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

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

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

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

Case opened on 17:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Case closed on 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information[edit]

Involved parties[edit]

Prior dispute resolution[edit]

Preliminary statements[edit]

Statement by Writ Keeper[edit]

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

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

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

Statement by Kww[edit]

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

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

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

TRM, I will politely point out, once again, that the sequence is to find the source before restoring the challenged information. If you had not been so insistent on restoring data before finding the sources, there would not have been a problem. You portray this as a hasty response on my part, when the root issue is that you would not let the unsourced material remain out of the article, even for a few hours, while you said you were searching for sources. Given your edit summaries and talk page comments, I didn't have a lot of reason to take that on faith. It's not a claim that you violated WP:BURDEN and WP:V: you restored challenged information to an article without providing an inline citation. That's an unambiguous and inarguable violation.
Salvio While I'm quite willing to engage in the discussion as to whether removing unambiguous violations forces an admin into the WP:INVOLVED state, I'm curious as to why you don't recognise that the unambiguous WP:BURDEN violations performed by TRM make that the issue.—Kww(talk) 13:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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


Statement by The Rambling Man[edit]

I noticed that the Hoffman list had been incompletely censored under some interpretation of "contentious BLP content" ([1]), so after battling with that odd to filter to restore the missing text, I then added a {{ref improve}} maintenance tag to the page ([2]) to ensure all readers knew it needed work. Within seven minutes, the incompletely censored version was restored by Kww ([3]) I re-added the incompletely censored material and set about referencing it. As quickly as I was adding references ([4]), Kww was deleting sections ([5]). I warned him ([6]) and asked him to spend his time adding refs rather than removing material. I asked him then why he was deleting information I was trying (and he knew I was trying) to reference ([7]). I told him I was going to continue to add refs ([8]) and yet he continued to revert me, finally blocking me ([9]) after a warning, for 36 hours. It is regretful that Kww claimed I was blocked for "intentional violation of WP:BURDEN" when I had made it abundantly clear that I was determined to reference the items in question, if he didn't keep racing to delete them.

Anyway, post his block of me, I did not edit for more than 36 hours ([10])], should the community have decided that this was the right thing for Kww to have done. Ironically, the the censorship applied to this and the Jackman list maintained perceived BLP violations, to that extent Kww falls foul of his own BLP transgressions. I regret the edit warring, but I was disappointed that Kww wouldn't let me improve Wikipedia (I'm pretty keen on referencing articles, as those who are aware of my work and standards will testify) and I was then disappointed that Kww blocked me to keep his preferred version of each page intact, despite me making numerous pledges that I would reference the "contentious" material he kept incompletely removing. I have since put myself up at WP:ANI for sysop recall ([11]), and although I have pretty much maintained a clear delineation between editing as an editor and editing as an administrator, it's clear from the feedback there that I need to do better with communication, which I have already pledged to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kww as I noted, you were protecting pages which themselves were BLP violations according to your own interpretation. To that end, you have also failed the same policies and guidelines you keep accusing me of failing. On top of that you made an ill-judged block, clearly in violation of WP:INVOLVED. It is with some irony that I note you have not removed unsubstantiated claims, or those sourced from IMDB, from the Hugh Jackman biography, despite it receiving around 50 times the traffic ([12], [13]). I have nothing more to add, you have spent a large volume of edits at ANI explaining why I was in the wrong and why you hadn't made any errors of judgement, and you continue to do so here. I will get back to doing what I have been doing for the last several years, improving articles, adding references, updating the main page etc. I'm sure someone will let me know the outcome of this drama, in a few months time. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert[edit]

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

Preliminary decision[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

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

Kww and The Rambling Man: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <11/0/0/3>[edit]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Waiting for more statements. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Kww. This was the quintessential involved block, Kww seems unrepentant and he has already been admonished once for his use of the admin tools. The result is rather straightforward, in my opinion: accept the request and pass a motion in lieu of a case, desysopping him.

    Re TRM. I am not seeing anything, at the moment, warranting our intervention. If evidence is provided showing a pattern of misconduct, I am open to changing my mind, but, for the moment, my vote is to decline doing anything wrt him. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • In my judgment it is time to examine these administrators' conduct. Rather than do so haphazardly, that instead is best done by means of a full case. Accept. AGK [•] 14:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept -- Euryalus (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept  Roger Davies talk 17:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Doug Weller (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept LFaraone 22:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept full case. Yunshui 雲水 07:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

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

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Administrator standards[edit]

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

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Administrator involvement[edit]

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

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

Passed 10 to 2 at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

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

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

BLP exemption to edit warring is not absolute[edit]

5) Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exceptions notes "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule: [...] Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption."

Passed 11 to 1 at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Applicability of BLP policy[edit]

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

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Responding to feedback[edit]

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

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

The Rambling Man edit warred[edit]

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

Passed 11 to 1 at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Kww edit warred[edit]

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

Passed 10 to 2 at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Kww has misused edit filters[edit]

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Kww cited BLP inappropriately[edit]

4) [was 5] All reliable sources agree that Philip Seymour Hoffman died on 2 February 2014. Therefore, he was not a living or recently deceased person when Kww used BLP to justify edit warring on 24 June 2015.[14] The content about Philip Seymour Hoffman and Hugh Jackman that was the subject of this dispute was not libelous, biased, or contentious, and therefore did not qualify for the BLP exception to the edit-warring policy.

Passed 9 to 2 with 1 abstentions at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Kww used admin tools while involved[edit]

5) [was 6] Kww blocked The Rambling Man, citing violations of the biographies of living persons policy, despite being involved in the same dispute. ([15][16]) Writ Keeper (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reversed the block 51 minutes later, with the summary "clearly involved block; unblocking (see ANI)".

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Kww has previously used admin tools while involved[edit]

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

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Kww previously admonished[edit]

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

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

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

Kww desysopped[edit]

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

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstentions at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Kww's edit filter permissions revoked[edit]

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Community encouraged[edit]

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

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

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

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

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

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

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

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

Enforcement log[edit]

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy (except discretionary sanctions) for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.

Individual sanctions[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww_and_The_Rambling_Man&oldid=1088038903"