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

Prior dispute resolution
For reference, the ANI thread leading to this case is here. 173.228.123.193 (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Kww and The Rambling Man (September 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Nyttend at 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Kww

Statement by Nyttend
As noted at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, the second remedy is rather confusing. Did you mean to say that Kww may not get the editfilter right unless he re-passes RFA, or did you not mean to address such a situation? I'm not marked Kww as a party because this isn't related to his post-case behavior: it's just a confusing element of the decision, and an authoritative interpretation would be helpful. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a note after reading Salvio's comment — my only concern is that we get an unambiguous statement from Arbcom, because everyone loses when there's an ambiguous decision. I don't really know either editor and don't have an opinion on what Arbcom should decide here (so no point in asking my opinion); I just hope you'll decide something in place of the current wording, so that we all know what you were intending in the first place.  Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dragons flight
Due to his apparent lack of due care and competence in previously implementing edit filters, I am opposed to any process that would allow Kww to regain the EFM right without a community review. See my previous comments:. My understanding of remedy #2 while it was being drafted is that a desysopped Kww would be required to pass RFA before getting EFM restored, and I don't see any reason to weaken that. If this case hadn't been coming to RFAr already, I would have opened a separate community discussion about revoking Kww's EFM right. In practical terms, I assume it will be years (if ever) before Kww passes an RFA, but I don't think there ought to be a path that allows Kww to regain EFM any sooner than that (and I'm not sure he should be an EFM even if he passes RFA). Keep in mind that EFM capabilities are in some ways more powerful than the normal admin toolkit. Dragons flight (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It has never been clear to me that you really understood my criticisms / concerns, which is part of the problem. However, I don't want to have an argument with you about this.  Should you actually want additional feedback on this issue (either now or some time in the future), I would suggest that you ask for other people at WT:EF to give you their opinions of your previous filters.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kww
I already understood the restriction to be much as Salvio phrased it. I deeply resent Dragon flight's portraying our different opinions as to the weight that should be placed on false positives as a competence issue: I could just as reasonably claim that his insistence on consuming resources looking for rare corner cases was a competence issue. Neither one is: it's a difference in opinion as to where a reasonable balance between execution efficiency and false triggers lies.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Salvidrim
Since we're really getting down-and-dirty with the specifics of wording, I don't feel too bad about chiming in: in Salvio's proposed wording underneath (visibly inspired by an earlier post of mine), the removal of EFM is described first as a "restriction" that would automatically expire, and later as a "remedy" than can be appealed. The wording should probably brought in line with either term (restriction or remedy) for consistency? I really feel pedant pointing this out though. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Francis Schonken
This may be understood in the current comment by Arbs (although I see no reference to it) but a non-admin desiring "edit filter manager user right" has to go through some procedure as described at Edit filter, second and third paragraph (starting with "The assignment of the edit filter manager user right to non-admins is highly restricted. It should only be requested by and given to highly trusted users, and only when there is a clear, demonstrated need for it...")

My point is this: if and when (within a year or whatever) a non-admin Kww would request a lifting of remedy 2 of the ArbCom case, I don't see how this could automatically result in Kww getting the edit filter manager user right back. Or would the ArbCom plan on overriding the regular procedure by ArbCom decision? Any future decision to lift that sanction should imho be formulated thus that after lifting of the sanction (if and when this is granted, in a scenario where Kww would not be an admin at that time) the regular procedure for a non-admin to be granted the right should be followed.

Seeing the analysis here: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive890 I can imagine some reluctance by those allowed to grant the right to non-admins.

All this is a bit far ahead, and needs to be dealt with when it would occur in the future (if and when etc.), and by that time procedures might be completely different (especially when the community would take up on remedy 3 of the case), but I think it best this caveat is taken into the equasion now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
I'm opining ya'll should probably vote to close this, 'cause it looks like you're done. NE Ent 10:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon

 * (...sound of crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Kww and The Rambling Man: Clerk notes

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


 * I have added Kww as a party, because they are named in the above mentioned remedy ("Kww's edit filter permissions revoked"). L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 22:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I hadn't seen your note. In any event, they are still required to be notified, as the clarification request could directly impact a remedy against Kww and what they can and cannot do. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 22:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Kww and The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Nyttend, you are quite right that the remedy, as currently worded, leaves a bit to be desired and gives the impression that, short of another successful RFA, Kww may not receive the edit filter manager bit back; as far as I'm concerned, that's not satisfctory and, for that, I propose we reword the relevant remedy to Kww's edit filter manager permission is revoked. If he regains the administrator tools through a successful request for adminship, this restriction will automatically expire; in addition, he may appeal this remedy after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that Kww has been desysopped, the only thing of relevance is how Kww may regain his EFM permission. The remedy is not brilliantly worded I agree, but the restriction it imposes is not ambiguous: He may not regain the bit while the restriction is in effect. The restriction automatically expires if he regains adminship at RfA, at which point he may regain the bit according to policy at that time (if there is no change between now and then he could assign it to himself if he desired). There is no restriction on when he can stand for adminship. I agree with Salvio that the restriction should be appealable at WP:ARCA 12 months after it's imposition (i.e. no sooner than August 2016). Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the EFM restriction should be appealable after some reasonable period of time has passed, 12 months would be fine for that. I don't think we need an amendment for that, though, as any arbitration remedy can be appealed at ARCA after a reasonable period, and the Committee can at that time choose to accept the appeal and lift the restriction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be in favour of changing the wording of the decision, per Salvio giuliano's text above. At the time it was written (when it was unclear whether the desysop would pass or not) the current wording was arguably preferable; now that Kww has been desysopped it's overly convoluted and would benefit from being simplified. Yunshui 雲 水 10:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Out of the loop guy here. I would much rather us not have our hands in restoring permissions and have a fresh RfA be the only route of removal of the restriction. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  14:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In a hypothetical appeal to ARCA I would not be supporting any granting of the permission directly. I would consider giving permission to ask the community, taking into account the change in attitude and behaviour over the year and the level of scrutiny likely to be imparted at the relevant venue. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But that is disingenuous. There isn't a good WP:RFP like place to have that discussion that is in view of the community. By giving the OK for a discussion to happen at a little watched part of project space we are basically flipping the switch ourselves. I would much rather not have the committee in these matters. If anyone has a better idea for a community-centered way of signaling that the restriction is no longer needed, I am all ears. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Currently that is indeed the case and I would not support it. However if the proposal to split the EFM permission that was raised during the case happens, or if something else changes between now and next August that makes requesting the EFM bit something other than a barely observed blip in a backwater then I might support (depending on Kww of course). Alternatively, we could just say that the restriction may be appealed at the later of (a) when such a community process exists and (b) 12 months have passed. Of course this is academic if Kww does not wish to regain the EFM bit in advance of a successful RFA. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer the community to handle this, not us. Doug Weller (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The remedy was convoluted, I'm sorry for that, but the part of it was to create provisions with or without the desysop, given that usual policy is that admins may self-assign the flag. This could easily be reworded now to be clearer that the remedy expires if/when RFA is passed, but I will not support any appeal other than via RFA given the absence of any process with scruitiny to grant the EFM flag, and a belief that Arbcom should not be (re)granting permissions that have clear community processes to grant. This flag is a bit unusual, but we've given a clear community appeal here. (Had he not been desysopped, there would have been no community process of any rigor/scrutiny to regrant the flag) Courcelles (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that we revoked the permissions, but did not ban him from re-applying by the usual means for them, I think the remedy is probably clear enough as it is. Happy to support a remedy amendment to make the existing text even clearer, if somebody wishes to move one, but otherwise I am satisfied that this is all in order. AGK  [•] 23:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've kept an eye on this but for absolute clarity I am of the same mind as AGK. NativeForeigner Talk 09:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree with AGK. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)