Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Proposed decision

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

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

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

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

For this case there are 13 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

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

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

Proposed motions[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Support:
  1. Courcelles (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Euryalus (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LFaraone 02:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yunshui 雲水 07:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 04:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Administrator standards[edit]

2) Administrators are trusted members of the community, who are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and are held to a high standard of conduct. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.

Support:
  1. Courcelles (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Euryalus (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LFaraone 02:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yunshui 雲水
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 04:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Administrator involvement[edit]

3.1) With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help.

Support:
Courcelles (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Euryalus (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. LFaraone 02:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. along with Salvio, I consider this a more adequate statement than the alternative. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 1st choice per DGG Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Perception of involvement is key. NativeForeigner Talk 04:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. On second thought, this goes further than we need to, and is not quite in line with the letter of policy regarding appearances. Proposing the alt that gets all we need said, said. Courcelles (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Happy to have this one removed, subject to LFaraone's views. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Doug Weller (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Courcelles. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Holding off on voting on this one to avoid complicating things if it is removed from the PD. I'll come back and vote if it isn't. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator involvement[edit]

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

While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help.

Support:
  1. Per above. Normally I would just replace 3.1, but there have been votes. Saying anything about perceptions is just not necessary here, as this case has nothing to do with perceived involvement, only actual involvement. Courcelles (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Euryalus (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Works for me. I don't think it would make sense to use 3.1, given that perception of involvement isn't really the issue here, so including that in the principle is largely beside the point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yunshui 雲水 07:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 2nd choice per DGG. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Largely per DGG. Second choice. NativeForeigner Talk 04:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Only choice. Nothing about appearance or perception is in our actual policy, and as Courcelles has said, this case has nothing to do with perceived involvement. Doug Weller (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Doug. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes, this one is better. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sufficient. LFaraone 15:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. 3.1 is more accurate. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer 3.1. Perception of involvement is almost as much the point as involvement. But perhaps some synthesis of the two statements is possible. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Edit warring[edit]

4) Edit warring is not acceptable behaviour as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Editors are expected to engage in calm discussion and, if necessary, dispute resolution rather than making repeated reverts of disputed content.

Support:
  1. Courcelles (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Euryalus (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LFaraone 02:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yunshui 雲水 07:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 04:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

BLP exemption to edit warring is not absolute[edit]

5) Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exceptions notes "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule: [...] 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."

Support:
  1. The sentence has to be read in its entirety. The clause about "that violates the policy on biographies of living persons" cannot be ignored; this is not a licence to edit war over any and all statements in BLP's. Courcelles (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Euryalus (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LFaraone 02:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yunshui 雲水 07:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. While I understand Salvio's point re involvement that would be a separate principle as it is an exemption from WP:INVOLVED not from WP:EW. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Tend to agree with Salvio's path of thinking but I think this is also a fine angle to approach it from. NativeForeigner Talk 04:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Although perhaps there should have been a separate principle per Salvio. Doug Weller (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I understand Salvio's concern, but this is still relevant and correct. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This should deal with BLP exemptions to involvement, not edit warring, which, in the context of this case, is far more important. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Applicability of BLP policy[edit]

6) The BLP policy applies only in relation to subjects who are living or recently deceased. There is no firm length of time after death when the policy ceases to apply. In exceptional cases, and normally only in relation to material that is especially contentious and/or has relevance to surviving relatives, this is sometimes extended for up to two years.

Support:
  1. Courcelles (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Noting the reference to "two years" is illustrative of the point, and not intended as a policy pronouncement I stand corrected. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LFaraone 02:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yunshui 雲水 07:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 04:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
@Euryalus: "two years" is included in policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Recently dead or probably dead includes Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. You are completely correct, apologies. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring unsourced material[edit]

7) Restoring unsourced material that is uncontroversial and non-negative to a BLP article in one edit is not a violation of BLP as long as subsequent edits provide adequate sourcing. Those restoring should indicate that they will be providing sources and should add sources in a reasonably short period of time, such as the same day's editing session. Controversial or negative material should only be restored if it is sourced when reintroduced.

Support:
  1. This is tailored to this case, but boils down to "don't put controversial/negative things in a BLP without good sourcing." BLP 101, basically. Courcelles (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    LFaraone 02:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Yunshui 雲水 07:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The requirements suggest by those opposing are unreasonably restrictive and lead to situation like the present one. A good deal depends upon the actual nature of the edits--e.g., something inflammatory is one thing, something routine is another. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Collaborative editing requires a degree of reasonableness. It is unreasonable to delete someone else's edits seconds after they make it, when it is evident they are intending, seconds later, to add sources to verify their point. There should also be a little latitude for new editors, articles tagged as "under construction" or occasions where the point being sourced is so self-evident or trivial that others might question why sources are even required. But as a general principle (including as expounded here), we should stand by the principle of adding reliable sources entirely as you go, and in the same edit as you add the actual text. This can be slow and irritating, but it's essential if we want to reduce the volume of entirely unsourced material in the vast bulk of articles. Apologies if this is an overly puritanical approach - my own editing area (elderly sailing vessels) lends itself to clear and reliable sources so this is easy to do. But with apology hopefully noted and due deference to the practicalities of collaboration, I oppose this mild encouragement for what might be perceived as "add first, source later." -- Euryalus (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Euryalus: "Add first, source later" is hardly a best practice, but in some cases it makes life much, much easier. And the principle makes clear this is absolutely not acceptable when dealing with negative or controversial content. Lists and tables, especially when someone is trying to make the tables be compliant with FLC standards is finicky to an absurd degree. One stray character can make the entire thing fail. It is amazing how much easier it is to build tables slowly and in small chunks lest you end up with a mess that doesn't display and have to search every line of code for your usually small error. So, sometimes, I think it is an entirely reasonable thing to do, and when someone is clearly actively working on an article, best to let them finish before you judge the output. Courcelles (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I kind of agree - there needs to be a level of reasonableness, without which collaborative editing ceases. If it's apparent that your fellow editor is about to go back through and add sources then show some good faith and let them do it rather than simply deleting their work. However I don't support enshrining this as a principle which implies tolerance of delayed sourcing. If there's a need to spell out the importance of good faith collaboration, I suggest we've already covered it in Principle 1. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It's no big deal to write your edit off-line in Notepad, Word, etc, with a source, then add it. "Restoring" means that someone objected to it and removed it. As for lists and tables, build them in a user subpage - which seems the best way to do them for any article. This also appears to be against our policy in WP:UNSOURCED which says "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Doug Weller (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to direct my colleagues to the comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Proposed decision#Could you guys please not screw up BLP enforcement?. We really should not accept this principle. Doug Weller (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. On second thoughts, there's a can of worms here which I'd really rather not open... Yunshui 雲水 10:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This would often, but not always, be true. In general, people should be very cautious in adding back in material that someone has objected to on BLP grounds. On the flip side, those making BLP objections should ground them in a good faith belief that the material could reasonably be harmful to a living person, and not use it as a bludgeon in a simple content dispute. But generally speaking, if someone objects to unreferenced material anywhere, the burden is on the editor who wants to put it back to find a reliable source backing it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NativeForeigner Talk 05:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. On the fence. Euryalus and Courcelles seem to agree above that adding sources separately after adding uncited material is not best practice. That said, some degree of latitude should be allowed, especially in cases such as the ones Courcelles mentioned where adding refs can be tricky in one large edit. I agree also that the good faith contributions principle probably covers this. This practice is not against policy, but I would rather not legitimize it too much. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I was going to support this, but having read the talk page comments I need more time to think about it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LFaraone 15:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Needs to be better crafted, I do accept it could have adverse effects on BLP enforcement. Will think on it but in current form does throw a wrench in BLP enforcement and policy. I am sympathetic to the viewpoint that BLP is just being used as 'the biggest stick' all too often. NativeForeigner Talk 04:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to feedback[edit]

8) Occasional errors or deviation from community expectations regarding standards of behaviour or in the interpretation or application of policy are to be expected, and are not incompatible with participation in the project provided that the editor is willing to accept community feedback when the situation arises, and modify their conduct accordingly. However, serious or repeated breaches or an unwillingness to accept feedback from the community (Wikipedia:I didn't hear that) may be grounds for sanction. In cases of serious or repeated misconduct by a user with advanced permissions, the tools may be removed, whether or not the misconduct involved direct abuse of the permissions.

Support:
  1. Courcelles (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Euryalus (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LFaraone 02:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yunshui 雲水 07:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 04:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

The Rambling Man edit warred[edit]

1) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) edit warred to retain information on List of awards and nominations received by Philip Seymour Hoffman (timeline) and List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman (timeline) in advance of citing it.

Support:
  1. Courcelles (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Euryalus (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LFaraone 02:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yunshui 雲水 08:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is factual and needs noting - with only very occasional exceptions edit warring requires at least two parties. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC) (moved from oppose)[reply]
  8. NativeForeigner Talk 04:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Supporting for the record, but this does not establish a pattern of edit warring and I agree with both Thryduulf and Salvio (although I'm not opposing it). Doug Weller (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Doug's own opinion solely (aka not per Thryduulf/Salvio). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Regardless of the later escalation, this is still factually accurate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Who cares? If it hadn't been for Kww's unwise block, we wouldn't be here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

The Rambling Man was admonished by the community[edit]

2) The Rambling Man was admonished by the community at WP:AN/I [1] and has accepted that admonishment. [2]

Support:
  1. Courcelles (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Euryalus (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LFaraone 02:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Yunshui 雲水 08:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Factual - this is why we are not, despite his edit warring, at least admonishing him ourselves. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite apparently accepting, during the workshop phase, that he was admonished TRM now does not. Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC) (moved from oppose; necessary background for endorsing the admonishment)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Who cares? If it hadn't been for Kww's unwise block, we wouldn't be here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moved to oppose given TRM's comment on the PD talkpage that he doesn't accept that he was admonished. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't see a formal admonishment, and as Euryalus has pointed out, TRM doesn't accept that he was admonished. Doug Weller (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Euryalus. Yunshui 雲水 12:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per my comments above. Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don't see the formal admonishment in the first place. Community voiced their comments. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NativeForeigner Talk 05:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Kww edit warred[edit]

3) Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) edit warred to remove uncited, but uncontroversial, material from List of awards and nominations received by Philip Seymour Hoffman (timeline) and List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman (timeline)

Support:
  1. Courcelles (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Euryalus (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LFaraone 02:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yunshui 雲水 08:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Without the edit warring there would have been no block, and edit warring is something that we need to call out as inappropriate behaviour whatever else the user concerned has done. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Tend to agree with Salvio, but this is nonetheless true and rather closely related. NativeForeigner Talk 04:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Thryduulf. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This is directly relevant to the incident. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This is relevant to the block. Doug Weller (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Who cares? This is not the point. The point is that Kww used his tools when involved. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Salvio DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Kww has misused edit filters[edit]

4) A small fraction of the general editor population have the technical skills and desire to operate the edit filter. Kww used the edit filter in a way that reduced scrutiny on his actions, such as using filter 616, rather than a usual block, to prevent an IP user from editing articles. He used a MediaWiki message in such a manner to give the IP the impression that only he could review and lift the action. In February 2015 he created filter 661 to prevent any user from attempting to add unsourced content to any article whose title began with "List of awards and nominations received..."

Support:
  1. The edit filter is a valuable tool for stopping spamming and vandalism, it must be stated. Courcelles (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Euryalus (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LFaraone 02:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This behavior was particularly concerning to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yunshui 雲水 08:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I agree with Courcelles' and GorillaWarfare's comments too. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 04:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Echoing GW. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Agreed with GorillaWarfare. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Kww cited BLP inappropriately[edit]

5) All reliable sources agree that Philip Seymour Hoffman died on 2 February 2014. Therefore, he was not a living or recently deceased person when Kww used BLP to justify edit warring on 24 June 2015.[3] The content about Philip Seymour Hoffman and Hugh Jackman that was the subject of this dispute was not libelous, biased, or contentious, and therefore did not qualify for the BLP exception to the edit-warring policy.

Support:
  1. Courcelles (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As noted above there are occasions where BLP applies after the death of the subject, even quite some time afterward.. But this wasn't one of them, and it was not reasonable to suggest it was. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LFaraone 02:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. but see comments below Yunshui 雲水 08:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. See the comments below. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NativeForeigner Talk 04:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. While BLP does contain a "recently deceased" provision, that is primarily intended to address edits that could affect still-living relatives or the like. I see no reason to believe that the material in question fell under this. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The way this FoF is phrased, it is far too close to a decision on content. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Salvio, I'd rather have the community work out the policy more than us making this determination, potentially outside of jurisdiction. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I'm not happy with the wording and share Salvio's concerns. Doug Weller (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I'm a bit wary of saying that Philip Seymour Hoffman "...was not a living or recently deceased person ... on 24 June 2015" when we have a PP above that establishes that "[t]here is no firm length of time after death when the policy ceases to apply." June 2015 would be inside the two-year period that is stated to be a potential extension of the policy. However, given that the edits in question were not contentious, I'm happy to accept this wording. Yunshui 雲水 08:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it makes sense to reword this a bit—I think the intention was to say that the content in question was not a) about a living person or b) contentious enough to fall under the exceptions that would extend the recently deceased protections. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the 2 years is that it never applies after two years, but normally is much shorter. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My undertstanding matches DGG's, and my intention when drafting an earlier version of this FoF was as GW indicates. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that is what our policy says. Doug Weller (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kww used admin tools while involved[edit]

6) Kww blocked The Rambling Man, citing violations of the biographies of living persons policy, despite being involved in the same dispute. ([4][5]) Writ Keeper (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reversed the block 51 minutes later, with the summary "clearly involved block; unblocking (see ANI)".

Support:
  1. Euryalus (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LFaraone 02:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yunshui 雲水 08:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This is the crux of the matter. Doug Weller (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Just as Doug says, DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 04:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per Doug. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:
Comments:

Kww has previously used admin tools while involved[edit]

7) In 2012, Kww placed an indefinite block on Colonel Warden (talk · contribs). This was quickly reversed by the community as a bad block, and Kww was given significant feedback that his actions were not appropriate.

Support:
  1. Courcelles (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Euryalus (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LFaraone 02:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yunshui 雲水 08:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 04:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Kww previously admonished[edit]

8) In 2014 Kww was admonished by the Arbitration Committee for "knowingly modifying a clearly designated Wikimedia Foundation Office action, which he did in the absence of any emergency and without any form of consultation, and is warned that he is subject to summary desysopping if he does this again."

Support:
  1. The incidents have basically no similarity bar one, that Kww misused his admin tools. Courcelles (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Supporting as a statement of fact. Agree that the incidents are not otherwise similar, and don't personally see the previous incident as useful in indicating a pattern of conduct relevant to this case. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LFaraone 02:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Worth mentioning for background information, though agreed that the office action incident was quite different. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As a statement of historical fact only. Yunshui 雲水 08:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agreeing with my colleagues above - this is perhaps useful for background information but not much else. Doug Weller (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Courcelles. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 04:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Not directly analogous to this situation, but a previous admonishment for tool use still does matter. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Kww desysopped[edit]

1) Kww's administrator permissions are revoked. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship.

Support:
  1. This incident is, IMO, plenty enough to justify this. But when you put it with the history of misconduct, I don't see how there could be any other choice. Courcelles (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The involved block and the misuse of the edit filter warrant a desysop. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yunshui 雲水 08:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The involved block, misuse of edit filter, and continual refusal to accept when the community feels his actions were incorrect (not just on this occasion either) are all incompatible with continued adminship. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. NativeForeigner Talk 04:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Combined with the previous incidents, this is the only possible outcome. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. LFaraone 15:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Kww's edit filter permissions revoked[edit]

2) Kww's edit filter manager permission is revoked. He may only regain them as follows: If he is desysoped as a result of this case, and is later successful at regaining the administrator tools through a successful request for adminship, this restriction will automatically expire. If he is not desysoped as a result of this case, he may appeal this remedy after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1. The process for non-admins requesting this highly powerful permission is tucked away on a Wikipedia talk page that draws very limited traffic. If the community wants to trust him with that power, this gives them a way to do so. (All admins are given the power to self-assign this flag) Courcelles (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I would much prefer that the Arbitration Committee did not have a hand in reassignment of tools here at all. That said, I don't think WT:EFM has enough traffic for any sort of consensus on this if he does wish to regain the userright, and I'm not sure where else would be appropriate. Perhaps the RfA clause is the best solution. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yunshui 雲水 08:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Euryalus (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. With the understanding that if he is desysopped as part of this case, he may not regain the edit filter permissions other than through a successful RFA or appeal to ARCA (the latter no sooner than 12 months after this case closes). Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NativeForeigner Talk 04:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Doug Weller (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. While I see GW's point, my concern is they would be way too easily regained. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. With similar thoughts as DeltaQuad. LFaraone 15:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
@Salvidrim!: and @Euryalus: Per the talk page, rebuilding this in case this passes and not 1. Courcelles (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kww restricted (1RR)[edit]

3) Kww is prohibited from making more than one revert to any page in any 24-hour period, excluding pages in his own userspace. The usual exceptions do not apply.

Support:
  1. Courcelles (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Some form of revert restriction is necessary here as Kww has not accepted that his edit warring was incorrect, and has shown no indication that he would not do it again if he felt the BLP justified it - regardless of whether that justification was supported by a consensus reading of the policy generally and/or a consensus of other editors in the specific case. There is no restriction on his asking others to uphold the BLP if it needs upholding, but I am unable to condone allowing his "I can edit war because I'm right, regardless of what other people think" attitude to remain unchecked. The Rambling Man by contrast has acknowledged his error and undertaken to improve his editing style to avoid future issues. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I'm not convinced that the FoFs show a pattern of edit warring. Both parties clearly edit warred here, but without evidence that this is a pattern, I won't support a 1RR on either of them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yunshui 雲水 08:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per GorillaWarfare. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Doug Weller (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Unnecessary DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. If there was a pattern of refusing to acknowledge wrondoing and edit warring I'd support this but there isn't a pattern and I find it to be unecessary. NativeForeigner Talk 04:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Edit warring started the problem here, but it wasn't the primary issue. The tool use while involved was the real problem. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. LFaraone 15:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

The Rambling Man's admonishment endorsed[edit]

4) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community's admonishment of The Rambling Man.

Support:
  1. Courcelles (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. To the extent this is required for the record. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Yunshui 雲水 08:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    An admonishment was the right level of consequence for TRM in the circumstances and there is no need for us to do more. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Moving to oppose. Thryduulf (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Since TRM does not believe he was admonished, endorsement seems rather pointless. Yunshui 雲水 12:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per my comments above on the relevant finding of fact. Doug Weller (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Yunshui and my comments on the FoF. Thryduulf (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per FoF notes. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As TRM does not accept that an admonishment took place. Though I would still hope that TRM has carefully considered the community feedback and taken it on board. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. LFaraone 15:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. He didn't act ideally but there wasn't really a community admonishment per se, at least not in formal terms. If he accepted it as one we could do this but as he doesn't inclined to oppose. NativeForeigner Talk 05:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Supporting also the extent to which this remedy actually imposes the admonishment, given TRM has a different view of what the community actually said at ANI. But all a bit academic really; as per my comments on previous cases I'm not convinced admonishments have much value in changing conduct. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community encouraged[edit]

5) The community is encouraged to establish a policy or guideline for the use of edit filters, and a process by which existing and proposed edit filters may be judged against these.

Support:
  1. LFaraone 02:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Euryalus (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yunshui 雲水 08:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 04:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Clearly, this is needed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

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

These notes were last updated by -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 11:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC) by User:WOSlinkerBot.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 12 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Administrator standards 12 0 0 PASSING ·
3.1 Administrator involvement 5 5 0 NOT PASSING 2
3.2 Administrator involvement 9 2 0 PASSING ·
4 Edit warring 12 0 0 PASSING ·
5 BLP exemption to edit warring is not absolute 11 1 0 PASSING ·
6 Applicability of BLP policy 12 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Restoring unsourced material 3 6 2 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
8 Responding to feedback 12 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 The Rambling Man edit warred 11 1 0 PASSING ·
2 The Rambling Man was admonished by the community 4 7 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
3 Kww edit warred 9 3 0 PASSING ·
4 Kww has misused edit filters 11 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Kww cited BLP inappropriately 9 2 1 PASSING ·
6 Kww used admin tools while involved 12 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Kww has previously used admin tools while involved 12 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Kww previously admonished 12 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Kww desysopped 9 0 1 PASSING ·
2 Kww's edit filter permissions revoked 10 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Kww restricted (1RR) 2 9 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
4 The Rambling Man's admonishment endorsed 4 7 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
5 Community encouraged 12 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 PASSING 7 Passes by default
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING 7 Passes by default
Notes


Vote[edit]

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

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority needed to close case. The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously, otherwise it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast.

Support
  1. It's time. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doug Weller (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Only outstanding matters are the TRM admonishment FOF and remedy. Given my oft-stated view on the lack of value in admonishments in general, am happy to support the close. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LFaraone 15:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NativeForeigner Talk 05:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. When we have 11 votes on some proposals, I really would rather not close a case with others at 5-4. I'll review this if the situation has not changed by late Sunday/early Monday (UK time). Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC) see below. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
@Thryduulf: 3.2 has more support than 3.1. So the 5-4 isn't a concern with .2 passing. The only other really close ones are TRM admonishments, FoF 2 is inaccurate and Remedy 4 depends on it. So...I don't see how it really impacts the case, unless your planning on adding new proposals. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do have something in the back of my mind regarding a couple of things, but I haven't formed them enough to post yet. As noted, I'm not going to keep this open indefinitely just in case. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is at 5 to 4 anymore. Doug Weller (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but 3.1 is at 5-5 which makes me even more reluctant to support a close. Even if 3.2 does something similar, 3.1 has first preference votes. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Thryduulf 3.2 now has 8 supports, ignoring the 2nd choices, so clearly passes. So that should eliminate that objection. If you've got something new planned, please do it. Doug Weller (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now moved to support. I'm not going to be in a position to add anything new in an appropriate timescale, and you are right regarding 3.2. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww_and_The_Rambling_Man/Proposed_decision&oldid=1087262933"