Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Case opened on 17:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Case closed on 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
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
Involved parties
- Writ Keeper (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
- Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Prior dispute resolution
Preliminary statements
Statement by Writ Keeper
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
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)
Statement by Kww
The key issues here is actually not
The main issue here is not
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)
- WP:V: you restored challenged information to an article without providing an inline citation. That's an unambiguous and inarguable violation.
- ]
I'm going to spend a few sentences here clarify my
Statement by The Rambling Man
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 {{
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: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)]
Statement by Georgewilliamherbert
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)
Preliminary decision
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- Corrected the vote tally below. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 14:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Kww and The Rambling Man: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <11/0/0/3>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
- I'd like to hear the statements from Kww and The Rambling Man before passing comment on this request. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- I would also like to hear from both administrators prior to making a decision on acceptance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Accept. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've read the ANI, which has extensive commentary from Kww -- but not from The Rambling Man. Inclined to accept, though. Courcelles (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oops, TRM has commented on ANI, though in an easily missed spot ten threads or so down from the main one. Courcelles (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken:, there have been some desysops for "conduct unbecoming" that did not necessarily involve active use of the admin tools. (Though I decline to list them, for hopefully obvious reasons.) The relevant principle has been passed many times. Courcelles (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Accept as a case. Courcelles (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Waiting for more statements. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Accept. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. [•] 14:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)]
- Accept -- Euryalus (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Accept Roger Davies talk 17:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Accept Doug Weller (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Accept LFaraone 22:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Accept -- (ʞlɐʇ) 23:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)]
- Accept full case. Yunshui 雲水 07:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Temporary injunction (none)
Final decision
All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.
Principles
Purpose of Wikipedia
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
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
3.2) Administrator tools are not to be used in connection with disputes in which the administrator is
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
4)
- Passed 12 to 0 at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
BLP exemption to edit warring is not absolute
5)
- Passed 11 to 1 at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Applicability of BLP policy
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
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 (
- Passed 12 to 0 at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Findings of fact
The Rambling Man edit warred
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
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
3) [was 4] A small fraction of the general editor population have the technical skills and desire to operate the
- Passed 11 to 0 at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Kww cited BLP inappropriately
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
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
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
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
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
1) Kww's administrator permissions are revoked. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful
- Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstentions at 13:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Kww's edit filter permissions revoked
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
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
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 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:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
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:
|
- 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
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
Individual sanctions
- Administrator and edit filter user rights removed from Kww by Xeno (talk · contribs). Logged by Liz Read! Talk! 17:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)