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

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

After reading various links on this and the evidence page, e.g. [1][2] I get the impression that the general consensus of the community is that while sourced lists are obviously better (per WP:V and other reasons), an unsourced awards list in a BLP article is not normally harmful to the subject? If so is there anywhere that sums this up better than the above links? If no, please give a link to support this.

Please keep answers brief (3 sentences at the absolute most), civil and to the point. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a fair summary. However, the AE decision was explicit that harm was not the only standard to apply: being unsourced when restored was sufficient to constitute a violation. The case is directly parallel, as the information being restored by TRM was not only unsourced, it was inaccurate.—Kww(talk) 15:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely zero harm to a subject in having an award listed without a source; it falls under WP:V and is best addressed with a [Citation Needed] tag, and later deletion if no citation is forthcoming -- not under WP:BLP. I agree with SchroCat (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence#Kww should not have the mop, and other thoughts) that (temporarily) unsourced awards lists are a great benefit to Wikipedia. And the Cwobeel case was never a case about BLP violations; it was clearly about a disruptive editor, and Cwobeel was blocked under WP:NEWBLPBAN, not for any WP:BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe consensus is not focused on answering that but has that conclusion, that it's harmless unless false data (but, V and BLP should eventually be complied with as always). Had I been active in January I would have objected to Sandstein's definition of Contentious in that AE; one editor objecting to material does not make it contentious, there has to be a good reason. Cwobeel's activities were problematic elsewise. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that, in this case, the definition of "contentious" has become key as Kww has acted on lists which contain unsourced claims of actors winning awards, even though IMDB (while far from ideal) existed to help provide at least a clue to the existence and veracity of such awards. At the same time, there exist thousands of biographical articles and award lists which contain clear BLP violations or contain no verifiable sources whatsoever and while I think Kww was battling precisely in-line with his interpretation of "contentious" (which I dispute strongly, contentious might be "XYZ killed a man" or "XYZ came out as gay" or "XYZ was arrested for 123", not "ABC won Award 123 which is sourced by poor sources but sourced nonetheless"), ironically, the versions of the lists that Kww strenuously restored contained inaccuracies and, according to his own criteria, BLP violations, albeit in the infoboxes which summarised the awards and nominations garnered by these individuals. Are those inaccuracies contentious — perhaps not "as much" but where do you draw the line? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Georgewilliamherbert

Proposed principles

Restoring uncontroversial BLP immediately before sourcing complies with BLP policy

1) 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 do so in a reasonably short period of time, such as the same day's editing sessions. Controversial or negative material should only be restored very promptly and preferably in the same edit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I hate to have to start to lay this out but this has become controversial, and I believe this captures consensus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason to restore prior to having found the source. To the case in hand, even this relaxed standard has not been met, many weeks later.—Kww(talk) 20:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The primary reason to restore prior to having inserted all the sources is that the prior list or text is, as a whole, all or nearly all correct and well done, and that recreating it piecemeal is a horrible pain and an unreasonable burden on editors in the reasonable time and process of sourcing things. A short but reasonable time window to insert proper sourcing is tolerated by everyone else. I believe we have consensus on that, though you disagree.

Regarding those specific articles and totality of what's now sourced well enough for your preferences and what is not, that's not relevant to either the case nor this principle here. I invite you to make specific comments on those article talk pages to list the remaining items you'd like specifically sourced, to deal with that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I would simply like basic compliance to both WP:V and WP:BLP, in that every item that was challenged should have been verified before restoration, complete with an inline citation that supports its accuracy. I've detailed a quick summary of some of the problems with the content on the evidence page. Did you read that section? Or simply presume that the material TRM was adding was accurate without verifying it yourself?—Kww(talk) 21:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

In the context of the case, your first sentence is against consensus and seems likely to get you desysoped. In the context of the case, the quality of TRM's completion of sourcing the two articles has not come up as an issue which I feel it is necessary or relevant to comment on at this time. Any flaws there are not going to get fixed within the context of the Arbcom case.

Outside the context of the case, again, I urge you to take the specifics off to uninvolved editors and admins by (re)posting it all on the article talk page and letting uninvolved people either source, re-delete, or decide it's not necessary for particular specifics or cases. This is not a tactical argument to win in the case; if you feel the articles are still flawed, you can and should go point that out so that uninvolved others can review and fix them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Except to the extent that it indicates that my judgement that TRM had no intention of supporting his material was justified. I note, for instance, that false referencing continues: this edit from today certainly looks pretty, but fails to note that the source mentions nothing about any 2003 Vancouver awards. Since this lack was brought out in my evidence page, coupled with his abusive commentary, I still have a hard time with assuming good faith TRM's intention to provide inline citations that support the material. Or would you argue that inserting citations that specifically don't support the material cited is also not a problem?—Kww(talk) 22:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you still believe and are asserting that. Again, I believe a consensus disagrees. I don't know that continuing this further will be productive. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a consensus that a source for a 2008 award listing can be used to source a claim for 2003? Or is it simply that no one is checking his edits?—Kww(talk) 00:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Now I had a chance to source without sections of the page disappearing (and having asked Writ Keeper who had advised me to stay away from the lists until I recently re-checked with him), both lists in question are fully referenced. It wasn't that hard by any means and has resulted in an improved Wikipedia. There were a few items that took more than a few seconds to reference, I've moved them to the talk page rather than just excising them entirely. I would be more than happy for someone to check my edits, after all I've added dozens and dozens of references in a couple of hours, I'm bound to have made the odd error; we are, after all, human, apart from those of us who are not. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. This is clearly supported by bothe the wording of the policy and by community consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

TRM did not abuse administrator tools

0) The Rambling Man did not misuse or abuse administrator tools in the incidents of July 24.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. Zero evidence that he did, although it must have been tempting. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

TRM edit warred

1) The Rambling Man edit warred on two articles in the process of adding citations and sources to lists of awards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Accepted, I should not have continually restored the material that Kww continually deleted. My bad, and I apologise for doing so. In mitigation I would state that I had pledged that I would source the material which was being continually deleted, as long as I had been given a few seconds to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Support as being factually correct, with the added note that this was addressed successfully at ANI and doesn't need to be restated in the arbcom case. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

KWW edit warred

2) KWW edit warred on two articles in the process of removing uncited but not controversial or negative material from a BLP and a (per-policy) recently deceased BLP article, interfering with multiple other editors' attempts to properly cite entries in the process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. 23:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing unsourced material is not "interfering with sourcing." All material that had been restored with a supporting citation was retained. The other material should not have been returned to the article before a source had been supplied that supported the information: basic WP:V and WP:BLP compliance can't be ignored because it is inconveniences the editor restoring the information.—Kww(talk) 02:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I had told Kww that if he gave me time before reverting my edits that I would source the lists. This didn't seem to cut the mustard, he reverted me and blocked me despite that pledge. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I blocked you after you had promised that you would source the Hoffman article but, instead of doing so, moved to the Jackman article and began to restore unsourced material to it. Once I agreed to give you space to complete the Hoffman article, I took no further action about that article.—Kww(talk) 23:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Guy: This diff should support the "agreed to give you space to complete the Hoffman article" claim. Note that 9 minutes later, he had moved the Jackman article instead of continuing to work on the Hoffman article, which I took as evidence that he was planning on continuing to restore challenged material to articles before finding sources.—Kww(talk) 19:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Support. WP:V does not require that the source be added in the same edit as the claim: "There is no requirement that the citation must be added in the same edit as the restoration." --Thryduulf[3] WP:BLP does not apply, because the material was in no way harmful. Kww should have tagged the unsourced claims with citation needed and given the other editors at least a day to add citations. That's how you are supposed to act when you are WP:INVOLVED and are following the same rules as all of the other editors working on the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that Guy Macon is mistaken when asserting that "WP:V does not require that the source be added in the same edit" (see my more detailed comments lower down this page) -- PBS (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that PBS is mistaken, and I look forward to arbcom resolving this good-faith disagreement. I can see good arguments either way. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I am not sure what the "per-policy" in front of "recently deceased" is meant to add. BLP does provide that "the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside...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." But with Phillip Seymour Hoffman having died more than a year ago, and a list of awards hardly having implications for his living relatives, I don't see that article as inherently falling under BLP policy. Perhaps "arguably per policy." Rlendog (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Kww, I have a question about your "Once I agreed to give you space" claim above." I didn't see that when I examined the history (but of course I could have missed it -- there were a lot of edits to look at) and these two edits [4], [5] seem to show just the opposite. Do you have a diff supporting this claim? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: Kww answered this above, showing the diff. Exact quote: "If you are actually going to continue adding citations until the material that you reinserted is covered, I'll stay away from the article for a day or so."[6] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Timeline, List of awards and nominations received by Philip Seymour Hoffman

• 15:06 - 15:10, 24 June 2015: Kww deletes a bunch of material that had been in the article since 9 May 2015.[7]
• 20:11 24 June 2015: Dr. Blofeld reverts Kww.[8] 1RR.
• 20:23, 24 June 2015: The Rambling Man adds ref improve template with edit comment "rather than delete most of the content, which is actually against guidelines, request further references!".[9]
• 20:30, 24 June 2015: Kww reverts.[10] 1RR.
• 20:32, 24 June 2015: The Rambling Man reverts.[11] 1RR.
• 20:33, 24 June 2015: Kww reverts.[12] 2RR.
• 20:33, 24 June 2015: The Rambling Man inserts reference with comment "two seconds".[13]
• 20:34 - 20:39 24 June 2015 (TRM talk page): preliminary sparring[14][15][16][17][18]
• 20:35, 24 June 2015: Kww reverts.[19] 3RR.
• 20:38 - 20:56 24 June 2015: The Rambling Man starts adding references.[20]
• 20:58 - 20:58 24 June 2015: Kww deletes two entries while The Rambling Man is in the process of adding references to them.[21] 4RR.
• 21:00, 24 June 2015: The Rambling Man adds another reference.[22]
• 21:00, 24 June 2015: Kww deletes another three entries while The Rambling Man is in the process of adding references to them.[23] 5RR
• 21:00, 24 June 2015: The Rambling Man reverts.[24] 2RR.
• 21:03, 24 June 2015: The Rambling Man adds another reference.[25]
• 21:04, 24 June 2015 (Kww talk page): TRM posts standard edit war warning template.[26]
• 21:06, 24 June 2015 (TRM talk page): Kww claims that his actions are exempt from edit warring rules.[27]
• 21:07, 24 June 2015 (TRM talk page): TRM disputes this assertion.[28]
• 21:08, 24 June 2015? Kww deletes another three entries while The Rambling Man is in the process of adding references to them.[29] 6RR.
• 21:09, 24 June 2015 (Kww talk page): comment from Newyorkbrad.[30]
• 21:09 - 21:11, 24 June 2015: The Rambling Man adds another ref.[31]
• 21:11, 24 June 2015: The Rambling Man reverts.[32] 3RR
• 21:12, 24 June 2015 (Kww talk page): Kww responds to Newyorkbrad.[33]
• 21:13 - 21:38, 24 June 2015 (Kww talk page): much more back and forth arguing, ending in block. Too many diffs, read the thread at User talk:Kww/20150717#Edit war.
• 21:46, 24 June 2015 (TRM talk page): Kww warns TRM that he will block him.[34]
• 21:50, 24 June 2015 (TRM talk page): TRM responds, saying that Kww has no grounds, questions odd behavior.[35]
• 21:52, 24 June 2015 (TRM talk page): Block notice from Kww.[36] No further discussion from Kww despite multiple editors criticizing the block.[37]
• 21:55, 24 June 2015 (TRM talk page): TRM responds to block notice.[38]

Timeline: List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman

• 00:26 - 00:30 2 June 2015: Kww removes multiple unsourced items.[39]
• 04:22, 2 June 2015: Set fire 2 de rain reverts, adds 1 overall reference.[40] 1RR.
• 14:41, 2 June 2015: Kww reverts.[41] 1RR.
• 15:06 - 21:11, 24 June 2015: All edits on Hoffman page happened during this period. See timeline above.
• 21:27, 24 June 2015: The Rambling Man reverts.[42] 1RR.
• 21:30, 24 June 2015: The Rambling Man adds ref improve tag with edit sumarry "tag, we'll fix it, so DON'T JUST ARBITRARILY DELETE IT".[43]
• 21:32, 24 June 2015: Kww reverts last two Rambling Man edits.[44] 1RR.
• 21:33, 24 June 2015: The Rambling Man reverts.[45] 2RR.
• 21:34 - 21:35, 24 June 2015: The Rambling adds three references in three edits in less than 2 minutes.[46]
• 21:38 - 21:43, 24 June 2015: Kww deletes multiple entries while The Rambling Man is in the process of adding references to them.[47] 2RR.
• 21:44, 24 June 2015: The Rambling Man reverts.[48] 3RR.
• 21:47, 24 June 2015: Kww reverts.[49] 3RR.
• 21:48, 24 June 2015: The Rambling Man reverts.[50] 4RR.
• 21:48, 24 June 2015: Kww reverts.[51] 4RR.
• 21:48, 24 June 2015: Kww blocks The Rambling Man
• 22:39, 24 June 2015: Writ Keeper unblocks The Rambling Man ("clearly involved block")

Note: where I show a range of times ("00:26 - 00:30") I am indicating multiple consecutive edits in one entry.

I added relevant talk page comments inline. Anyone is free to edit any of the above if I made an error (wrong diff, wrong time, etc.) just silently fix it. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments about timelines

Edit warring by both sides is definitely confirmed. There was a lot of talk page arguing, but what I didn't see was anyone stopping their edit warring while discussing, nor did I see any attempts to use dispute resolution. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I would add the following:

PSH:

• 20:35, 24 June 2015: TRM attempts to restore the list and is prevented from doing so by edit filter 661: [52].
• 20:36, 24 June 2015: TRM attempts to restore the list and is prevented from doing so by edit filter 661: [53].
• 07:58, 25 June 2015: Dr. Blofeld attempts to restore the list and is prevented from doing so by edit filter 661: [54].

HJ:

• 13:52, 24 June 2015: Softlavender attempts to restore the list and is prevented from doing so by edit filter 661: [55].
• 13:54, 24 June 2015: Softlavender attempts to restore the list and is prevented from doing so by edit filter 661: [56].
• 21:16, 24 June 2015: TRM attempts to restore the list and is prevented from doing so by edit filter 661: [57].
• 21:18, 24 June 2015: TRM attempts to restore the list and is prevented from doing so by edit filter 661: [58].

Dragons flight (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Great catch! It did not occur to me to check for edit filters blocking attempts to edit. Good work. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I just added a new proposed remedy, "Arbcom calls upon the community to set standards and procedures for edit filters" to my section. Please comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

KWW blocked while involved

3) KWW's block of TRM was an involved block.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support There is a clear consensus at multiple venues to support this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Support. There is an overwhelming consensus supporting this. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

A textbook example of WP:INVOLVED. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

KWW using BLP to justify inexcusable actions

4) KWW used and continues to use BLP to justify actions in violation of Wikipedia policy, collegial editing, and consensus that BLP did not apply in these instances. He has stated he would continue to take these types of actions in the future and rejected the consensus that he was in error despite repeated discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

While Kww has subsequently searched for a clarification of what is deemed "controversial", in my belief there are many more suitable targets for BLP patrolling such as the biography of Jackman rather than this rather trivial fork of his awards. Kww also appears to have overlooked the fact that the versions of articles he restored also contained inaccuracies and BLP violations (per his criteria) so I'm not sure that the "controversial" level is either correct or implemented uniformly by him. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support Shocking, but accurate summation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sad Support. His recent invoking on this very page of the "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion" clause shows that he is immune to the opinions of other admins on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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.

TRM is admonished

1) The Rambling Man is admonished for edit warring and abuses of civility and good faith in the process of re-adding material and citing it. Editors, and in particular administrators, are expected to act in a more collegial and collaborative manner than this at all times.

Comment by Arbitrators:

That's an interesting point Guy - a finding of fact that he was admonished and accepted the admonishment would probably be required for completeness, but without an associated remedy. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Per the discussion here I took Guy's suggestion, see 1a) below. I don't believe in striking proposals not felt to be disruptive, so I will leave this one here, but I switch my support to that one. TRM has been responsible and accepting of the criticism, sought out feedback, etc. We can note that and move on, we don't need another finding here. I want it on record that I do believe that the edit warring etc. was not OK on his side during the incident, but we do not need another separate admonishment to accomplish that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support, just needs to have reliable citations at the ready for additions Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Change to oppose after reading Guy Macon's rationale below Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. This is asking arbcom to admonish TRM for behavior long after (at ANI) he admitted it was wrong, showed that he understands why it was wrong, and made a good-faith commitment that he would not do it again. TRM even offered to resign his adminship. Arbcom should not issue admonitions for behavior that has already been addressed successfully at ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think a a finding of fact that TRM was admonished at ANI and accepted the admonishment is a fine idea. If gathering the diffs is inconvenient, I am sure that TRM would be glad to restate it in one place for convenient linking. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

TRM was admonished by the community

1a) (alternate) The Rambling Man voluntarily sought feedback via a self-recall offer on ANI following the July 24 2015 events, and was admonished by the community in the ANI discussion [59]. The discussion noted productive and good faith content work, and sometimes uncivil conversations. TRM accepted the feedback and criticism in that discussion. Editors, and in particular administrators, are expected to act in a more collegial and collaborative manner than this at all times.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Newyorkbrad: the community seem to think they can admonish people, see [60] for example, and personally I have no issues with that. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@IJBall: a principle relating to administrator conduct is pretty much guaranteed to be in the proposed decision. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed per discussion above on 1). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Accepted, indeed I did request an almost immediate recall discussion at ANI after I had voluntarily abstained from Wikipedia for the duration of Kww's original block (even though I was unblocked a few hours after the Kww block). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Brad, I think that a community admonishment should be something we can issue, even if this is setting a precedent to that effect. It's a finding, even if it's not an action. The community can find things as much as Arbcom can, in looking for comment and consensus on issues. However, I am open to further input on this point, and if Arbcom chose to adopt this with criticism instead of admonishment I'd be OK with that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. Arbcom should carefully craft the wording to account for the differences between Arbcom-speak and ANI-speak. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The thrust of the finding is correct, but the term "admonished" should not be used ("admonished" has become a term of art on the arbitration pages, but there is no "community admonition process"). "... was the subject of criticism in the ANI thread, and agreed that..." or similar would work well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Honestly, I don't know the particulars of how this process works, but I sure would like to see an explicit reference to WP:ADMINCOND made here if this is the consensus version of this finding... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

KWW is admonished

1) KWW is admonished for edit warring and abuses of civility and good faith while defending what he believed in good faith to be a BLP violation. Editors, and in particular administrators, are expected to act in a more collegial and collaborative manner than this at all times.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I was not uncivil at any point. You may not agree that I should have dealt with TRM as an abusive editor, but I was polite and firm in my dealings with him.—Kww(talk) 13:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

While others are quoting all these policies verbatim, I believe it's clear that WP:CIVIL explicitly includes the assumption of good faith (to whit: "editors should assume that others are trying to help, not hurt the project.") which perhaps could have been applied to a editor of ten years standing who has a track record of providing well-referenced articles including 17 featured articles, 162 good articles, 53 featured lists and a track record of being asked by others to reduce his quality standards for referencing of BLPs at DYK and ITN. For the record, Kww certainly never engaged in any personal attacks which is often misguidedly thought of as a mirror of "civility". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support, though I'm not sure when he was uncivil Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support, though as SNUGGUMS says, it shouldn't read "incivility" but something more akin to "WP:BATTLEGROUND". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Show me the diffs demonstrating incivility. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment I think Guy is actually saying "show me the swear words", which are probably absent, but that's not what civility is about. See WP:CIVIL, "[s]tated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect.... Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project." The evidence section shows a long history of condescension and self-righteousness, like towards SchroCat in the BKFIP page that SchroCat linked, or the discussion with Hasteur about the archive.is link rewriting bot. I classified this as battleground editing but CIVIL describes the issue too.

I think we'd all acknowledge that Kww is a smart editor. I wish he would accept the concept that other editors can be smart too, and when someone disagrees with his conclusions it might not be because they can't follow his reasoning, but rather that they don't agree with his premises. That said, an admonishment remedy over it seems like an unnecessary pile-on in a case that appears headed towards a desysop. 173.228.123.193 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

KWW is admonished (alternate)

1a) KWW is admonished for edit warring and abuses of collegiality, collaborative editing, and good faith while defending what he believed in good faith to be a BLP violation. Editors, and in particular administrators, are expected to act in a more collegial and collaborative manner than this at all times.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, alternate wording. I don't agree with the suggestion above re BATTLEGROUND as it was impersonal and not related to an external or ongoing conflict, however it was failing to engage in good faith discussion and continuing to re-undo others' edits. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Brad and 173... I saw and remembered Kosh's note, I've been trying to say consensus where it mattered rather than unanimous agreement (there were a couple of others who supported the actions prior to the block but not the block; consensus was clear, but not unanimity). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, re the "believed in good faith", I agree that a reasonable editor would have taken the feedback and stopped pushing earlier, but I do believe that KWW has been entirely honest and sincere about what he thinks was going on and why and how he interpreted things. What he was trying to do - protect the encyclopedia, apply policy - is appropriate. It's how and with what judgement and priorities and methods. He failed to assume good faith of others, not operate in good faith himself. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I am not so sure about "...while defending what he believed in good faith to be a BLP violation". I can accept that the original edit was in good-faith, but as the collection of editors and administrators telling Kww that it was not a BLP violation grew larger and larger and Kww rejected the consensus of the community, I don't see how his subsequent edit warring and involved block could be considered good-faith efforts to uphold BLP. Any reasonable person would have stopped and discussed the issue and perhaps sought help using dispute resolution long before edit warring and certainly before issuing a block that not one single person has said was justified. This is taking the assumption of good faith too far. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon apparently thought the block was justified (see preliminary statement at /Evidence). I thought that showed lack of wisdom on KoshVorlon's part, but Wikipedia has something for everyone. 173.228.123.193 (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

173... appears to be correct. I missed this too, in my own comments below, though the fact that a block was defended by 1 out of 25ish people who commented instead of none at all still reflects vanishingly little support for the necessity or wisdom of the block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

KWW is desysoped

1) Editors and administrators are expected to make mistakes in the course of editing the encyclopedia, and such normal mistakes (even moderately severe ones) are tolerated, with feedback and behavior changes. Actions by KWW subsequent to the incidents of June 24 have made it clear that KWW is setting himself outside the bounds of community feedback and consensus regarding those actions. He obviously is sincere in these beliefs. However, as a member of the Wikipedia community and of the community of administrators, such refusal to abide by such a strong consensus in a matter involving asserted violations of both administrator and editor policies raises significant questions regarding his judgement relative to the Wikipedia community and project. In light of that question of question of judgement the community lacks confidence in KWW's use of the administrative tools in the future. KWW is desysoped. He may reapply for the tools via the normal community process after 1 year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I find this highly regrettable. KWW could have turned around his responses at any time, but I no longer have faith that his administrative tools judgement is up to community standards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose per my comments below Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support. Becoming a poster child for the Law of holes raises significant questions regarding Kww's judgement and willingness to listen to the community. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm leaning heavily towards supporting a desysop of Kww. His failure to recognize that he was in breach of WP:INVOLVED notwithstanding, I just don't think he has the temperament for the job. Based on my experiences and observations, he oftentimes comes across as extremely gruff. Being an administrator means more than having an extra set of tools - it's a responsibility to the community and to the project as a whole. I feel as though he lacks the tact for this, and so I think it's probably better if he were no longer a sysop. That said, I don't think it's fair to restrict him from reapplying for an entire year. He should be free to do so whenever he wishes. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose – put him on double-super (non-)secret probation, if you must. But desyopsing is totally overkill for what is effectively a good faith over-interpretation of Wiki policy. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Writ Keeper

Proposed principles

Erring on the side of caution

1) Because of the power of the sysop toolset, admins must use judgement, discretion, and restraint in using their tools. Admin tools should generally not be used without policy support.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Willingness to listen

2) It is inevitable that admins will make mistakes; a single mistake does not necessarily require a desysop. But admins must be receptive to criticism and the response of the community; an editor who refuses to acknowledge concerns about their actions held by a wide swath of people may be unsuited for adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree with this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support - I think the wording is a little off, but the overall sentiment is correct. An admin should not give more credence to their own judgement over the judgement of the global consensus. The tools should be used only as an expression of consensus, not in spite of it. To me, those are two major points here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Kww made an involved block

1) Needs little explanation; this seems to be readily acknowledged by almost anyone not named Kww (see ANI threads, evidence page).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Support - Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Kww refuses to accept community concerns

2) Kww has not shown the receptiveness to criticism of his actions needed in an administrator. He has refused to budge from his position that all of his actions were within policy, despite strong disapproval from many other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Support - I didn't expect to ever see myself support such a claim, and Kww disagreeing isn't new, but the absolute refusal to accept community consensus is bewildering. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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

1) Kww is desysopped, and may only regain the tools through a successful RfA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this must be done. If Kww had shown even the slightest hint of acknowledging the community's issues with his actions, this might not have been necessary, but here we are. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Snuggums: He's already been admonished. Like I said, if he'd acknowledge that the concerns of others are valid, even in a "I don't think you're right but clearly the tide is against me so I'll abide by it" way, that'd be one thing. But he isn't, and involved blocks, with the promise of more to come, are not something we should tolerate in an admin, no matter how much else they do. I never said he didn't have good intentions--he clearly is doing what he thinks is best for the project--but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

My desysop proposal or this one, it has become apparent this is necessary. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not sure how much my input here is worth, but oppose since even though his actions haven't been perfect, he has been quite helpful with detecting (and blocking) sock puppets (see for example many of the listings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx/Archive) and is trying to keep pages verifiable (even though BLP doesn't always apply). Admonishment would be better than desysopping. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Strong Support - We simply can't be allowing admin to keep their bits when they won't bow to community consensus, as the only reason admin exist is to carry out community consensus. We all make mistakes, and even this mistake could have been forgiven if Kww had seen it as a mistake. Instead, he broke the First Law of Holes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Support. --Guy Macon (talk)

Support per what I said under Georgewilliamherbert's similar proposal. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose – as above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Kww's EFM removed

2) Kww's edit filter manager right is removed, and can only be regained through the usual channels available to non-admins.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is basically part of the admin toolset, despite being a separate right, and given the concerns specifically regarding the use of the edit filter, this should probably be made explicit. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Procedural Support as per above. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Only as part of desysoping. Deciding not to desysop in the face of clear policy violations and then removing filter rights despite pretty much zero policy on what behavior is allowed would by silly. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Kww

Proposed principles

Kww concedes that his enforcement of WP:V is more literal than the community supports

I don't know if this is a "principle" or not, but I will concede that there is a large population of Wikipedia that believes that WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP can be satisfied by inserting citations at some later point. I tried to get an RFC started to clarify this issue, but my RFC has been aborted twice ([61][62]).

I will admit that I have a hard time understanding this interpretation, and believe that it will do nothing but aggravate our horrendous problem with unsourced material, but I understand that I cannot enforce my interpretation.

I do ask that people view my actions through the lens of understanding that in my mind, I was enforcing a bright line rule in a consistent and even-handed fashion, in the same way I have done through six years of adminship. Notice that I do have a track record of being able to avoid policy areas where the community stands against me: articles about fictional characters have been safe from my touch despite my vociferous objections to them, and editors who promote pseudoscience edit unscathed, despite my vociferous objections to them.—Kww(talk) 15:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If the community accepts and agrees with the claim that this was not edit warring or an involved block, then your steadfast belief that you were enforcing a bright line rule in a consistent and even-handed fashion will have been justified -- it would mean that you understand the community standards and are fearless in enforcing them. If, however, the community rejects your claims, then your steadfast belief that you were enforcing a bright line rule in a consistent and even-handed fashion when the community strongly feels otherwise means that you should not have the job of enforcing community standards that you really don't understand. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

BLP covers a broad range of issues, not solely "contentious" material

1) WP:BLP incorporates many facets beyond the controversial nature of material. Restoring material that has had its verifiability challenged by any editor is as much a BLP violation as adding material which is libelous, harmful, contentious, or any of the other classes of material covered by WP:BLP.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Current text of the WP:BLP lead includes ""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.". This is no expansion, as Guy Macon, would describe it, but a plain-text reading of current policy.—Kww(talk) 13:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree; both the written policy and community consensus say something at odds with this assertion. A discussion to change consensus and a RFC to change the policy would be perfectly reasonable actions to shift the current standard. These actions in this case were not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strong Oppose. This appears to be an attempt to expand WP:BLP -- and the priority WP:BLP has over WP:INVOLVED -- to apply to content disputes that do not involve any harm to LPs. Such an expansion should start with an RfC to see if the community agrees. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

As I point out in my section below, if the policy is read literally, any uncited sentence in the entire encyclopedia, and particularly any such sentence in a BLP, could be challenged. There is obviously a need to prioritize which such statements are actually challenged, and the consensus seems to be that actor-award sections is not a logical starting-point, particularly where another editor has actually expressed an interest in improving them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The proposal is very wrong and it's long been acknowledged that BLP is a de facto compromise of WP:NPOV, for the sake of not letting our navel-gazing internal procedures screw up people's real-world lives. So we have policies like WP:BLPTALK (severe BLP vios shouldn't be posted in any namespace), WP:BANEX (the vios can be removed even by topic banned editors), and the reverting is exempt from 3RR (WP:3RRNO). It's obviously not ok to write "I'm looking for a good source that Senator Schmoe murdered 37 nuns and also posted an internet video of herself eating a live puppy, as claimed on 4chan" on the talk page of Senator Schmoe's biography. But it's fine to write "I'm looking for a good source that PSH was nominated for the VFCC Best Supporting Actor Award in 2008, as claimed on IMDB" on the PSH award talk page--researching stuff like that is the purpose of the talk page. BLPTALK applies to the Senator Schmoe edit but not the PSH one. If BLPTALK doesn't apply to a given edit then that's evidence that the info is uncontentious and 3RRNO and BANEX and "must be removed" don't apply either. It's just normal editing, with the usual expectations of collegiality and good judgment, which were thrown by the wayside here. 173.228.123.193 (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Fundamental policies cannot be violated based on local consensus

2) WP:V is one of the five pillars. Its requirement that any material restored following a challenge must be accompanied by an inline citation cannot be circumvented or weakened by any editor or group of editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There is no requirement that the citation must be added in the same edit as the restoration. Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kww: As noted by others, you must give people a reasonable time to add the citation. How long "reasonable" is will vary, in my personal view it will depend on things like how contentious the challenged statement is (more contentious = less time), how plausible it is (more plausible = longer time), whether it has been discussed on the talk page (previously rejected = shorter time, source just requires copying from the talk page = shorter time, agreed it's not contentious = longer time), who the editor restoring it is (users with a history of vandalism should be accorded a lesser time than someone with a reputation for good edits; a new user unfamiliar with adding references will take longer to add one than someone who does it every day), how many sources are being added (e.g. if someone is sourcing a list they should be given time to source all the entries, either in one edit or in several, rather than be required to restore each item individually), the nature of the source (e.g. it will probably take longer to add a reference to a book than to a website), and any statements given about time (e.g. if someone has indicated they'll source something in the next 5-10 minutes, they should in most cases be given at least that long) and possibly other factors too. In all cases policies regarding edit warring remain in effect, and unless the challenged statement is vandalism or potentially libellous then people should be given sufficient time, at minimum, to add the source in their next edit. [note this is personal view, not a statement on behalf of the Committee] Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@PBS: there is no practical difference between a source that is provided in the same edit as the restoration, and one that is provided in the subsequent edit. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kww: I can't actually find that edit summary in the page history? Such an edit summary is not good as it indicates the user is possibly edit warring (which TRM has acknowledged), but it does not impact on how contentious the edit is or how long it will take to add a source. When you saw that you should have either walked away and discussed it on the talk page or TRM's user talk or added the source yourself. As you were the party he was edit warring with, your removing it again was inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 Notice @Kww and The Rambling Man: This backwards and forwards is not helpful, any of more of it and the section will be closed. I've also asked the clerks to keep a closer eye on this page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kww: There is in general no absolute requirement that anything be done by an inline citation. Thevery sentence you quote in the previous comment reads "which is usually done with an inline citation" (my italics). Nor is it required that this be at the level of individual statements within a sentence or even paragraph. It does has to be clear what the citation supports. We normally in BLP support a related group of routine bio facts by a single source, and placing it at the end of the section is enough. If some one of them is specifically and reasonably challenged, then there may need further specification (the most common example is date of birth). It depends on the circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

@Kww: The "next edit" requirement you ask for is unreasonable. When something I may have added years ago is challenged, I will need more than that to find the source again. (but obviously you are correct that if it is specifically damaging it must be removed pending the discussion. I don't think anyone can really challenge that.---that's the circumstance where very strict enforcement is needed/ And, fwiw, I think you have done very important work in many such cases.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Comment by parties:

So when, Thryduulf? Same edit session of undetermined length? Same milleniun? To not read it as requiring simultaneity is to read it as not requiring it at all. Any editor of TRM's experience can be presumed to be able to add citations while editing, and not require edit-warring the material back into public view prior to sourcing.—Kww(talk) 14:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the limit is to be decided to be, "in the same exact edit" is not supported either by written policy nor by consensus interpretation of it, and there is nearly unanimous agreement that your interpretation here and elsewhere was abusive. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thrdyuulf, Guy Macon, Dennis Brown: please accept this as a serious question. I fully understand that when originally inserted, there's no absolute requirement for all information to be accompanied by an inline citation. I've never blocked anyone for failing to do that. Once the material has been challenged and removed, however, the policy clearly mandates a inline citation before it can be reinserted. How can you read either WP:V or WP:BLP another way? What other interpretation of "All ... material challenged ... must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source" is possible? We put explicitly and must in there when we didn't mean it? The later sentence "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" is directly on point as well.

I've always dealt with WP:V and WP:BURDEN this way, regardless of who challenged and who restored. I generally warn on the first restoration and block on the second or third. That interpretation has gone unchallenged for six years. —Kww(talk) 13:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

So, given your "reasonable time" standard, Thrdyuulf, how would an edit summary like "added link, now then, 3rr applies, so go for it kww", accompanying an edit which actually did not add any citations, impact your decision making process on how much time was reasonable?—Kww(talk) 12:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stay on topic, no personal attacks. Liz
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There's a reason that I gave you a link to the abuse filter trip, Thrdyuulf: the edit was blocked, so it isn't in the history of the article itself. I think your argument that it shouldn't impact my judgment about a user's good faith is a little surprising: I think it indicated that The Rambling Man had no intention of going through the material he had added and providing adequate sourcing.—Kww(talk) 13:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC) You mean an edit stopped by your horrific-looking edit filter which was subsequently followed a whole four minutes later with a series of edits which added references, albeit not in "inline" form, but references (to The Guardian, BAFTA, Golden Globes etc) nonetheless along with the {{ref improve}} template? From an editor who has a 10-year track record of producing referenced featured material? Did that not impact the decision-making process in any way? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Why yes, TRM, it did impact my judgement. It told me that your failure to source could not be assigned to ignorance of WP:BURDEN or insufficient competence and skill to use your "preview" button, and that you were intentionally inserting the material prior to providing sources.—Kww(talk) 13:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC) It's a shame that your judgement was therefore flawed by that one failed edit and that despite my track record you believed I was making deliberate errors to "willfully and intentionally violate WP:V and WP:BLP". With a track record of dozens of featured items and 162 (very well) referenced GAs, it's pretty clear that I'm not a drive-by BLP vandal isn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC) That doesn't reduce your obligation to follow policy in regard to sourcing. It wasn't that "one failed edit", for the record. That failed edit, an effort to provide a {{cn}} tag instead of a source when material had been challenged, the attacks on me in your edit summaries and talk page contributions, your failure to provide any inline citations, and your edit that indicated you were done when only a third of the material had sources, all combined led me to the conclusion that you didn't intend to follow up. You can't talk and act like that and expect to pull the "elder statesman content contributor" card in the same discussion.—Kww(talk) 14:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC) I don't expect anything from you. More importantly, it's a clear gauge of your judgement that you firmly believe that I was acting to destroy the encyclopaedia by deliberately inserting BLP violations. After all, would that make any sense? As for your diff, there's only so much edit warring I can take before I just stop. (And actually, the references I provided were in each section, so were not as bad you keep advertising. I also added the {{ref improve}} template and an external link which, while not a direct replacement for an RS, is used extensively, so much so we have a series of templates for the website's usage). But I realise that wasn't good enough for you, that your definition of contentious is, well, contentious, and that you believe you operated entirely appropriately and with policies and guidelines to back you up. I'll let this drop now, see you on the other side.  ;) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I can't speak for PBS, but I believe that discretionary phrase of "whether and how quickly this should happen ..." applies to the editor removing and challenging the material, not the restoration.—Kww(talk) 01:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

DGG:The sentence from BLP says "usually" while granting some exceptions, but the sentence from WP:V (which is the topic of this principle) says "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." That's explicit, and contains no alternative to an inline citation. When the material's verifiability has already been challenged, there's no judgement call involved at that point: restoring the material without an inline citation is as close to absolutely forbidden as Wikipedia policies can absolutely forbid anything. The issue we are dealing with is one of restoration timing: I agree that it may take some time to find the source, but that time should be spent before the restoration, not after. That's the crux of WP:BURDEN, and that doesn't hinge on whether the material is contentious or damaging: merely that its verifiability has been challenged. If you examine the edits in question in this dispute, you will see that they didn't satisfy the looser (but roughly equivalent) language in WP:BLP, either, as they were not explicitly tied and, for many of the awards, didn't actually provide any support for them at all.—Kww(talk) 06:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kww: The BLP sourcing policy is intended to be stronger, not weaker, than the general sourcing policy, and the wording if taken at face value says just the opposite. Obviously this needs to be to be interpreted, and the interpretation is found by considering the practice of the community in general, and is derived by considering the purpose of the rules and their effect on the encycopedia. We make our rules, they are not handed down to us as external dictates. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

DGG, that's true. Up until a couple of weeks ago, it appeared that most agreed that the policy was that challenged material couldn't be restored until someone had taken the effort to research the issue, find a source, and provide that when restoring the material. So much so that I couldn't even get an RFC started on the issue because many commenters (such as PBS and TransporterMan) considered it to be settled policy. So much so that I routinely blocked editors that restored information without sources if they did it multiple times and had already been pointed at WP:BURDEN. Now, I'm not certain what you think community policy actually is. Is there a class of information too unimportant for challenges to be considered binding, but so important that it has to be included despite the fact that no one is willing to provide a source? Is it that the process of challenging information as unverifiable can now be undone by any individual editor that believes that challenge was beneath his notice? And where in our policies has this even been proposed in the past?—Kww(talk) 19:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between "despite the fact that no one is willing to provide a source" and an experienced editor/admin with a lengthy record of properly sourced edits desperately trying to add sources while you repeatedly delete the claims he is trying to add the sources to.

There is also a world of difference between "I routinely blocked editors that restored information without sources if they did it multiple times" and you blocking an editor who restored information without sources multiple times as a direct result of you personally removing the information multiple times.

The fact that you are still claiming innocence and saying that you would do it again is the reason why we are debating whether you should be desysopped. TRM let his frustration get the better of him and broke the rules (not by misusing the tools like you did, but his editing did break the rules). He then owned up to his mistake, showed that he understands what he did wrong, and committed to making a good-faith effort to not do it again. That's why nobody is proposing that he be desysopped -- we trust admins who make mistakes and own up to them. We don't trust admins who make mistakes and then repeatedly insist that what they did was right even in the face of overwhelmingly negative pushback from the community. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

:Completely accurate, but only relevant to the question of who is right in the content dispute that led to the use of tools while WP:INVOLVED. Arbcom does not rule on content disputes. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I appear to have misread the question. I assumed that "accompanied by" meant added within a day or two. I think Kww meant that the citation must be added in the same edit as the restoration, which goes completely against the wording of the policy and the consensus of the community --Guy Macon (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The WP:5P, while eloquent in it's own right, is not itself policy. It is a wonderfully concise explanation of our objective, a quasi-essay, but is not enforceable, nor is it the ultimate authority for policy. And if we actually read WP:V, it says that information must be ABLE to be verified. It doesn't set a particular deadline. While contentious information should be sourced, WP:PRESERVE (which IS policy) says information should be retained and it would indicate that if the material isn't damaging to an individual, some patience should be used while it is being sourced. Obviously, controversial material should be removed instantly if unsourced, but that isn't at play here. Removing info that really isn't damning, just because you can, while thumping the editor with an impatient interpretation of WP:V amd WP:BLP is at odds with our Editing Policy. Perfectly fine material for a talk page discussion, or asking for PP, but not to justify an involved block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kww: We have several elements at work here, so I will try to keep it simple, but not oversimplify, but it is tangled. If you revert out information that is relatively benign (isn't calling them a pedo, married to a stripper, etc), it is presumed you are doing so as an EDITOR, as this benign info really isn't a BLP concern, it is simply unsourced information that coincidentally is in a BLP. You can find similar info in non-BLP articles. That is very different than truly contentious material. If you revert out "Bob was a porno star" and used the tools, then it would clearly be an admin action, even if you've done some editing on that article, as it would fall under the exceptions listed in WP:INVOLVED. But the uncontroversial reverts is a matter of editorial decision, not protecting the integrity of the person's reputation, which IS the goal of BLP. Editorial doesn't always mean "my preference". The line can get grey at times, but awards and ancillary info about projects (movie shot in Arizona, etc), not so grey. If it is grey, you get outside opinions. When both are admin, you can just pop a note on WP:AN. Getting back to this: In the eyes of a most everyone here, your admin bit was irrelevant, you did these reverts as an editor. Normally, WP:BRD should kick in, and this is where TRM screwed up big but he admitted it, paid a penance and we moved on. So an editor (you) continues to edit war, ignored BRD (albeit to a lesser degree than TRM), and didn't use any dispute resolution methods, but instead gets mad, switches hats to "admin" and blocks someone. You whipped out a gun in the middle of a knife fight. I really do believe you don't see it that way, but the community does, clearly so. As for BLP, the intent trumps the words, and the intent is clearly to protect the subject from defamation or unsourced negative material. Tiny, neutral facts that are of no consequences shouldn't require the admin tools, no matter who the other editor is. We use the method of least force. We agree they should be sourced, but it was handled poorly. And come on...you blocked an ex-Crat, current Admin, and long time contributor. He doesn't get special treatment, but he is a known quantity. You had to know that other options were available. That you haven't acknowledged this is worrisome. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Simple answer to the above serious question: WP:V and WP:BLP don't mean what you think they mean. This sort of thing happens to me, and to pretty much everyone else. You think you are interpreting a policy correctly, you edit based upon that belief (note that I said edit. Using your admin tools when involved is quite another matter) and suddenly you get pushback from experienced editors and/or administrators. Here is where our approaches are different. When that sort of thing happens to me, I immediately stop doing what the other editors are objecting to. I do that even when I am 100% convinced that I am right. I then discuss the difference in interpretation, calling on uninvolved third parties through dispute resolution if needed. I even wrote an essay on this. You can find it at WP:1AM. The plain and simple fact is that if you had done what I just described we wouldn't be here. Reluctantly responding to the pushback halfway through an arbcom case isn't good enough. The community cannot bring you to arbcom every time you decide that your interpretation is right and that the multiple editors and administrators who are telling you otherwise are all wrong.

I could post an RfC concerning my standard practice (When you get pushback from experienced editors and/or administrators, immediately stop doing what the other editors are objecting to even when you are 100% convinced that you are right, and start discussing the issue) and the result would be close to 100% support. If everyone followed this advice, we would have a bunch of bored arbcom members sitting around with very little to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

---

I think the statement proposed here is overbroad and may not be apropos to the issues involved here as written. BLP issues aside, and entirely in the abstract, I have to say that I support KWW's stated practice of blocking editors who restore unsourced information after at least two advisements/warnings but the devil is in the details (and I have no knowledge of what the details are in the particular situation or situations involved in this case, so express no opinion about them). If that warning or the revert of the restoration comes immediately after the restoration, without giving a real chance for the sourcing to be added, I think that's inappropriate and I fully agree with Thryduulf on the timing issues. Blocks should only come after the editor has been made aware of the policy (with adequate citation and linking to the policy), warned if he/she does it again, and only then, after being sure of his/her awareness and proven unwillingness to follow the policy, blocked with a short block with longer blocks following if he/she still doesn't take the clue. If BLP issues (or other legal issues) are involved, then the process should be somewhat accelerated to a single advisement and warning. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Clarification added. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

To the above I would add that the above gives an involved administrator plenty of time to post to AN and ask an uninvolved admin to do the actual blocking. You see those sorts of requests at AN all the time, and they are almost always addressed in less than an hour, --Guy Macon (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• I do not know how user:Thryduulf can draw the conclusion "There is no requirement that the citation must be added in the same edit as the restoration".[63] It is difficult to think how the wording of WP:BURDEN could be made more explicit "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" ... "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." ... "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." A couple of years ago there was a debate over the word "should" in the great debate around the "Men's rights movement" "Requested_move". See Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 38, for some "Should" means "ought" and for others "must". In this case given the previous sentence I think "and should not be restored" ought be read as "must not be" rather than "ought not be" and I think that it has been understood that way by most people who have debated it over the years. -- PBS (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • user:Thryduulf, if you mean by "there is no practical difference between a source that is provided in the same edit as the restoration, and one that is provided in the subsequent edit",[64] and that the subsequent edit is one of a sequence of consecutive edits as described in WP:3RR "An edit or a series of consecutive edits" then we agree. -- PBS (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• user:Guy Macon you wrote I think Kww meant that the citation must be added in the same edit as the restoration, which goes completely against the wording of the policy and the consensus of the community what is your evidence that it goes against the wording of WP:BURDEN and what is your evidence of "the consensus of the community"? -- PBS (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• WP:BURDEN doesn't say what you think it says. What it says is "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. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." You seem to have completely missed the part where it says "Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article". Note the difference between the actual wording of WP:BURDEN and the "must be added in the same edit as the restoration" that you think it says. I would also point out that "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references" was exactly what happened here. TRM was pleading with Kww to just give him a few minutes to add sources, and indeed tried to add sources only to find that again and again the claim that he wanted to add the source to was deleted. Followed by an involved block. As for consensus, if you can't see the consensus here, at ANI, and at talk:Verifiability, I cannot help you. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• As I was heavily involved in the discussions and contributed to the wording, I know from those discussion was it is meant to mean. I can see how you are misreading it, and that is probably because the punctuation and sentence ordering has been altered slightly over time. "Whether and how quickly this should happen depends" has nothing to do with the process of restoration of text that has been deleted, but it refers to how soon text ought be deleted --This can be verified by looking at the history of the section, and the conversations on the talk page. See for example this edit from December 2011:

  The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it (although an alternate procedure would be to add a citation needed tag). Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article.

Currently the clue lies in the sentence "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." Notice the use of the word "may" in that sentence and not "can" (the use of may in that sentence is one that I have argued in favour of for precisely that reason). I think that you (Guy Macon) have highlighted an important point, and it is going to be necessary to review the wording and readjust the wording so that it reflects the previous clearer meaning. -- PBS (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps consensus has simply changed. Over the last decade most have and policy is nothing more than documenting current consensus, which I think is only slightly less rigid than before. For this case, the current version is what matters anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I simply looked for where the wording "Whether and how quickly" was introduced (May 2011) The wording "without an inline citation to a reliable source" was added to the preceding sentence on 30 Jan. 2014]. Looking at the contemporary thread in archived talk page of WT:V there is no indication that it was intended that the insertion should change the meaning as you suggest. If you think that the consensus has change (and it is not a misunderstand of the wording by Guy Macon) where in the archives of WT:V, is there evidence that the second sentence is to be interpreted the way Guy Macon proposes? -- PBS (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• User:Dennis Brown writes And if we actually read WP:V, it says that information must be ABLE to be verified. It doesn't set a particular deadline. While that is true in general, it is not true for any content readded to a page after a CHALLENGE, see WP:BURDEN.-- PBS (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• And WP:BURDEN states that "whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article." It explicitly does not set a particular deadline, and certainly does not say "the inline citation must be added in the same edit." Rlendog (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• See my comments just above yours that I made earlier today (at 09:34 and 11:09, 16 July 2015]). "whether and how quickly..." is a sentence covering deletion/challenge not reinsertion/burden. -- PBS (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• That may be your interpretation but it is not what the policy says. Rlendog (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Some years ago I proposed that WP:EDIT be made a guideline, because until 2009 when a handful of editors chose to start to use it to contradict the three content policies, few editors were aware the policy existed and even fewer mentioned it in debates. The main use in 2009 was a misuse of WP:PRESERVE. When that change to a guideline failed, the wording of WP:EDIT was altered so that WP:PRESERVE can not be used to undermined the three content policies. User:Dennis Brown writes While contentious information should be sourced, WP:PRESERVE (which IS policy) says information should be retained and it would indicate that if the material isn't damaging to an individual, some patience should be used while it is being sourced. The section "Responsibility for providing citations" in WP:V does not discriminate over whether information is "contentious" what it says is "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged". To stop WP:PRESERVE being used the way User:Dennis Brown suggests, there is specific clause "if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view ..., Verifiability and No original research." (my emphasis) if something is removed as a WP:CHALLENGE the the person restoring it must meet WP:BURDEN. The intention of that sentence, which since 2009 has been formulated in various way, can be found in the archives of WT:EDIT -- PBS (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Please move any further general discussion on Wikipedia policies to the policy talk page or to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop This is all worthwhile discussion but the Workshop is a forum for putting forth suggested proposals and discussion about their merits (or lack thereof). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Administrator status does not provide a license to violate policy

3) Administrators are held to as stringent, if not more stringent, behavioural standards than less-experienced editors. This includes avoiding the use of abusive edit summaries, personal attacks on article talk pages, and insulting behaviour on personal talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes. However, failing to look in the mirror or listen to community consensus on asymmetrical but similar abuse on both sides here is a key flaw of your case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Abusive edit summaries, personal attacks and insulting behavior are best handled an WP:ANI and only become issues for arbcom when ANI cannot handle them. In this case incivility by TRM (which did happen) was handled at ANI, quite successfully, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive890#Self-recall for The Rambling Man. I recently went through every edit by Kww during the time period in question and could not find a single example of incivility by Kww. If anyone disagrees, show me the diffs. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Kww's latest comment ("I suggest that anyone that doubts this is the case takes the time to actually read the two policies.") is argumentative and somewhat insulting. Everyone involved in this discussion has read those two policies very closely. Dismissing our disagreements with Kww about the application of those policies as "well, you must not have read them" is symptomatic of the behavior that resulted in an arbcom case. If I ran into this bit of minor disrespect from an editor debating whether his edits followed policy, I would ignore it as normal human behavior, but I would be quite surprised if it came from an administrator defending what others saw as a misuse of his tools. There is an overwhelming consensus both here and at ANI that WP:BLP doesn't apply at all and a reasonably stong consensus that WP:V does not require the citation to be added in the same edit as the claim. Attempting to deflect criticism for a clearly WP:INVOLVED block by invoking BLP and V again and again is a classic example of the first law of holes --Guy Macon (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:V treat material that "has been challenged" with special caution and emphasis

Both WP:BLP and WP:V treat material that has been challenged by any editor with special caution and emphasis. Both policies align in that material that has been challenged and removed cannot be restored without inline citations. This applies to all material without regard to whether it is contentious, damaging, libelous, or completely and absolutely innocuous. Such material cannot be restored unilaterally by any editor without such a citation, although general policy and common sense would permit restoration of such material if a consensus is obtained that the challenge was flawed in some way. People making challenges are expected to apply good judgement, and the community is able to use the usual mechanisms of blocks, topic bans, and site bans if any editor is found to be making challenges in bad faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I suggest that anyone that doubts this is the case takes the time to actually read the two policies.—Kww(talk) 23:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

TRM's policy violations were unambiguous

1) TRM's repeated restoration of material that had been challenged without providing inline citations that supported the material unambiguously violated both WP:BLP and WP:V.

Comment by Arbitrators:

When administrators disagree on whether something is or is not a violation of policy it is not unambiguously either. Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It waa sufficient ambiguous that it has required this case to determine the matter. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kww: BLP policy was required by the WMF with respect to its principles, which were elaborated in detail by the community after very extensive discussion -- and with continuing discussion about some of the details-- and some of the disagreements resolved in the past by arb com--and with very frequent disputes over the applicability in individual cases, which will undoubtedly continue to be the case regardless of what we do here. I personally think the community would indeed have adopted most of it without pressure from the WMF, certainly it accepts it. and a good thing too, because WMF decisions that are soundly opposed by the community usually get modified , sometimes essentially retracted, as with censoring of images (although their statements about it may waffle about this). Similarly, I think the principle of WP:V is very soundly agreed by the overwhelming majority of the community, although the details of it are similarly open to revision and interpretation--indeed I would be hard put to name something that had greater consensus. No policy speaks for itself, nor is intended to: it is the interpretation which says what the practical meaning is, and that is in the community;s hands00and to some extent ours when appropriate disputes arise. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose, we have clear consensus of admins and editors that this was not the case. This was an edit war; it was not a BLP violation, and V is either in process or incompletely fixed now but not relevant to this proceeding at this time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

True if you reduce BLP to one sentence about contentious material, untrue if you consider the entire contents of the policy.—Kww(talk) 02:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Dennis, WP:BLP isn't a creation of the community: it's a creation of the WMF, Arbcom, and Jimmy, who pretty much forced it upon the community. The community would never have adopted it, and one of our roles as admins is to ensure that the community follows it. I do understand that we have a large section of the community that would rather not even abide by WP:V, but, as we are supposed to do when seeking consensus, I don't give arguments based on it being OK to violate WP:V or WP:BLP much weight, especially when the only justification proffered so far is that it's more convenient for the editor to not have to use his preview button.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of who created the policy or why, it has to be interpreted and enforced by administrators, and community, and appeals of that interpretation or enforcement to the community and arbcom. Neither you nor anyone else can point at a disputed interpretation of policy (or pillars, or anything) and say "my interpretation supercedes all of the rest of yours" to everyone else.

The basic existence, validity of, and need for BLP and V is not at issue here. It's how and under what circumstances it gets enforced and in what manner that enforcement happens. In which that community writ large disagrees with your interpretation and enforcement. (Nearly) nobody - not those who agree with BLP and V philosophically and work to enforce and support them, nor those opposed to it, supports your interpretation or enforcement here. Your actions on the 24th did not talk you into a desysop. These are. We can't trust you anymore. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been accused of WP:IDHT, but that goes both ways, Georgewilliamherbert. I've demonstrated that TRM inserted false data, but no one responds to that. I've demonstrated that he misrepresented the contents of individual citations, but no one responds to that. I've quoted WP:BLP's header of "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source", and no one even offers an alternative interpretation of a perfectly clear sentence, aside from arguing that we can ignore it for some indeterminate period of time. Seriously, if these awards are so inconsequential that they aren't important enough to get right, why are they so important to include that people would be willing to carve out an exemption to WP:BURDEN, WP:BLP, and WP:V just to make it more convenient for editors that want to include them?—Kww(talk) 03:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose as hyperbole. TRM made mistakes, but this assumes a conclusion that isn't supported by the evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kww:, I tire of saying it and feel like a lone voice, but it is the intent of policy that trumps the words. The intent wasn't to sanction edit warring over trivial facts that no one could consider controversial. Even if you were right on the content, that wouldn't allow an involved block. Do you really think the intent of the community when it created that policy was to allow blocks over trivial and neutral details while attempting to evoke an exception under WP:INVOLVED? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose as being factually incorrect. You can't keep asserting "unambiguously violated" as the number of administrators and editors who don't think there was a violation keeps growing and growing. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Even a sentence like "must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source" does not require that the attribution be made in the same edit as the information is added. It must be attribuited within a reasonable time, and if there are conccens that it is taking too long, we have tags and talk pages to address that with first, before mass reverting and blocking. Rlendog (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Kww's assertion that the BLP policy was thrust upon an unwilling community by the Foundation, the ArbCom, and Jimmy Wales is demonstrably false as a historical matter. The existence and thrust of the policy have enjoyed broad community support since the first drafts of what grew into the policy were drafted by two editors (WAS 4.250 and SlimVirgin) a decade ago. There have been, and will always be, disputes as to nuances of the policy and its application in particular cases, but to say that it was forced upon the community is, ironically enough in context, an unsourced statement that I challenge and assert is inaccurate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Re "I've demonstrated that TRM inserted false data, but no one responds to that", the reason no one responded us that every content dispute has similar claims, and a lot of times the claims are accurate. There is no "But I was right!" exemption to WP:EW or WP:INVOLVED. Nobody care whether you or TRM was in the right when you had your content dispute, and arguing that you were in the right simply confirms that is was a content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

TRM's abusive manner eliminated any presumption of good faith

2) The insulting and abusive nature of TRM's edit summaries and commentary obviated any assumption of good faith that may normally have been extended towards him. KWW's treatment of TRM as an editor that was intent on continuing to willfully and intentionally violate WP:V and WP:BLP was justified.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose, and shows that you are refusing to let it go in the face of overwhelming consensus to the contrary of admins and editors. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that my tone became quickly inflamed in the situation and that's something I regret and for which I apologise. I had never ever encountered such an approach to poorly referenced lists (with which I am intimately familiar, after all, I used to be a featured list director for many years) with such rapid and wholesale removal of items that I had pledged to reference. My manner was, however, inappropriate and that's why I placed myself open for recall. I do not agree that I was trying to "willfully (sic) and intentionally violate WP:V and WP:BLP" in any way at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose - Again, hyperbole that isn't supported by the facts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Once again, Kww is searching for reasons to violate a policy (WP:AGF this time) when he should be searching for reasons to follow it. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"Straighforward" clause of WP:INVOLVED applies

3) KWW's block of TRM was not a breach of WP:INVOLVED due to the "straightforward" clause in WP:INVOLVED. Since TRM's policy violations were unambiguous, KWW's block of TRM did not violate WP:INVOLVED.

Comment by Arbitrators:

That other administrators disagree with you is evidence TRM's actions were not unambiguously in violation of policy. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose. The straightforwards clause does not apply, in the overwhelming consensus on ANI and other discussions and here on this case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The "Straighforward" clause of WP:INVOLVED reads "In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." In this case, pretty much every administrator who has reviewed your action has come to the opposite conclusion. The fact that you were blocking an admin should have told you that one admin did not "come to the same conclusion". When TRM was unblocked that made two, and the numbers have been steadily increasing ever since. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, per WP:POLICY, it is the intent and the overall global consensus that is the real policy. What we write down on the pages is simply a representation, a mirror image. An overwhelming consensus has already opined that this interpretation is not consistent with the intent of WP:INVOLVED. No amount of explaining can change this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - TRM's "policy violations," if they were policy violations, were not unambiguous because WP:V and WP:BLP do not require (and certainly do not unambiguously require) the citations to be added in the same edit as the information. And the BLP "violation" was only arguably a violation if you interpret the infomration to be "contentious" because a single editor objected to it, which places way too much weight on a single AE resolution by a single adminitrator, which is not policy. But even if that single AE case was policy, this would still be WP:INVOLVED because it would put way too much weight on the straightforward clasuse to permit the party that made the objection, and thus made the information "contentious" to also be the administrator making the block. That would be like an adminstrator involved in an edit war blocking the other party for a "straightforward" 3RR violation. Rlendog (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

And of course, it is not at all "straightforward" that a list of awards for Phillip Seymour Hoffman more than a year after his death falls within BLP policy. Rlendog (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Latitude given to admins performing good-faith BLP enforcement applies

4) Even if KWW's block of TRM is considered to be a breach of WP:INVOLVED, KWW's good faith belief that he was enforcing BLP protects him from consequences. Even if the BLP-violating nature of the edits has been disputed after the fact, the Cwobeel arbitration enforcement decision created a good-faith belief on KWW's part that the edits did violate WP:BLP. Generous latitude and virtual immunity from prosecution has traditionally been provided to any admin who was making good faith BLP enforcement actions, even if those actions are later found to have been mistaken.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yeah, latitude to make mistakes only works when you admit that you make them, so that we know it won't happen again. You haven't. You can't have your cake and eat it too; you can't double down on your initial position this hard but then also say "oh you can't touch me I had good faith". Either say that you were right (and accept the consequences if you weren't) or readily admit your mistakes and learn from them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

If Arbcom chooses to say that the statements in WP:BLP mandating sources for all material that has been challenged do not actually have the force of policy, I will abide by that. So far, all the opposition has been based on the notion that TRM's edits have to been harmful to have been clearcut policy violations. That's not true by either plain reading of the policy or precedent. I do believe that you are wrong in believing that a demonstration of potential harm is required before the mandate of sourcing kicks in, a belief that I both hold in good faith and possess some small hope will be validated by Arbcom.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That's...not really what I've been saying, but whatever. It shouldn't take until halfway through an Arb case for you to even begin to consider that you could be wrong, that your interpretation of policy does not match the rest of the community's. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

If that's not what you (and others) have been saying, it's been hard to detect. TRM restored unsourced material that had been challenged. To my mind, it could have been as innocuous as the color of a freckle on Jackman's nose. Once challenged and removed by anyone, no editor can put it back in any form for any duration without an inline citation. The degree of "harmfulness" is irrelevant. You seem to be objecting on the basis that an unsourced award is "harmless". If that's not the basis of your objection, what is?—Kww(talk) 18:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

My objection is that, even if you are right about TRM's policy violations, that still doesn't give you license to edit war. From the edit warring policy: An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. The exemptions to 3RR are clearly defined for a reason: every single edit war in the history of Wikipedia has always had one side or another claim that they're just enforcing policy. If "the other side broke policy" was a valid excuse to edit-war, there would never be edit warring. The reason I talk about the edits being harmless is that the only exemption to the rules on edit-warring that could even remotely apply is the one for BLP, but these edits weren't even close to the level that would allow you to claim the BLP exemption to edit warring (and only one of the subjects was alive anyway). You were edit warring, and you certainly weren't acting in an admin capacity. And then you made it worse by blocking the person you were engaged in an edit war with. So, here we are. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

And, again, being a restoration of unsourced material is sufficient to be a BLP violation. Loud and clear, in the lead. You are reducing BLP to being a prohibition on unsourced contentious material. It's broader than that.—Kww(talk) 19:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The very next sentence specifies "contentious" material. You don't get to (apparently arbitrarily) decide that something is contentious, edit war over it, and still be uninvolved enough to block. The entire purpose of BLP is to protect people; what you did protected nobody from anything. BLP is not a bludgeon to be wielded however you like. If you can't see that by now, then I guess there's nothing else to say. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. 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" is not conditional on the material being contentious. BLP is as much (or more) about source quality and accuracy than it is about protection.—Kww(talk) 21:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is one point that every admin is expected to know, that Written Policy® by itself is meaningless. Wikipedia policy is nothing more than the writing down of what is global consensus. It is the consensus that matters, not the words in the policy. WP:POLICY makes this abundantly clear. This is also why WP:IAR trumps all policy, and why the meaning of the policy trumps the actual words. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

A good faith belief that one is enforcing BLP extends far enough to cover acting unilaterally. It does not cover past that point that multiple other uninvolved administrators, including an ex but longtime arbcom member, tell you "Hey, I don't think that's a BLP violation, can you calm it down?" or "Stop". It does not cover past that point if consensus afterwards was that it was clearly not a BLP violation. BLP enforcement is not a shield fashioned to cover up any abusive admin actions that were contrary to how Wikipedia works. Wherever a fuzzy grey edge is, this case clearly and unambigiously went past that into black. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Related:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive160#Cwobeel

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive167#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Cwobeel

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive168#Cwobeel

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Those links are very useful, thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Guy Macon

Proposed principles

No Wikipedia editor is ever required to perform any action

This includes use of administrator's tools. Deciding to do nothing and let someone else handle the situation is always allowed. An editor may wish to alert other editors that a situation exists, but that too is optional. Sometimes doing nothing and letting someone else handle the situation is the wisest path.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Relatedly, this calls for admins to use good judgment about when to act unilaterally, and when to bring a situation to a noticeboard for input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies that override certain other policies

Common examples are enforcing BLP policy, removing copyright infringement, and reverting vandalism. For example, removing unambiguous and undisputed unsourced material that violates WP:BLP is allowed, even if WP:INVOLVED or a topic ban would otherwise prohibit the edit. Care must always be taken to stay within the specific exceptions listed in the two policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

When one policy overrides another, "unambiguous" and "undisputed" should be broadly construed

In particular, once other editors and especially administrators disagree with the premise that an edit is vandalism or a violation of BLP/copyright the edit is no longer an unambiguous or undisputed violation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

When one policy overrides another and there is no reason to take immediate action, action should be deferred to someone who can follow both policies

For example, if you are otherwise prohibited from taking an action because you are an involved administrator or under editing restrictions and there is no compelling reason why the action cannot be delayed for a short period, you should alert someone else and let them take the action rather than taking it yourself and invoking the fact that one policy overrides another.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

When one policy overrides another and there is reason to take immediate action, Other editors/administrators should be alerted

In particular, if an involved administrator violates WP:INVOLVED in order to revert an unambiguous WP:BLP violation, he should immediately post a notice at WP:AN inviting other administrators to review and, if needed, undo the action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Well, this probably wouldn't be necessary in the case of removing blatantly impermissible or vandalistic content, etc. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point. That would be an edit which anyone can do so the removal would not be a use of the tools that violates INVOLVED. Nor would the admin have to say he is involved when he later blocks the vandal because he clearly isn't. That being said, the admin had better make damn sure that it is something that almost everyone would agree is a real vandalism revert and not a revert that is actually part of a content dispute. That would make the admin involved. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Kww engaged in WP:FORUMSHOPPING

1) Kww engaged in WP:FORUMSHOPPING when he posted Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Restoration of challenged material with no mention of the ongoing arbcom case that was dealing with the same issue. To be specific, the talk:Verifiability posting was an attempt to support his assertions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop#Fundamental policies cannot be violated based on local consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I certainly was seeking a reading of policy uncoloured by this controversy. Forum shopping? Not really, because nothing in that discussion could abort or undermine this proceeding. See my discusson with The Rambling Man as well.—Kww(talk) 17:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Kww here; I don't see how this could be considered forum-shopping. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

We discussed it, I did think that it was odd to start to question the concepts of the WP:V policy midway through this, it could be interpreted as an attempt to gain a consensus for a particular position that would sway this Arbcom case, but I don't have a crystal ball. Kww asked me to remove the link to this case that I had added to provide context to the discussion. I removed said link, which has subsequently been replaced by another editor. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

In the light of the above comments I am assuming good-faith and striking the proposed finding of fact. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Arbcom calls upon the community to set standards and procedures for edit filters.

In this case, several editors were prevented from reverting by an edit filter, thus giving a false impression concerning support to anyone who only checks the page history. Arbcom calls upon the community to set standards to insure the quality of our edit filters, and to develop procedures for evaluating, testing, verifying, and challenging whether individual edit filters should be retained or deleted. Details should be worked out through community discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Newyorkbrad

Note: At this point, I expect to be suggesting only a handful of general principles, not findings or remedies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC) I did add one proposed remedy paragraph. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: Accuracy of content

1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia created for the use of its readers, as well as a collaborative project among its editors. Wikipedia is relied upon by millions of members of the general public to provide them with information across all fields of human knowledge. The value of Wikipedia to its readers derives in large measure from the accuracy and reliability of its content. All editors have a responsibility to ensure that content they add is accurate, and to question, modify, or remove content that is inaccurate or misleading.

It would be unreasonable to expect Wikipedia (or any reference source) to be infallible. Nonetheless, the usefulness and reputation of our encyclopedia in the eyes of our readers are undermined when articles are shown to contain false information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Wikipedia can accumulate inaccurate content owing to a number of different causes, spanning the gamut from outright hoaxes to inadvertent good-faith errors. (For my thoughts on this subject, if interested, please see the second half of my book review here.) For what it is worth, in my capacity as a Wikipedia reader, I have found Wikipedia content to be accurate far more often than not—but there are times I have personally been affected by inaccuracies, such as the time I was embarrassed at a professional conference by the error I reported here, or the time I spent an hour trying to track down an apparently nonexistent book as I discussed here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

2) In principle, all content on Wikipedia beyond the level of common knowledge and self-evident statements should ideally be supported with citations to reliable sources. Providing sources for factual assertions serves several purposes, including (1) ensuring that editors have verified the accuracy of their contributions, (2) allowing other editors or readers to detect inaccurate or questionable assertions, and (3) leading readers to further information on topics of interest to them.

Policy permits editors to remove unsourced information from articles, to add "citation needed" tags where sourcing is missing or inadequate, or to raise concerns about sourcing on the talkpages of articles. Which of these alternatives, if any, should be utilized in a given instance is a matter of sound editorial judgment. Also a matter for editorial judgment is the optimal "granularity" of sourcing, e.g., whether a source footnote should appear after every assertion or every sentence in the article, or whether sources should be collected at somewhat less frequent intervals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Kww: in-line and general are not the only 2 possibilities; NYB mentioned end-of-sentence and end-of-paragraphy, & there are other methods, such as a note on sourcing giving the information, or indirect sourcing, where something in the lead paragraph is sourced when it is covered in the text; all have their uses, depending on judgment about the material and the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kww: as I said in another thread, "The BLP sourcing policy is intended to be stronger, not weaker, than the general sourcing policy, and the wording if taken at face value says just the opposite. Obviously this needs to be to be interpreted, and the interpretation is found by considering the practice of the community in general, and is derived by considering the purpose of the rules and their effect on the encycopedia. We make our rules, they are not handed down to us as external dictates". (You replied "DGG, that's true") Naturally, "we" in this context meant the community ,not arb com, of course. The most arb com can do here is to clarify what is existing policy, as it has in very similar situations. Beyond that, The community must take it from there if it chooses. This can be done either by modifying the statement of the rule or the gradual change in actual practice. Of course, ideally they should go together, but with WP's procedures, the attempt to write formal rules in disputed situations is not always productive.

Kww, as I understand it, you are saying , I'm just doing what I always have done, and suddenly it isn't accepted. Is it possible that gradually you yourself have become perhaps a little more rigid than you used to be? I know my interpretation of some things like notability seems to shift with time--sometimes because I learn better, sometimes because I run out of patience--and sometimes because the circumstances change in terms of the more pressing problems here. Eight years ago, bad sourcing was a much more prominent problem that has in considerable part been corrected, and the community may have come to feel that while it is still critically important & often abused, it may not need quite as much emphasis. (I'm proposing these as hypotheses, not declarations) DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kww: regarding WP:INVOLVED - challenging article content, as you state you were doing, is an editorial action for the purposes of WP:INVOLVED. This does not automatically mean you are forever WP:INVOLVED with every article you have taken editorial actions on - that dependent on how extensive your contributions have been, what they relate to (e.g. your actions on 24 June would not make you involved in an edit war between two other editors about the lead sentence of the list articles for example) and how long ago they were. You were involved here because you challenged the article content that TRM was edit warring about when you blocked him. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kww: If you are making a judgement about article content (as distinct from judging the consensus of a discussion about article content) then you are acting as an editor, even if you use administrative tools to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Generally accurate, with the caveat that WP:V actually prescribes a few cases where in-line attribution, not general attribution, is necessary.—Kww(talk) 13:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

DGG, WP:V is explicit: "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." My statement that "WP:V actually prescribes a few cases where in-line attribution, not general attribution, is necessary" is indisputably accurate (although I probably should have used better grammar and said "actually prescribes in-line citations in a few cases"). I understand that you may wish that policy was different. NYB may wish that policy was different. But when material has been challenged, an inline citation for that material is mandatory and the other options are not generally available. —Kww(talk) 23:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

DGG, actually, it's more like the strangeness of having myself viewed as involved in an article for having performed what I consider to be routine maintenance. If removing unsourced assertions from articles gets me involved at a content level, I'm "involved" in most of the 18,400 articles on my watchlist. That, combined with the strangeness of seeing people treat restoration of unsourced material as a content issue as opposed to a conduct issue. The reason WP:BURDEN is like it is to allow us to treat the restoration of unsourced material as a behavioural problem and prevent it from occurring without snarling administrators up in content judgements that inevitably leave them paralyzed due to WP:INVOLVED concerns. The discussion at WT:V going on in parallel reconfirms the impression that the editors that actually have discussed and refined the policy generally share my impression that the requirement to source is absolute. They may be more lenient than I am about it being the exact same edit, but they are discussing immediate (and complete) followup in a single session as tolerable, not wandering away to disrupt a second article while leaving piles of unsourced material in the first.—Kww(talk) 05:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thryduulf, if you view removing unsourced material as a purely editorial action, I'm toast, and I fully recognise that: were I to go through and gut acupuncture or Ayurveda and then block editors that restored the material, I would be committing Wiki-suicide when I did so. I hope you understand why I didn't view these initial removals as content related actions, but as policy related actions on infrequent, random articles where I have no interest at all in the subject. Bolstered by Cwobeel, I began actively treating these as BLP problems, not solely WP:V problems: that this particular class of assertion, while fairly lame as unsourced assertions go, qualified under both the WP:V and WP:BLP criteria as needing a citation. While this whole page has grown beyond all reason, that really is the central issue and why I keep trying to focus people back on it. If you accept my explanation and mindset, I'm either not involved or entitled to the typical courtesy extended an admin who screws up during BLP enforcement. If you don't accept that, just keep the desysop short and sweet: don't allow the decision to turn into something that editors that want to force unsourced material into articles can point at as justification for doing so by arguing that people restoring unsourced material can restore the material well in advance of providing the sources that they were obligated to search for before restoring the material. Desysopping me will just piss me off, but weakening WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP in the process will damage Wikipedia as a whole.—Kww(talk) 15:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Kww, the rule has survived because almost everyone interprets it reasonably. Kww, I gather you consider this unjustified, and that it must be interpreted literally without exceptions. I'd suggest & will formally propose that the basic principle is that *all* WP rules must be interpreted reasonably. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• DGG: I agree that it must be interpreted reasonably, but disagree that deciding that some assertions about living people are important enough to include but are too unimportant to bother to source is a reasonable interpretation of any of our policies.

Thryduulf True enough, with the consistent exception of "minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias". Removing unsourced material is minor, obvious, and portrays no bias about the article subject. I doubt a bias against unsourced material is a reasonable interpretation of that policy. Certainly no reasonable person would accuse me of having an axe to grind against either Hoffman or Jackman.—Kww(talk) 18:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree as written. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how Kww can call those reverts (removing big piles of verifiable awards) minor or unbiased. They don't reflect personal bias on Kww's part, but the removals massively move the article content away from the neutral point of view (which is to include all the verifiable material with due weight), making it biased. 173.228.123.193 (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Although there is much I agree with, to me this one does not seem to be simple enough or easily-interpretable enough for a proposed principle. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Prioritization

3) In practice, it is impracticable for each and every factual assertion across the five million articles of the English Wikipedia to be accompanied by a citation to a specific source. In the short term, achieving such a goal would be impossible because many articles, of otherwise satisfactory quality, were drafted when policy and practice placed less emphasis on sourcing than they do today. Even in the longer term, it is not clear that every assertion or sentence in every article would optimally be accompanied by a citation footnote.

In theory, a sizable portion of Wikipedia's current content could be challenged as "unsourced" or "insufficiently sourced" and tagged or removed. That is true even as to numerous factual assertions whose truth no one questions, which could be (and eventually should be) sourced, and which in fact are correct. Taking this approach across the encyclopedia could result in removing large amounts of valuable content without an offsetting benefit in increased accuracy. It could also, if done in bad faith, be subject to gaming.

Thus, it is necessary to prioritize from among all of Wikipedia's currently unsourced or insufficiently sourced content, determining which content should be removed outright, which should be tagged for sourcing improvement (followed by actual improvement of the sourcing, as opposed to an indefinitely languishing tag), and which should be left alone.

The community has developed some priorities in this area. One priority is enforcement of the policy on biographies of living persons, which emphasizes the importance of appropriate sourcing in biographical articles because of the effect false or otherwise inappropriate article content could have on the article subjects. It also is generally agreed, as a matter of common sense, that removing or questioning content whose accuracy is actually doubtful or subject to dispute, is more useful that removing or questioning content as to whose accuracy there is no real doubt.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Very much so. To deal with the disruptive part of this, the way I have worded it is "challenged in good faith". I would say all WP actions must be done in good faith to be valid, although I'm aware that phrase can sometimes be ambiguous. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I have no argument with the concept that it would be possible to be disruptive with excessive challenges. I do challenge material in this class of article frequently, as they tend to be completely or primarily unsourced assertions about living people. I do not, however, challenge them in any kind of bulk, and take care not to overburden fans of any particular actor, band, singer, or genre. It would be technically possible for me to remove all of these unsourced awards from award list articles in a matter of hours, an act which I firmly agree would be disruptive, pointy, and all kinds of similar adjectives. As for our discussion that you reference below, I stand by my position there. If you had sought (and obtained) a consensus that TPH's challenges were flawed, removing his {{cn}} tags wholesale would have been legitimate. To do so without discussion was, indeed, a WP:V violation.—Kww(talk) 14:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Brad's statement. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is more thinking out loud (or an embryonic essay) than something I'd expect the Committee to adapt in a decision, but is meant as food for thought concerning both best practices and how they were or were not followed in this case. For a related discussion between me and one of the parties a couple of years ago, involving sourcing on the (obviously) non-BLP article List of Star Trek: The Next Generation characters, please see here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

A little verbose but it is hard to be pithy with a concept this broad. I think all the NYB principles above are pretty clear summaries that reflect the evidence presented and worthy of consideration. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Two quibbles:

• First, in NYB's second paragraph it says, "That is true even as to numerous factual assertions whose truth no one questions, which could be (and eventually should be) sourced, and which in fact are correct. Taking this approach across the encyclopedia could result in removing large amounts of valuable content without an offsetting benefit in increased accuracy." It seems that these two sentences set up and then knock down a straw man (perhaps inadvertently); I agree that the sentence starting with "Taking this approach" is true but only in the context of the previous sentence, but the "Taking this approach" sentence is so absolute that it makes it sound as if the the previous sentence does not exist. Moreover, that prior sentence assumes a fact which has not been proven: That just because there are articles with large amounts of information which no one has questioned does not necessarily imply that no one does question it or in the fullness of time will question it.
• Second, I believe "necessary" at the beginning of the third paragraph is too strong, though I could fully support "useful" in its place.

Having thus quibbled, I do agree that what Brad has said generally describes the best practices about removal of unsourced information, but would note that it has been established again and again over the course of many discussions at Verifiability that it is an acceptable practice to remove unsourced information merely because it is unsourced (at least, perhaps, if you state that you're doing it because you believe — without any obligation to verify that belief — it to be incapable of being sourced). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not, however, challenge them in any kind of bulk... Edit filter 661 was exactly a bulk challenge--a mechanized one, even. 173.228.123.193 (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Although there is much I agree with, to me this one does not seem to be short enough, simple enough or easily-interpretable enough for a proposed principle. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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 restricted

1) Kww is prohibited from removing the "awards section" or any similar section from any article about a person, living or deceased, or from implementing any edit filter disallowing edits to such a section.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't think this is enough by itself, but it's a good remedy under the circumstances so I support it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed (independent of anything else that may or may not be adopted), because Kww seems to have an idée fixe about these sections that is completely disproportionate to their importance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Support the edit filter restriction (maybe we should make it more general?), but not the ban on removal. I don't think there was anything wrong with Kww's initial removal of unsourced material. If he had stopped there and followed WP:BRD when reverted, we wouldn't be here. Again, nobody involved even tried BRD or dispute resolution. They just pulled out the revert knives and started slashing at each other. Then Kww pulled out his block gun, and here we are. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Rlendog

Proposed principles

Individual arbitration enforcement actions do not create Wikipedia policy

1) Wikipedia policies and guidelines are determined by community-wide consensus. Arbitration enforcement exists to address specific issues involving particular editors and/or pages, to the extent they fall within ArbComm sanctions. Arbitration enforcement actions generally are made with limited discussion among a small group of administrators, and may at times reflect the views of a single administrator. While it may be instructional to see how a particular Arbitration Enforcement action was discharged in am apparently similar situation, such action does not represent community-wide consensus and does not represent a "precedent" that can be strictly applied to any situation that seems similar.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Maybe this is getting further in the weeds than ArbCom needs to go, but the question seems to have helped create the problem here. Rlendog (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Strong support. I had composed a similar proposed principles for my section but removed it when I saw that Rlendog had it covered. Not only is Kww's "precedent" argument invalid, it also shows that Kww was searching for reasons why it is OK to for him violate WP:INVOLVED when he should have been searching for reasons why he should obey WP:involved and ask an uninvolved administrator to block TRM. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Administrators are expected to exercise sound judgement when blocking editors

2) Even in situations where blocking an editor may be consistent with policy, administrators are expected to use sound judgement in determining whether such blocks are necessary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. As discussed above, I do not believe that TRM violated WP:BLP or WP:V by leaving the in-line citations to a later edit (especially, but not exclusively, in the case of the non-living person), but even if this was a technical violation, and putting aside the involvement issue, a quick block was not really not necessary here given the innocuousness of the information and the fact that TRM clearly knew that sources needed to follow. There was certainly time to permit TRM to add the sources, and hold off a bit on reverting, or engaging in a genuine discussion, or getting other admins involved. Rlendog (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Strong agree. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Certainly. In this case, in my judgement, it was clear that TRM was not going to stop restoring material before locating sources for it, and, having ignored a final warning, being in possession of admin privileges sufficient to edit through protection and having moved to a second article, was not going to be stopped by lesser means.—Kww(talk) 02:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes an admin, in good faith, blocks an editor and it turns out consensus is against the block. Such "bad blocks" should be avoided, but in isolation they do not evince administrator misconduct. But in this case, it appears that neither in the immediate aftermath of the block nor in the several ensuing weeks of discussion has anyone opined that this was a sensible block. (PBS is the strongest supporter of Kww's interpretation of policy, but I haven't seen him opine on the block.) Kww's defense of the block elsewhere on this page, as based on a good-faith interpretation of policy but one that he presumably wouldn't repeat now that he sees his interpretation is not in accord with the community's, displays some over-rigidity but is at least understandable; but his continued insistence here that the block embodied sound judgment is—well, I was going to say it is surprising, but perhaps it actually isn't. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by 173.228.123.193 (talk)

Note: I commented earlier as 50.0.136.194.

Proposed principles

Battleground editing

1) Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sort of support; I think KWW did not import a personal conflict or ideological content battle here, or nurture prejudice or hatred or fear. I think it became a personal battle to some degree and failure of spirit of cooperation on both sides and failure to let others help. The full WP:BATTLEGROUND is too wide but it's headed somewhat in the right direction. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Selective paste from WP:BATTLE. 173.228.123.193 (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Assume good faith

2) Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs along with the deformed, resultant edit. Making such claims often serves no purpose and could be seen as inflammatory and hence aggravate a dispute. Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith or harassment, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

WP:AOBF. 173.228.123.193 (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikilawyering

3) TBD

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

4) All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From WP:NPOV. If something has been published in an RS, it should be represented with due weight in the relevant Wikipedia article. There are obvious conflicts between this policy and WP:V and (more widely observed) with WP:BLP. Part of good editing is navigating these conflicts with sound judgment. What I'm trying to get at, though, is if a verifiable fact is represented in an article with due weight, then challenging and removing it (say due to insufficient of missing citations) is an error under WP:NPOV (it creates an error of omission in the article).

The verifiability burden of supporting a challenged fact with a citation means it rests on someone else to prove that the challenge really was an error. But it is still an error, and making too many such errors suggests a battleground or competence problem. (Leaving in a false or unverifiable statement is also an error, so editors have to ues careful judgment to resolve the dilemma. There is no algorithm).

Verifiability

4) In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

First sentence of WP:V. If you can type something into Google and immediately see RS for it, then it is verifiable, and thus permissible for Wikipedia (except for certain BLP material). And again, yeah, WP:BURDEN. That terminology comes from criminal law, where it's a prosecutor's duty to prove that a charged person has committed a crime, rather than the defendant's to prove their innocence. What's been forgotten here is that once guilt has been proven, the guilty party is supposed to go to jail! Here on Wikipedia, no matter how many times you prove (by citations) that removed material was verifiable and thus the removal was erroneous, nothing seems to happen to the remover who made the error. So as the famous Technology Review article[65] put it:

"The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage."

The legitimate purpose of a verifiability challenge should be a good faith concern that the info is actually wrong/unverifiable/etc. Even in cases of serious doubt though, unless someone's reputation is at stake or the info is plainly bogus, the info should be flagged or WP:PRESERVEd rather than reverted outright, so people finding it are alerted to the issue and know what to search for if they want to follow up, instead of leaving them without a clue. One of Wikipedia's most prolific content contributors (Ghirla) wrote in 2007,[66]

Wikipedia is not just a bunch of templates. It's not a set of formulaic requirements. Citations requests are serious business when they are not thrown about on whim which happens too often these days. I remove templates when I see nothing controversial about the statement. In such cases, I request the editor to explain what he disputes on talk. If the editor has enough interest to explain his position, I will either provide references (if the article is written by me) or just pass it by (if the article is not mine). This is what normally happens in such cases, and I'm not the only one who thinks it's the proper way to proceed. This is what happened in this particular case, and I fail to see why you should be so concerned about such a trivial matter.

I've always taken the above to be a good explanation of best practice. Things since then have gone from annoying to ridiculous. Someone will surely say things have changed here since 2007, but yeah, they've changed for the worse. Roy Rosenzweig's 2006 article[67] about Wikipedia showed that our accuracy level was at par with other encyclopedias even back then, including citing a study by Nature comparing our error rate with Encyclopaedia Britannica's (we did fine, and WP:EBE was lively for a while).

Biographies of living people

5) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

TBD.

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}