring films for 2013) and the 87th Academy Awards (held in January 2015 etc). I'm frankly surprised there hasn't been a massive MOS war over this with multiple arb cases, because it's such a trivial issue. Just click on any of the film titles in that list and it becomes obvious what happened.

The main PSH biography is a WP:FA, Wikipedia's highest certification that (among other things) its sourcing meets community standards. Its award section is sourced to a New York Times award list for the whole section, without inline citations for individual awards. So using an edit filter to enforce the use of per-award citations is going way beyond existing practice, and imposing a content preference using admin tools.

The IMDB page about those awards has an error reporting link which goes to a page saying you can submit new info and it will be reviewed by IMDB people before publication. That type of review is certainly an important element of WP:RS. I don't know if it's a gold-standard RS but it looks inappropriate to treat it as pure user-generated content like a bulletin board. IMDB does confirm the awards that I've looked at that have been mentioned.

I wanted to write a few other thoughts here but have to leave for a few days. I may comment in workshop when I get back. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Guy Macon

TRM's behavior

ANI is perfectly able to handle all aspects of TRM's behavior, and should be given the opportunity to do so. Specifically, Arbcom should not issue any warnings, cautions or admonishments to TRM unless you decide that you would have accepted this case and issued the warning had it been only about TRM's behavior.

Kww's behavior

The main issue with Kww's behavior is his interpretation of the policies relevant to use of admin tools. Assuming for the sake of argument that Kww had a good-faith belief that violating WP:INVOLVED was allowed in this case because WP:BLP overrides INVOLVED, when an admin faces two conflicting policies with one taking precedence, the admin should, if possible, seek a solution that follows both policies. In particular, if the alleged BLP violation is of such a nature that a day or two before correcting it does not harm the LP in any way, the admin should post a request to WP:AN asking an uninvolved admin to take action (which usually happens in less than an hour). If there is a legitimate reason to take immediate admin action to uphold BLP the admin should do so and then immediately post a request at AN asking for an uninvolved admin to review his emergency decision to not follow INVOLVED. This should be one of the proposed principles in the proposed decision. This is such a case, and Kww should have sought a solution that did not violate WP:INVOLVED or WP:BLP. Kww was eager to find a reason to violate WP:INVOLVED and did so when there was a clear path that would satisfy the requirements of WP:INVOLVED and WP:BLP. He has been steadfast in his insistence in the face of a clear consensus against him that he did nothing wrong and would do it again. Admims need to have the attitude that as soon as they become anything other than unambiguously uninvolved in a dispute that they need to start acting like ordinary editors and asking for admin help where needed. For these reasons, I reluctantly conclude that Kww cannot be trusted with admin tools.

Edit Filters

It could be argued that Kww used poor judgement when he used an edit filter to perform what amounted to an admin action (an invisible permanent block of an IP address) without oversight, but I do not think that it would be fair to desysop Kww over edit filters. As an encyclopedia we have been shockingly lax about setting standards and overseeing the behavior of filter creators, and it would be wrong to suddenly punish Kww for behavior that pretty much everyone thought was acceptable before this case was filed. Arbcom should call upon the community to set some rules and develop procedures for enforcing those rules.