Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman

Case opened on 21:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Case closed on 18:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 19:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Involved parties

 * , filing party

Prior dispute resolution

 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive998

Statement by Legacypac
Unfortunately GiantSnowman has shown enough failure to understand and follow rollback and blocking policy that he should be sanctioned up to loss of Admin tools. Several other Admins have protected GiantSnowman by shutting down discussion and excusing his behavior (obvious Super Mario effect) so evidently the community can't handle this without the structure of an ArbComm case. Admins generally have failed to address proposals and votes to sanction GiantSnowman. A review of the AN thread is suggested as evidence is presented and various unsuitable responses presented. —Legacypac (talk • contribs) 13:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Continued defense of incorrect rollback and blocks here is worrisome. Regular editors don't get to make such excuses and escape sanctions. They lose tools and get editing restrictions. —Legacypac (talk • contribs) 15:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter and User:Bbb23 are two Admins that closed discussion sections and closed Admin ranks without taking any action. They should be added to this case. —Legacypac (talk • contribs) 15:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by GiantSnowman
Ok quick statement while as I am not really around over the next few days. Sorry.

Short history - on 6 December I reverted (using mass rollback script) a large number of edits after finding an editor who was removing infoboxes from articles. I mass rollbacked nearly 500 edits. The ANI thread was raised, the edits were deemed to be good-faith, so I said I would be more careful, I self-reverted and apoloigsed to the editor in question (who accepted it). A few days later I rollbacked 2 edits by a new editor whose edits had been purely disruptive - the edits in question were to edit soccer team kits in infoboxes with no sources or explanation. Some editors said that was more miususe, others supported me. Then I again reverted (using mass rollback script) an IP who had made a significant number of unsourced changes to BLPs and articles involving BLPs (for example lists of soccer players). The ANI thread was raised, the edits were deemed to be good-faith, so I said I would stop, removed the script, and again self-reverted and left a message with the IP. People implying there have been 8 'cycles' of "broken promises" are misrepresenting the situation. GiantSnowman 15:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

In relation to the misuse of rollback, I genuinely thought I was complying at all times with #5 of WP:ROLLBACKUSE which allows rollback "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page". It has been highlighted to me that that is not the case; I have therefore already removed the mass rollback script (a few days ago) and have said I will not rollback edits that might fall under #5 (and haven't). No concerns have been raised about other uses of rollback (eg socks or pure vandalism). I have committed to changing and there have been no recent incidents - nor will there be.

In rwlation to the block of WR227, this is an editor with a long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, icluding previous blocks. In the run-up to the block in question, I gave them a final warning on 3 December in relation to this edit, where they removed sourced content. Later that day I then gave them another final warning in relation to this edit, where they used a misleading edit summary to add unsourced material (the source cited in the edit summary was not present in the article). I then blocked them on 6 December after this, where they did the exact same thing. The block was reviewed by and upheld. Was I INVOLVED? No, I don't think so - "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area". However, given that some have raised concerns at ANI that I was I have already said that I will not block in future cases and instead raise at ANI and let somebody else take a look.

If there are other blocks that people have concerns have then I am happy to discuss these.

Like Iridescent and others have said, this ARBCOM case is premature and unnecessary. Many are painting my actions out to be abuse/bad-faith - simply not true. All my edits/blocks have genuinely been from a good-faith (mis)interpretation of policy. I have taken part in the ANI thread fully, giving my side of the story and taking on board the comments of others. I have not ignored or shied away from the issues. I have taken the concerns onboard and committed to change. GiantSnowman 15:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

More - do I take a strong stance on WP:BLP? Yes. It says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing", and that is what I feel I have been doing - removing unsourced material and blockin those who continue to add it despite warnings. I'll remind you it is not our duty to find sources for information added by others per WP:BURDEN, which says that "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution [...] 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". GiantSnowman 15:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fram - FYI, Transfermarkt is not considered a reliable source...the only source on that article (which I checked, as confirmed in my edit summary) doesn't support any of the IP edits. GiantSnowman 15:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kusma - yes, the area I edit in (soccer) is riddled with false statistics, incorrect updates, transfer rumours etc. etc. I am not the only admin active at WP:FOOTBALL to have acted in this way (ie reverting unsourced material). We have recently introduced a warning template (Footyiu) to deal with statistics updates. GiantSnowman 10:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fram - I have neither the time nor the inclination to trawl through your edits like you have mine, but I'd be keen to hear your explanation about this or this uses of rollback by you? GiantSnowman 15:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fram - I'm simply interested in why you think those edits (which, on the face of it, both appear good-faith) were suitable for rollback and not a traditional 'undo'? GiantSnowman 16:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@L293D - perhaps you'd like to explain why your edits were nuked, and link ARBCOM to the ANI thread about it, rather than (once again) misrepresenting the dituation? GiantSnowman 12:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Hhkohh

 * Per WP:ROLLBACKUSE and WP:ANI evidence, he seems abuse rollback fiction Hhkohh (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I also recommend involved who reviewed  blocks Hhkohh (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent
Arbitration is a last resort, not a first port of call. GiantSnowman doesn't appear to have performed any administrative or admin-related action since the incident documented here (other than the block of a very obvious vandalism-only IP and the revdeletion of an obviously libellous edit), so hopefully the message of the ANI thread—that his interpretation of WP:BLP and of what constitutes disruption differs from the way the rest of Wikipedia interprets them—has got through. If there's any further abuse of his position—either abuse of the admin toolset, or further inappropriate editing and unwillingness to engage with editors with whom he's in dispute—then I'll be the first to support throwing the book at him. However, if we're not willing to at least give people the chance to change their ways when issues are pointed out to them (particularly in a case like this where it's fairly obvious GS thought he was applying policy correctly), we may as well dissolve all the prior steps of community dispute resolution altogether and make Arbcom into a ruling council. ‑ Iridescent 14:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to point out that the mass reversion by GiantSnowman of edits by L293D being referenced a few times in this discussion wasn't quite as it's being presented. L293D was either using an unauthorised bot or was machine-gunning 'save' on WP:AWB without checking what changes he was making, was causing huge disruption and was blocked for it; given the volume of disruptive edits he'd made, GiantSnowman reverted every edit he'd made in the period leading up to the block, catching some good edits in the process; yes, this is technically an abuse of rollback but in the circumstances it was completely understandable. The discussion thread in question is User:L293D/Archives/2018-4, and the run of disruptive edits that led to it is here. &#8209; Iridescent 13:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to point out that the mass reversion by GiantSnowman of edits by L293D being referenced a few times in this discussion wasn't quite as it's being presented. L293D was either using an unauthorised bot or was machine-gunning 'save' on WP:AWB without checking what changes he was making, was causing huge disruption and was blocked for it; given the volume of disruptive edits he'd made, GiantSnowman reverted every edit he'd made in the period leading up to the block, catching some good edits in the process; yes, this is technically an abuse of rollback but in the circumstances it was completely understandable. The discussion thread in question is User:L293D/Archives/2018-4, and the run of disruptive edits that led to it is here. &#8209; Iridescent 13:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Bellezzasolo
This issue has been generating a lot of heat with limited light at ANI, for a week now. I was myself contemplating WP:ARC as a potential venue. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  14:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * opened the initial ANI case at
 * The case related to reversion of 416 edits by, with a uw-vandalism3
 * Further reversions, such as 300 edits by a range if IPs with a rangeblock request, were identified
 * This was closed by at 13:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC), with the comment
 * noted a further reversion of 480 IP edits at
 * states GS, you're on extremely thin ice, and invoking WP:CRYBLP for something as inoffensive as an athlete's jersey number isn't going to help.
 * A topic ban from rollback was discussed, with stating
 * Notes that GS has removed the subject script from his CSS, and self-reverted, and is contacting the IP to smooth things over. and states I believe any discussion of formal sanctions may be premature given that he's making a good-faith effort to get it right.
 * spots the block of, stating Giantsnowman again reverts an edit... ...making the article actively worse again, and goes on to block the editor for three months. This is a helpful editor, adding correct information, but not in the way GS would like it, so it's revert and block
 * replies You have an issue with me blocking an editor with an exceptionally long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, after he had been warned multiple times, and after he had adding unsourced content again to a BLP? OK... @Vanjagenije: reviewed the block and said it was good.
 * I've filled out some of the details. Clearly, the question of the block relates to the admin toolset. Other editors have identified this as a pattern of behaviour, so I would suggest that Arbcom accept this case. I don't currently have an opinion on how the case should conclude, but this discussion has been going on for quite some time, and relates to the admin tools. I think a case is necessary. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  19:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Fram
Apparently my initial statement was too long and not very cler, so a shorter statement instead.

GiantSnowman can no longer be trusted as an admin because
 * They abused rollback many, many times, over thousands of constructive edits
 * They continued doing this after this was pointed out to them in the ANI discussion, and after they promised to stop
 * A second round of warnings and promises to stop yielded the same result
 * Only after a third batch of such bad rollbacks in a week, and an impending community sanction, did they remove the mass rollback tool. Regular rollback is still not restricted


 * During those discussions, they made many promises and claims which were false (most edits have not been reverted, most editors still wait for the promised apology) or very hard to get right (GS being unable to read his own contributions well enough to find unreverted edits, while other editors had no problem finding these). Their summary of events was very incomplete and optimistic, their reading of policy remained unchanged even after nearly everyone explained where they went wrong


 * It turned out that GS routinely warned and blocked editors for "vandalism" when no vandalism had happened, or for adding unsourced content to BLPs, when said content was uncontroversial and true. GS showed a pattern of WP:OWNing his own articles and articles in the Football project in general, an attitude which can also be seen in e.g. the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, where he gets comments like "GS, please don´t missinform users that your prefered version is the one that is consensus. It isn´t." He imposes his unique reading of policies on e.g rollback or BLP on other users (but not on himself), and uses his admin bit to rollback and block them.
 * An example of an IP editor being warned about their "vandalism". This was the dreadful vandalism that deserved the warning and reversions. Bizarrely, GiantSnowman made this edit 10 minutes after their final reversion and block warning. Of course, no indication was given that the IP editor was actually right all along and the vandalism warnings were incorrect.
 * A blatant example of his abuse of the block tool is his 3 month block of User:WR227, which I detailed in the ANI section. This is a block made on 6 December 2018, so after the start of the ANI discussion and the promises to be more careful. Even yesterday, GS still defended this block as "merited" and indicated they would continue to revert and warn in the same circumstances.
 * Another example of the warn/block cycle for constructive edits. On Emmanuel Ariwachukwu, an article GS created, they have now 7 times reverted different(?) editors who changed the current club of the player from Akwa United F.C to Al-Hilal Club (Omdurman) over the course of two months, the last one yesterday. Previously, he also reverted an editor only to readd the same information, based on the same source, two weeks later. Instead of reverting this info 7 times because the one source GS added to the article is not up-to-date at all, he could have looked at the actual merits of the edit and seen that other sources actually support the IP changes. And sure enough, IP user:89.211.190.236 has been blocked by GS for 48 hours for these edits. Another bad block, if evidence of long term problematic issues was needed.

In summary: abuse of rollback, abuse of blocks, WP:OWN behaviour, many incorrect warnings for vandalism, WP:BITE, and no indication that they have learned anything from the discussions: still considering their blocks correct, still intending to revert and warn editors for the same edits deemd unproblematic and constructive by most others. An editor who can't be trusted as an admin any longer. Fram (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent: " if we're not willing to at least give people the chance to change their ways when issues are pointed out to them": he was given the chance to change his application of rollback; he promised to change, but didn't. He again was given the chance to change, promised again, but didn't. Finally, after the third batch of problematic rollbacks, and when an actual sanction seemed imminent, he changed one thing (not to use mass rollback). Meanwhile, his other promises (to undo his changes and apologize) only happened for two of the many cases highlighted in the discussion (never mind the other similar cases not yet highlighted), and even then he needed considerable help to even find unreverted edits in his contributions list, which makes one wonder about basic competency.

Then the same cycle started with the very problematic blocks; GS has not undone his widely condemned block, becaues he still believes it to be a correct block despite all the evidence to the contrary; and he only promised not to block in such cases but to consult ANI then. Whether this promise is worth more than the other promises remains to be seen, but it is in any case not enough at all, as he explicitly stated that he would continue to revert and warn the editors. Which is the kind of behaviour everyone has tried to discourage him from for more than a week now, all to no avail. (And if you think he only wants to revert and warn actual vandals from now on, think again: "They were editors with a poor track record of adding unsourced content to BLPs who continued to add unsourced content, despite warnings. The blocks were merited. GiantSnowman 09:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC) "). There is a limit to how many chances someone gets, and (as has rightly been pointed out) we already have a tendency to be much more lenient for admins than for non-admins. Continuing with more of the same in this case is not helpful. Fram (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector; seriously? "It's evident that the dispute here is really several users who feel they have been wronged by admins in the past ganging up to make an example of GiantSnowman, one of our longest and most prolific contributors. If Arbcom is going to take this case, it's that behaviour that should be evaluated. " Either list names and examples, or drop this. Vague "it's the others!" without evidence or any indication of who you mean is simply poisoning the well. "GiantSnowman did not abuse any administrative tool or privilege" apart from the ones already discussed. "GiantSnowman's conduct has been exemplary even under the heavy bombardment of abuse he's been enduring since last Friday. " apart from e.g. the 480 edits made on Sunday that he had to revert? "the mob", "the witchhunt", even though you agreed that he should stop using rollback because the uses (before and after he promised to stop) were clearly incorrect? Disappointing...

@GiantSnowman: what is the difference between this edit you made on 10 December, and the 6 december edit (on an article you created!) that got WR227 blocked for 3 months? Or why did you give an IP a vandal warning for this editwith the source in the edit summary, which you rolbacked together with unrelated constructive edits? Especially considering that you made the exact same edit, with a different source in the edit summary but also not in the article), yourself the next day! An IP using a source which is perhaps not as reliable as you would like, but where the information is completely correct, is not vandalism and not block worthy. Fram (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This bit from GS says it all, I think: "A few days later I rollbacked 2 edits by a new editor whose edits had been purely disruptive - the edits in question were to edit soccer team kits in infoboxes with no sources or explanation. Some editors said that was more miususe, others supported me. " Kits in infoboxes are usually unsourced. The editor updated the kits: the articles showed old kits, the editor corrected the articles to show the new kits. In what universe this can be labeled "purely disruptive" is not clear? Even their "worst" edit was not "purely disruptive", this wsa a new editor improving an article (the information they added was all correct), but changing "English" to "Cornish", which is something we don't do here. What they, just like most victims of your edits, needed, was some positive guidance, not a rollback crusade and the label of "purely disruptive". That you misjudged them can happen; that you still defend your actions and interpretation of policy is why we are actually here, and why you can't be trusted to remain an admin. Fram (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@GS: you treat every edit to a BLP (unless you make it) as contentious, which is not supported by the policy. And I have no idea if transfermarkt is reliable, that's why I gave four sources, all of which contradict your single source (which clearly is outdated). If multiple people are so persistent in adding the same info (which is not the typical vandalistic kind of info), the least you could do instead of reverting seven times and blocking an IP over it, was checking if they perhaps had a point, no? In reality, you are the one who has restored outdated information seven times, hiding behind a source, as if wrong but sourced information is more acceptable than correct information without a source (but for which plenty of reliable sources exist). Fram (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@GS. Really? Oh well. This edit removed all the sources from that section, and a table, under the guise of "re-organized content". Contrary to the improvements people make to your articles, this was actually making an article worse (the sources were official government statistics, so not some poor source that should go). The complaints people have about your use of rollback is not where you revert people removing information and sources from an article completely, but where you revert people (and warn and block for vandalism) when they actually improve the articles with updated or additional correct information. The other one is a case where I first manually removed a section and asked the editor on their talk page not to include such machine translated sections full of errors, incomprehensible sentences, and nonsense (not in the original, but as a result of the translation), and they reinserted it with just two words changed. Inserting a machine translation without realising that it is actually a load of bollocks you have introduced may happen; reintroducing it after this has been explained is vandalism though, actively disrupting enwiki. Something like "My father, being the first gentleman of the court and first squire of Louis XIII, made his father's small fortune, who found himself a man of merit which finished him off." (which is the corrected version of that sentence) does not make any sense at all.

But perhaps it would be wiser if you focused on your own problems? Whether I have made incorrect uses of rollback or not is hardly relevant for your issues here, it's not as if I rollbacked you or encouraged you to use rollback. Feel free to start a discussion or case about me of course... Fram (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon
In the ANI case, several editors mentioned the Super Mario Effect. Here is an explanation for those unfamiliar with it:

In videogames, The Super Mario Effect is as follows: When Mario gets a power up that turns him into Super Mario, a mistake that would normally kill him as ordinary Mario simply turns him from Super Mario to ordinary Mario, then he has to make another mistake to be killed. Likewise when an administrator does something that would get an ordinary editor indefinitely blocked, he is desysopped, turning him into an ordinary editor. Then he has to do something else wrong to be actually blocked.

There are two situations which commonly cause someone to mention Super Mario. The first is when the admin gets no sanctions in a situation where an ordinary user would be blocked. The second is when the admin is referred to arbcom for desysopping when a block would be more appropriate. This second situation often comes directly after someone thinks that the first situation is occurring and that they have no other recourse other than arbcom. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Doug Weller, re: "we can't remove rollback from an Administrator", is it not true that Arbcom could simply say "you are banned from using rollback"? We topic ban editors all the time despite the fact that we can't actually stop someone from editing pages on some topics while allowing them to edit others... Related question: can the Community (AN or ANI) decide to say to an administrator "you are banned from using rollback"? Or is that something that only arbcom can do? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Doug's answer made a great point: "If they have a such a serious problem that they have to be banned from using rollback they probably shouldn't have any of the tools". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector
I've been disappointed with many users' conduct in this dispute and I'm especially disappointed it's been brought here. I wrote a comment yesterday about this being an example of an overcorrection of the "Super Mario effect" (an admin being punished and harassed much more severely an a non-admin user would have been) but deleted it before I could finish because of an urgent real-life thing (not important). There's clearly a feeling among several users that administrators are sanctioned less severely and defended more vigorously by administrators than non-administrator users would be, a concerning phenomenon if it were true but which recent cases have shown is not borne out by actual incidents (Salvidrim!, Michael Hardy, Fred Bauder, sorry to use you all as examples here). It's evident that the dispute here is really several users who feel they have been wronged by admins in the past ganging up to make an example of GiantSnowman, one of our longest and most prolific contributors. If Arbcom is going to take this case, it's that behaviour that should be evaluated.

To the face of the request: there's no case here. GiantSnowman did not abuse any administrative tool or privilege, tried to discuss in good faith with users who obviously don't really care about the rollback issue but are out for blood anyway, agreed to limit his use of the massrollback script and then removed it from his .js file himself when that wasn't good enough for the mob, and then I don't know what since I stopped following the witch hunt. GiantSnowman's conduct has been exemplary even under the heavy bombardment of abuse he's been enduring since last Friday. Enough already. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

's point about these powerful scripts existing "in a policy vacuum" (their words) is a good one, and there was a discussion about a modified mass-rollback script which was deemed too powerful just recently at AN ("Twinkle Meganuke" and companion deletion discussion). That script enabled rolling back a user's edits as they made them, and the community said no to that. A lot of the arguments against had to do with bot policy, but really, who really decided that it was okay to have a mass-rollback script in the first place? Sure it's a useful tool (I use it) and offers many extensions on the basic rollback feature that are desirable (roll back multiple edits, provide edit summaries) but it is also just a few simple modifications (or a careless operator) away from being an extremely destructive tool. I know Arbcom doesn't make policy, but perhaps Arbcom could strongly suggest that a relevant guideline be considered. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender
Given that GiantSnowman continued his inappropriate mass reversions and inappropriate blocks even after promising not to at the ANI, I think we have a clear case of malpractice and incompetence rising to the level of a desysop. This is harming the project (we cannot afford to lose good editors more than we already are), and no one can babysit such an admin to make sure he is competently using the tools and competently reverting. I am also disappointed in the rapid closures of various sections of the ANI thread, by admins glossing over the issues and indicating the problem was resolved when it obviously wasn't and isn't. I think there are three possible effective ways forward: (1) ArbCom can accept the case and examine all of the granular evidence; (2) ArbCom can resolve this by motion; (3) GS can voluntarily resign the mop and re-run for RfA. Softlavender (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: I am astonished by commenters here referring only to mass reversions and completely ignoring the inappropriate unilateral blocks GS has made following his reversions. Not only were the blocks undiscussed (not brought to a noticeboard) and unilateral, many of them were unwarranted blocks of constructive, helpful, good-faith editors. He still insists the blocks were merited. This is all needs to be closely examined if GS is to keep his tools, particularly since he promised no less than 8 times in the ANI thread to change his ways, but went right back to doing the same thing. This is an editor who says one thing and does another. How can such an editor rightfully retain the tools? Softlavender (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: At this point the problematical behavior has definitely risen to the level of a desysop, so it cannot be resolved at ANI. Also, just to echo and add to what Galobtter says, we can't trust GS with rollback, we can't trust his promises, and we can't trust him with the block button. Therefore we certainly can't trust him with adminship at this point. Softlavender (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010
I've read bits of the ANI case and my general opinion is that there's no case to be needed at this point - From my understanding of it all GS mass rollbacked with a script (a script he no longer uses), He has apologised and hasn't used the script or rollback since (only on himself) so at this point the ANI thread should be closed, this should be declined and the dust should all settle,

If he restarts then go to ANI and then seek some sort of edit restriction or whatever. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * (Like I said I've only read bits here and there but reading s statement above if GS has continued after the ANI discussion then IMHO this should be all taken back there but that's just my honest opinion). – Davey 2010 Talk 15:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter
As in the case of User talk:WR227 (who I just unblocked), reverting good-faith and constructive edits that might do with improvement (i.e, engaging in a content dispute), and then blocking someone based on that, seems the textbook definition of an WP:INVOLVED block. And GiantSnowman appears to have done many of those kind of blocks. Examination of his conduct and especially his blocks seems appropriate based on that because I at-least don't trust his use of the block button. The only body who can examine a long-term pattern of behaviour of an admin using his tools is ArbCom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, if you can't trust someone to use rollback properly, then you can't trust them to be an admin. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't initially think a case request was necessary. But then I looked into the issue more and it is more than the inappropriate use of mass rollback, which is a side issue; it is the inability to distinguish between constructive edits and edits that need reversion or are vandalism (which caused the issue), which is fundamental to using the block button. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MrX
A case may be needed to not only to examine GiantSnowman's use of privileged tools, but also to examine the broader issue of the perception that some admins routinely close ranks to protect one of their own, for example by abruptly closing discussions, threatening editors with blocks, and berating editors who expect their concerns to be taken seriously. There is a pervasive double standard as witnessed in the decisive removal of rights from who exhibited similar WP:IDHT as GiantSnowman. The current environment undermines the trust that community places in admins. It also wastes a lot of time and energy, and often results in editors withdrawing from the project. ANI is unsuitable for untangling these issues, as usual. - MrX 🖋 15:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter
I indeed closed the first ANI thread, but not because I wanted to protect "one of our own" and not because of the Super Mario effect as incorrectly claimed above. I closed it because it started to turn into championship in assuming bad faith, and I would have closed in this way an ANI thread of any user with a long record of productive Wikipedia contribution, be it admin or not. I specifically mentioned that any constructive suggestions can be discussed in a subthread (which I left open) or by opening a new subthread.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As an admin active at WP:RFPP I can indeed confirm that addition of unsourced info (usually amending statistics without updating a source, and in many cases the new numbers are not confirmed by the source) by IPs into articles on football is a serious problem, and articles often need to be protected just because of this.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
I encourage ARBCOM to take this case. It's a simple case of an admin abusing admin privileges and not heeding warnings and the community not being able to do anything about it. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
With the exception of the block(s) in question -- opinion about which seems to be divided -- can someone please specify what administrative tools Giant Snowman is being accused of misusing? My understanding is that the mass rollback script GS used is one that could be utilized by anyone with the Rollbacker right, which is no longer available only in the Admin bundle. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Fish and karate
I feel the community has not yet tried to address all the undeniable issues presented. The initial issue - the misuse of mass rollback - is not an issue with an administrative tool, anyway, and this has been resolved by GiantSnowman removing the script. The other issues (the blocks, the reverts, etc.) have not, however, been tackled, just discussed, with no resolution attempted; an arbcom case at this time is jumping the gun a little. Fish +Karate 18:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also like the committee to consider a resolution authorizing the immediate, indefinite, and irrevocable block of any account which mentions the "Super Mario Effect". Yes I am being facetious, but it's been done to death. I would prefer it to be called the "Sonic Ring" effect anyway, as it makes more sense. If Sonic has rings (admin rights) he loses them when assaulted by a spiky crab robot (discussed at arbcom), if he does not have rings (admin rights) he dies (is blocked). Fish +Karate  10:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by UninvitedCompany
I had originally expressed concern specifically about GiantSnowman's automated reverts, which I now understand were performed using the "mass rollback" tool. This narrow issue is addressed to my satisfaction because GiantSnowman has removed the mass rollback tool from his .css, and has promised that he will discontinue use of the tool. I believe he will keep his promises.

I would like to refer the committee to my original statment at AN/I where this matter was first brought to community attention and my follow up several days later. These statements contain diff links to evidence relevant to this case. If the case is opened, I would encourage the clerks and committee members to copy salient portions to the evidence page.

A Smörgåsbord of secondary issues remain that may be worthy of the committee's attention, to wit:


 * 1) Whitelisting of admin edits in RC and in tools like Huggle makes it hard for the community to identify abuses.  I watched an unfiltered RC feed for perhaps 10 minutes and happened to catch this.  It pains me to think how pervasive such practices--hundreds of rollbacks!--must have become, for me to come across one in a few minutes of patrolling.  On a wiki, there is meant to be a culture of cross-checking and oversight.  It is now missing.
 * 2) Administrators closing ranks on AN/I
 * 3) Some of the individual new editors who were affected by GiantSnowman's rollbacks over the last year came to AN/I and asked for relief long before I brought up my concerns.  They were turned down by a commuinity of admins who closed ranks with one of their own and did not perform more than a superficial investigation.
 * 4) After I posted at AN/I, there were two separate occasions when admins attempted to cut off ongoing discussion by "closing" it.  The first of these was just over 13 hours after I posted my initial report.  While I am thankful that the discussion continued nonetheless, I observe that this practice of early "closures" has become widespread as a tool for creating facts on the ground and limiting discussion.
 * 5) Bloodlust at AN/I - I am disappointed that the discussion at AN/I so quickly devolved from education and problem solving to a highly polarizing discussion of sanctions.  GiantSnowman had been making these sorts of reverts for over a year before I noticed, and the same community members that turned a blind eye to that are now unwilling to allow time for discussion, education, and change.
 * 6) Lack of policy for powerful tools - The presence of "mass revert" and "mass delete" tools exists in a policy vacuum.  Like many other technical measures, they have become available without community consensus on who should be able to use them or under what circumstances.  The social damage these tools can cause through careless or inappropriate use is substantial and not easily reversed.  I believe the problem is particularly acute for user scripts and semi-automated editing that falls outside the area of interest of the WP:BAG members and therefore has no effective source of oversight.
 * 7) Sources are not trump cards - As important as inline references and proper sourcing are, they are not the sine qua non of a valid edit, even to a BLP.  In this case in particular, many of the purportedly problematic edits that GiantSnowman reverted were adequately sourced by references already present in the articles.  Editorial judgement requires flexibility.
 * 8) Knee-jerk reverting of IPs We will not fulfill our mission if we give up the ability of IPs to correct inaccurate or out-of-date facts.  We will not grow our editor base if we treat well-meaning but unhelpful contributions as vandalism.  Every 4th grader who gets a templated warning when they try to put their newfound knowledge into the lede of a high-profile article will someday be one less adult who looks back fondly on their first edit.  Every day I'm here I see evidence that RC patrollers need to slow down and consider the possibility that the IP might be right, even if it means spending 15 minutes to be abolutely sure that a particular edit is, in fact, vandalism.

Respectfully submitted,  Uninvited Company 23:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon
I don’t entirely understand what this request is about. I have had to do more reading than I should have had to do to understand that this is primarily about alleged abuse of administrative tools by Giant Snowman, and I am still not sure what it is secondarily about, maybe about administrators as a cabal (TINC). The two principal statements of the complaint against Giant Snowman appear to be by Legacypac, which is too short to be explanatory, and by Fram, which is too long to be explanatory. I can try to summarize what I think the problems are in medium length, but I don’t have an issue with any of Giant Snowman or Legacypac or Fram, so that these will only be comments, or maybe a statement of what a case should be about if there is to be a case.

First, there are claims that Giant Snowman has abused the rollback tool, which is subject to a privilege that is both packaged for admins and is granted to some non-admins. If the ArbCom takes a case and decides that there are issues about rollback, they can: admonish and warn GS; issue a topic-ban against using that admin tool while leaving admin privileges; or remove the admin privilege.

Second, I see at least one case of what appears to be a questionable continuing use of blocking. GS has been the only admin to block WRL227, with escalating blocks. Maybe they have become too involved, and maybe they should have acted only as prosecutor and not as judge. If ArbCom finds that GS has abused the ability to block, that is an inherent part of the admin package and cannot be unbundled. Either they can exonerate GS or warn GS or desysop GS.

Since this case has been presented badly, if the ArbCom declines it, they should specify why they are declining it, or be ready for it to be filed again. If the ArbCom accepts it, I think it is about rollback by GS and blocks by GS. It would be better for ArbCom to accept the case; if no action against GS is warranted, then a finding to that effect will be helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kusma
Looking through GiantSnowman's contributions (and especially the blocks performed for "persistent addition of unsourced content"), there is a lot of behaviour that looks like punishing good faith editors for correct contributions (football statistics of not too prominent players). Many other admins have upheld GS's blocks, so I can understand why he thinks his blocks were fine. Perhaps better than an ArbCom case would be the creation of a page that contains agreed sourcing standards for sports statistics, agreed rules on how to update them, so good faith newbies can be linked to that and then know what their edits are measured against. Looking through GS's reverts and edits, I am unable to figure out what the rules are (see also Fram's statement above that contains many examples that seem typical from a cursory review of GS's contributions). Admittedly I have only been editing for 14 years, so I may be too new at this, but it really shouldn't be that hard to find out what is acceptable. Anyway, I assume the sports editor/RC patrol/admin community is exposed to a firehose of rumours / crap / actual bad vandalism (changing the statistics to something incorrect is a lot more damaging to the integrity of Wikipedia than silly graffiti) and so their standard methods probably catch a lot of good faith editors in their revert/warn/blocking procedure. It is clear that something has to be improved, but it is not clear to me that desysopping GS is going to suddenly fix the issue that differentiating between good and bad changes to sports statistics is difficult. Can we try to work on this issue instead of focussing on people? —Kusma (t·c) 10:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see there already is WikiProject Football/Links, a page that among other things mentions which pages are not trusted. It is linked a grand total of 13 times from User talk so people do not go out of their way to make newbies find it. The template mentioned by GS has been used less than 100 times, probably a lot less than that. I haven't come across either of these in your recent contributions. Instead, I see things like this, a vandalism warning for a user who has correctly updated stats without changing the "as of" parameter or in the same page history, this revert of a constructive edit that did include the new "as of" date (but formatted it incorrectly). GiantSnowman, you say you "revert unsourced material", but you really revert a lot more than that (often insulting good faith editors by calling their edits vandalism), and you really need to be more careful than that and give people the chance to learn the rules. —Kusma (t·c) 12:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Jacona
The reversions were poorly done with carelessness and lack of attention. Apologizing was good, doing them again during the middle of an ANI discussion showed incredibly poor judgement. So he apologized again, and then did it again. But all that pales compared to blocking editors apparently on a whim. He unilaterally blocked constructive, editors who were clearly editing in good faith without discussion. If admins can do that, non-admins may as well leave.Jacona (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * @user:UninvitedCompany, I very much appreciated your comments: it is the knee-jerk action of so many experienced editors to revert even excellent good-faith contributions, sometimes that just need an incredibly easy-to-find source rather than bother to find the source themselves. They then compound the problem by slapping a nasty-gram template on the talk page, thus biting the new editors. This costs us myriads of good editors and should be stopped. Maybe this case can be a starting point. Jacona (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment by B
Regarding the use of an automated script for rollback, if this had been done with a tool that allows you to use an edit summary, it would have been just as automated and nobody would consider it to be an (ab)use of admin tools. Though it looks like there are other potential reasons for ArbCom to take this up (allegations of misuse of blocking), I would encourage arbcom not to "punish" someone merely for using an automated tool to speed up work. (If there is a sanction, it should be because the work was inappropriate, not because it was done efficiently.) --B (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Leaky caldron
I would like User:GiantSnowman to consider the following. They are the leading figure in the WP:FOOTBALL Project. . The nature of the project requires great attention to detail in terms of accuracy and standardisation of statistics. I know from experience that the project does not tolerate outsiders well. There is a bit of a closed shop mentality and new editors, in particular IPs can encounter barriers to entry. The ethos of the project is defensive. Despite WP:PROJECT guidance there is a tendency to assert ownership and styles / sourcing methods which are not always collegial and can on occasion fail to respect wider content policy obligations.

GS was initially cavalier in his reaction to justified concerns at WP:ANI and over a few days totally failed to appreciate the seriousness of the concerns raised about his behaviour.

The greatest benefit to the overall encyclopedia would be for GS to play a prominent part in ensuring that WP:FOOTBALL is a more welcoming, friendly place, especially to non-regular editors. The imposition of so-called football project standard go too far in alienating new, willing contributors. His experience could support initiatives in that project to improve its contribution base while ensuing that our overall standards are maintained. I would encourage the case, possibly to also consider wider WP:FOOTBALL project issues. Leaky Caldron  20:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Rivselis
GiantSnowman's initial agreement to use the tools available to them more cautiously was followed by further disruptive actions, showing that they are unapologetic about the disruption and potential BITE that they caused. I do not believe they have shown proper care and consideration worthy of being a wikipedia admin. Rivselis (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by L293D
As an editor who has had ~500 edit nuked by GiantSnowman six months ago, I urge arbitrators to accept this case. GS has been misusing rollback for a long time, but the fact that he continued even after saying he would stop is enough. Furthermore, GS has also made several involved blocks, which is also tool misuse. L293D (☎ • ✎) 04:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis
GiantSnowman has been an administrator for a pretty long time now – seven years as of this upcoming February. He's one of Wikipedia's most active editors, and to the best of my knowledge, an all-around decent sysop. However, I do think there's room for improvement.

Based on my experiences and observations of GiantSnowman, he does seem to view a high edit count as being one of the more reliable indicators of an editor's overall commitment to the project. Not that I necessarily disagree with him on this point, but I am of the belief that there are levels of nuance that need to be taken into consideration. Again, I'm not saying that GiantSnowman's own views are devoid of nuance, but I think knowing his perspective can give some insight into his editing habits. As an example, I remember one interaction I had with him from several years back when somebody (either GS himself or another editor) opposed an RfA for inactivity, with the candidate making ~100 edits per month on average. I was a bit taken aback and asked something like, "Am I the only one who thinks that 100 edits per month is actually a high level of activity?" GiantSnowman replied to my comment by saying (possibly slightly paraphrased), "Seeing as I can easily make that many edits in a day..." I don't think I responded to him after that, though it did get me to thinking – perhaps being a highly active user (as GiantSnowman undoubtedly is) carries with it an entirely different concept as to what constitutes active editing. It isn't so much that the activity level of an editor who makes 100 edits per month is low, but rather that the activity level of someone who makes thousands of edits per month is exceptionally high. The raw statistics also don't necessarily reflect just how much effort goes into each individual edit. Whereas thousands of automated revisions can be done almost mindlessly, some editors might spend several hours expanding content, copyediting their words, and hitting the preview button over and over again before they click "publish changes" even once. Does that make them less "active" than a veritable vandal-fighting machine?

GiantSnowman's own edit count is among the highest of any Wikipedian at well over 300,000. Like a lot of other editors with contributions numbering in the hundreds of thousands, this can be attributed in large part to the fact that many of his edits, particularly those related to vandal-fighting, are automated. With such a focus on quantity, it's almost inevitable that he'll make some mistakes here and there. And the higher the editing rate, the greater the frequency of such mistakes. This has borne itself out in the number of instances where he's reverted several hundred good-faith edits by individual contributors, left vandalism warnings on their talk pages, and occasionally even administered blocks against them when they did nothing to merit a sanction.

Whether or not a case is accepted (and it seems to be imminent by this point), I think GiantSnowman should get into the habit of slowing down a bit and looking over his reverts before making them, if for no other reason than to make sure that he isn't accidentally undoing constructive edits in the process. Frankly, a non-administrator would have had their rollback privileges revoked almost immediately after the first offense. Does that mean I support desysopping GiantSnowman? Not necessarily. If he remains an administrator at the conclusion of this case, my hope is that he'll learn from all of this and exercise caution going forward. Kurtis (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz
It looks like ArbCom is going to accept this dumpster fire of a dispute, a lovely holiday gift for the incoming regime. I can only hope they follow the advice og UninvitedCompany and address the misbehaviour on both sides here. The torches-and-pitchforks behaviour as well as the dismissive behaviour too many admins take toward wide swathes of constructive editors are as damaging to the encyclopedia as GS's mishandling of the tools. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Paul August
While addressing GiantSnowman's actions, please also pay careful attention to the points listed by UninvitedCompany above. Paul August &#9742; 14:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333
I think the only issue here is WP:INVOLVED. Although I try to be nice to newcomers, sometimes I can't find information that an IP or new user has added without a source or an edit summary, and it degrades the article quality (in particular if the article is a GA) if it is left, so I'm left with no choice to revert. This caused a problem at Westmoreland House recently where a user argued about the spelling of the building, and wouldn't accept the multiple sources or a photograph of the sign above the building's entrance, and copied content from a third-party source without attribution, which also required reverting (the edit window says "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted"). They haven't edited since another admin blocked them for edit warring, which is a shame, but I don't know what else I could have done without making the article factually incorrect or breaking a core policy. However, at no times would I have considered using the tools; it is not hard to find another admin, and if you are in any doubt whatsoever, assume that you are involved and another person has to be the judge. Elsewhere, I've filed protection and edit-warring requests on Genesis (band) which have been honoured pretty quickly, but I still wouldn't protect or block myself as I've done far too much work on the article to not have a conflict of interest. In summary, if GiantSnowman can pledge to use the standard noticeboards (particularly Requests for page protection and Edit warring) when he is in a dispute, then I think we can avoid a case. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you give me some links to ANI threads where somebody filed a legitimate complaint about GiantSnowman, that was then closed as "drama" (or otherwise not dealt with seriously)? I can see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive980 where complained, but although the thread was "closed", it was then re-opened and died due to a lack of interest. I realise "nobody cares about this, sorry" isn't good feedback for somebody who might have a legitimate grievance, but in a voluntary project, that's what sometimes happens. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Valenciano
WP:FOOTBALL has its own localised consensus on some things. Not a problem in that, but the problem is that often when users old and new try to make good faith improvements which happen to deviate slightly from these localised consensuses, rather than this being politely pointed out to them they are whacked over the head with the equivalent of a sledgehammer, often by Giant Snowman. For example in his block of, GS justifies it on the grounds that Fodbold's stats are "not correct." But that's a matter of opinion. WP:FOOTBALL has decided that, in infoboxes, the stats to be presented should be for domestic league only, ignoring cup competitions. It's very easy for users unfamiliar with Wikipedia football's conventions to miss that (I've done it myself) as numerous external websites include the cup competitions in the overall stats. That's exactly what Fodbold did, in good faith. Such users should be linked to the relevant consensus and encouraged to follow it, not chased away with hostility.

It was to be hoped and expected that, with all the heat on him, numerous users criticising him over WP:BITE, misuse of rollback and incorrect accusations of vandalism against good faith editors, and his promises in the ANI thread to change, that GS would do just that, but no. When going through recent changes earlier today I came across this warning today from GS to a new ip editor, accompanied by rollback without any explanation. Given the background and that it was a level 2 vandalism warning I expected to find the ip up to no good, but instead I found that what had caused it was this relatively harmless edit. That isn't even vandalism, let alone vandalism which would merit an instant level 2 warning. I then had a quick look through GS' recent contributions and found this from 3 days ago, GS slapping a level 2 warning on an editor with 9 years' tenure and all because that editor added correct information in an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. It would have taken very little time for GS to source that himself, but instead he persists in annoying editors with a heavy-handed approach, when a softer approach would produce better results. In normal circumstances, those edits would be an issue, but coming after a lengthy ANI thread heavily criticising such an approach and with an ARBCOM case likely, persisting in templating good faith contributors and misusing rollback shows incredibly poor judgement and a complete unwillingness/inability to change. Valenciano (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Recuse I commented on the original ANI thread. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (9/0/0)
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
 * It seems that we have a reasonable assertion of misuse of rollback, multiple times. If GiantSnowman was not an admin, I'm confident that the rollback user-right would be removed. However, rollback is intrinsically part of the admin toolset, and therefore this falls under Arbcom scope, as it is the only place that such investigations can occur. I believe there has been sufficient discussion at other venues and I have a fairly low bar to start admin conduct cases, so I would accept this case. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've read the huge ANI thread, and I understand there are two issues here: first, the use of rollback, particularly through Writ Keeper's mass rollback script, and second, the use of the block tool in a way which may be inappropriate. I too have a pretty low threshold for admin conduct cases, as that's part of what we're here for, so I accept the case. Katietalk 12:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a lot to digest in this case from reading the ANI thread and the comments here. However, after reading this information I believe there is enough to warrant looking at these actions, and I accept the case as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Taking a break from our big open house (I made hundreds of cookies and eggnog). I also have a low bar for looking at Admins brought before us. I admit I hadn't considered the point that we can't remove rollback from an Administrator. I appreciate the views of those who don't think there's a case, but I don't think we can ignore this so accept. Doug Weller  talk 17:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * we could ban an Administrator from using rollback, but frankly I think if they have a such a serious problem that they have to be banned from using rollback they probably shouldn't have any of the tools. So far as your question about the community, yes, thinking about it I think they could. But the same issue arises, is the community likely to have trust enough in an Administrator that they've banned from using rollback to be happy with them continuing to hold the rest of the tools? Doug Weller  talk 20:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Accept My first instinct was exactly what Iridescent said. I've read the ANI thread, and I hate to implicitly validate some of the behavior there - I really don't want a case whose pages are full of uncritical repetition of the "Super Mario" meme. (For some reason, the next sentence after "if you weren't an admin you'd be tarred and feathered by now!" is usually "so let's get to it!" and rarely "gee, maybe we shouldn't tar and feather the non-admins either?") However, the short cycle time between "I'll be more careful" and making a new mistake is a problem, and argues against giving more time for this to play out. What really pushes me over the edge into acceptance is the fact that the affected editors are IPs and new users who are unlikely bring this back to a dispute resolution venue. It also sounds like there are indications that this may not be uncommon in the topic area - I'd be interested in seeing evidence that sets GS's tool use in context for the area. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Accept. I fully agree we should have a low bar for examining the behavior of administrators. As rollback is part of the administrative toolset, alleged repeated abuse of rollback warrants a look, whether or not we ultimately find enough to support any substantial sanction. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly encourage you to provide that context and any other similar material in evidence if a case is opened. Keep in mind that accepting a case does not imply sanctions should/will be issued. I think enough of a question has been raised that we should search for an answer, which is why I've voted to accept the case. That answer may well be "Nope, nothing serious." ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Accept. As with O.r., it's the blocks of new users who may not know our sourcing rules that is particularly concerning. It is not uncommon for people to insert false information in sports articles, and for active players they are also articles in need of very frequent updating, and people following the sport who are not regular editors may well wish to do it in good faith and not knowing our rules. . We need a better way of handling BLP concerns here.  DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Accept to examine the use of rollback by GiantSnowman. Like OR, I would like to see input from other editors in the area to place his tool use in context. I understand that the insertion of false/uncomfirmed information by drive-by editors in football articles has been a problem, so I'd be interested to see if this is endemic to admins in the area (in which case, a better solution should be found) or specific to GS. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been going back and forth on whether there is enough here to warrant a full case, or if this case request has illuminated the concerns to the point where the community could take decisive action if further issues arise. Like others on the committee, out of an abundance of caution, I typically tend to lean towards accepting cases that relate to administrative conduct. I share PMC's interest in knowing whether the issue of sports-related editors adding incorrect and false information, specifically around stats, continues to be a significant problem. A similar thing happened with MMA articles back in the day (and possibly persists - I have not been active there in quite some time), where it was seemingly impossible to keep up and a huge number of incorrect changes, and articles were semi-protected as a measure of last resort (this was prior to the introduction of pending changes). <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 20:53, 17 December 2018 (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.

Administrator accountability
1) Administrators are expected to objectively consider criticism and questions relating to their decisions. For an administrator to not promptly and appropriately deal with concerns, without good cause, may constitute misconduct.
 * Passed 11 to 0 at 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Raising concerns
2) The Wikipedia community conducts almost all of its activities online, where people may fail to observe norms of professionalism and civility. From time to time, users may need to express concerns in clear, firm terms about another user's decisions or actions.  This need is particularly important when expressing concerns about an administrator.  However, Wikipedia provides several methods of escalating concerns about user conduct or administrator decisions.  Users should make efforts to escalate appropriately, in line with our policy on civility; continually re-stating a concern is unlikely to produce an effective resolution.
 * Passed 6 to 0 with 1 abstention at 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

User scripts
3) Users are responsible and accountable for all their edits or actions, whether they are assisted by user scripts or not. Users are expected to take appropriate additional care when contributing with the assistance of a user script.
 * Passed 11 to 0 at 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Terminating discussions
4.2) Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrative tools. Discussion and criticism of the merits of administrative actions are acceptable within the bounds of avoiding personal attacks and civility. Such discussions can be closed when consensus has been reached, and/or when "the discussion is stable" or "further contributions are unlikely to be helpful", but "not too soon" or "not too late".
 * Passed 11 to 0 at 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee
5) Wikipedia makes use of this committee to handle "removal of administrative tools" and "serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve" (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Scope and responsibilities).
 * Passed 11 to 0 at 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrator conduct
6) 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 perform administrative tasks to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, repeated or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.
 * Passed 11 to 0 at 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Treatment of new editors
7) Please do not bite the newcomers, an important guideline, reminds us that "Wikipedia articles are improved through the hard work of both regular editors and newcomers. Remember: all of us were new editors at Wikipedia once.... New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with Wikipedia's markup language and its myriad of policies, guidelines, and community standards when they start editing...."
 * Passed 11 to 0 at 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Check before reverting
9) In the spirit of building the encyclopedia we aim to preserve facts or ideas that belong in an encyclopedia and are verifiable, and encourage editors to find sources when required. When faced with potential multiple unhelpful edits, the onus is on the reverter to assume good faith and check if the edits are actually unhelpful before reverting.
 * Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention at 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Default behaviour of rollback feature
1) Contributors with the 'rollback' permission have displayed to them a link-button that other users do not see. Rollback provides a one-click facility for browsing the page history, selecting the most recent edit made by a user other than the one who made the current version, and restoring that edit.  When clicked, rollback performs the action without explaining the reason by an edit summary.  Rollback is a user conduct guideline that documents the general circumstances when using the tool would be appropriate.
 * Passed 11 to 0 at 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Rollback and administrators
2) The rollback permission can be singly assigned to Wikipedia users, thereafter known as rollbackers, through a request for permissions. Separately, administrators are issued the 'rollback' permission as part of their bundle of rights.  The right cannot by technical means be withheld or unbundled from the rights of current administrators.  Administrators who use the rollback tool will therefore be subject, in the course of the same, to the obligations and standards applied to any administrator right.
 * Passed 11 to 0 at 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

MassRollback.js
3) massRollback.js is a user script that any registered user may install. While installed, administrators and rollbackers are shown a link-button to display a confirmation window and then to mass rollback the contributions of a selected editor.  Mass rollbacking is equivalent to opening a user's contributions (up to 500 at once) and clicking each rollback link-button.  The process is completed in a manner of seconds.

The massRollback.js user script was designed for use in combatting obvious, serious abuse. Before using the script, rollbackers or administrators are expected to review the target account's contributions and be sure that every edit needs rolling back.
 * Passed 11 to 0 at 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman use of rollback
4) GiantSnowman has incorrectly used the rollback tool; for example, on [ 27 November 2018], 29 November 2018, 03 December 2018, and 04 December 2018 (see evidence). In the case on 04 December 2018,  used the massRollback.js user script to undo 416 edits by another user, including unrelated contributions by the user (see evidence, evidence). During and after a community discussion about these reverts, GiantSnowman continued to incorrectly use the rollback tool; eg 9 December 2018, 20 December 2018 (see evidence, evidence).
 * Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention at 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman response to concerns
5) GiantSnowman has replied to concerns raised by the Wikipedia community. However, a number of legitimate concerns were not addressed; for example: Where GiantSnowman has appeared to acknowledge and address a concern, in several instances GiantSnowman went on to repeat in short order the conduct that was of concern.
 * On 4 December 2018, GiantSnowman reverted 416 edits by Veryproicelandic, including many edits unrelated to the stated basis for reverting (eg a talk page vote (see evidence); a number of editors expressed concerns in the community ANI thread about these reverts. GiantSnowman accepted those concerns, saying I'll be more careful in future.
 * On 6 December 2018, GiantSnowman mass-reverted more edits by another user (see evidence). Concerns were then raised by several more users; on 9 December 2018, GiantSnowman accepted these further concerns.  Around 3 hours later on 9 December 2018, GiantSnowman mass-reverted another user.
 * On 10 December 2018, further concerns were raised about GiantSnowman's actions. GiantSnowman uninstalled the massRollback.js user script and criticised, 1 minute later, the recent commentators for failing to take the uninstallation into account.
 * Passed 11 to 0 at 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman use of blocks
6) has wrongly blocked other users, including  on [ 7 October 2018] (see evidence) and  on [ 6 December 2018] (see evidence).
 * Passed 11 to 0 at 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23
7) During the discussion at ANI about GiantSnowman's use of the mass rollback tool, marked the discussion as closed.  While closing, Bbb23 said: GS's response is satisfactory. There is no reason that he cannot use mass rollback for socking and vandalism. No administrative action is going to be taken here.

Bbb23 asserted that concerns had been addressed and further discussion would be unfruitful. Concerns about GiantSnowman's use of the tool were unresolved at that point and Bbb23's closure was premature, given the circumstances at the time.
 * Passed 6 to 5 at 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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.

GiantSnowman admonished and placed under review
1.2) GiantSnowman is admonished for overuse of the rollback and blocking functions, and reminded to "lead by example" and "strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy"; to "respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed"; to not use admin tools in "cases in which they have been involved" including "conflicts with an editor" and "disputes on topics"; to "treat newcomers with kindness and patience"; and to apply these principles in all interactions with all editors. GiantSnowman is placed under review indefinitely; during the review, with the exception of obvious vandalism, he is subject to the following restrictions:
 * 1) He may not revert another editor's contribution without providing an explanation in the edit summary. This includes use of MediaWiki's rollback function, any tool or script that provides a similar function, and any manual revert without an edit summary. Default edit summaries, such as those provided by the undo function or Twinkle's rollback feature, are not sufficient for the purpose of this sanction
 * 2) He may not block an editor without first using at least three escalating messages and template warnings
 * 3) He may not consecutively block an editor; after one block he is advised to consult with another admin or bring the matter to the attention of the community
 * 4) He may not place a warning template on an editor's talk page without having first placed an appropriate self-composed message containing links to relevant policies and guidelines
 * 5) He may not place more than five consecutive warning templates or messages; after which he is advised to consult with another admin
 * 6) He may not use MassRollback.js

Violations may be reported by any editor to WP:AE. GiantSnowman may appeal any or all of these sanctions, including the review itself, directly to the Arbitration Committee at any time.
 * Passed 9 to 1 at 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Amended by motion at 19:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Motion: GiantSnowman restrictions amended (January 2024)

 * Passed 12 to 1 by motion at 19:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Enforcement log
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Arbitration enforcement log, not here.