Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Proposed decision

Proposed motions
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

''Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Arbitration Committee/Procedures.''

Template
1)

{text of proposed motion}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Arbitration Committee/Procedures.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

=Proposed final decision=

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.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Every day on Wikipedia, an administrator's decisions are reviewed by other users.  The vast majority pass without comment and stand on their own merit.  Some are queried, receive a comment, or are even appealed.  In a small proportion of cases, a broader community discussion breaks out.  Even the majority of this subset is resolved without much fuss.  It feels like we are here because this system broke down, for whatever reason.   AGK  &#9632;  20:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added "without good cause". It's implied in the statement, but doesn't hurt to spell it out. SilkTork (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 01:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WormTT(talk) 13:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 17:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * Proposed.  AGK  &#9632;  20:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I can understand the need for a bit of wordsmithing, per comments below, but the general principle is sound. People do behave differently online, and to ensure that we maintain a collegial atmosphere we have a set of methods for escalating concerns. When these are not used, it can lead to a general feeling of malaise amongst the community, as well as "us and them" attitudes. WormTT(talk) 13:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is needed.  DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not exactly as I would phrase it, but basically reasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added a reference to WP:CIVIL because at the very least this should reference our internal norms. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Not bad advice, but I don't think it's relevant to this case. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * I agree with these general principles but I'm still thinking through some aspects of the wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The first sentence reminds me of something OR has been quoted on, which I'll paraphrase as there are no universal "norms of professionalism and civility". If we need this principle, I think it would be better to frame it in terms of our own, internal norms of communication, not unspecified external ones that we apparently fail. But I'm not convinced that we do need it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * .Which part of the case, and which parties are being referred to in this? A concern was raised about an admin in AN, which quickly transferred to ArbCom. It seems that the appropriate process for raising and then escalating concerns was used. SilkTork (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It related to a finding that was not brought, but the principle was left in because it's pertinent guidance – this case is partly a "how to criticise one another constructively". The decision makes sense without it, but as WormTT said this principle can often be forgotten.   AGK  &#9632;  19:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still not clear. But if there are enough others on the Committee who understand this to enable it to pass, so it doesn't need to be explained to me that's fine - we all don't need to sign off on everything. SilkTork (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the last sentence, not so much the first - Joe already linked my old post on the topic so I won't bore everyone with it again :) But if we're going to just skip this one, I'm good with that too - while I wouldn't mind getting that last bit on the record, I don't think the rest of the decision hinges on this. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If we keep this in, it should be reworded per Joe's suggestion so it is framed by our internal norms like CIVIL and BITE, rather than assuming universal external norms. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree that we should reframe it in our terms instead of the norms of other sites. Katietalk 15:49, 8 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.


 * Support:
 * Proposed.  AGK  &#9632;  20:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed "significant" to "appropriate". SilkTork (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with SilkTork's edit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 01:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I added "all their edits" for clarity. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WormTT(talk) 13:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 17:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Terminating discussions
4.1) The Wikipedia community regulates and coordinates its activities using software features designed for collaborative article-writing. This necessitates the need to "mark" discussions as closed without necessarily preventing further edits by technical means.  Templates like archive top exist to standardise how discussions are so marked.

Users who close a discussion because they genuinely believe their closure reflects the correct outcome should be mindful of the effect their closure will have on prior or prospective participants in the discussion. Users should carefully consider whether a basis exists at that moment for closing the discussion.

Other users sometimes take licence to continue the discussion underneath the closed section of a terminated discussion, but discussions so continued may not enjoy the same recognition or participation by the community. Experienced users and administrators should be particularly mindful of the weight that some users may give their action when they close a discussion.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. As an exercise of reflection, the Wikipedia community might consider whether applying this principle at the precipitating ANI thread would have led elsewhere than to arbitration.    AGK  &#9632;  20:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Though I support this principle, I understand the concerns below. As a general principle, when there is productive discussion going on, the discussion should not be shut down. Perhaps an alternative principle about "supervoting" might be more palatable? WormTT(talk) 13:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Second choice, prefer 4.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I don't agree with this in principle, nor do I think it's relevent to this case. There's no necessity, technical or otherwise, to mark discussions as closed. Editors find it expedient to do so for a variety of reasons. A common one is to summarise the consensus outcome of a discussion that has run its course, yes. But there are other legitimate reasons: to mark that requested action has been taken, to mark that there are no actions within the scope of the board that can be taken, or to terminate discussions that are not productive. It's reasonable to say that extended discussion of admin misconduct at ANI, a venue that can't adequately deal with it, falls into the latter category. To my knowledge there's no codified policy on when to "hat" discussions like this – which would suggest that there hasn't been a need for it. We shouldn't try to create it here and now. More generally, we should avoid the impression that because a case reaches arbitration, something must necessarily have gone wrong in earlier stages of dispute resolution; especially not when it concerns something that long experience and explicit policy suggests is best handled by ArbCom (admin misconduct). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not feel that it's ArbCom's role to tell the community when to close a discussion, as there's isn't a specific requirement to do so. While it can be helpful in cases where the matter is clearly settled, ArbCom should not be setting the policy on exactly when a discussion is over and needs to be shut down. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I also think this is inappropriate and overstepping our remit. We certainly should not be suggesting that all discussions must be closed nor should we be advising on what is good practice. Doug Weller  talk 17:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we need something more to the point than this. There was concern about admins closing down too early legitimate discussion about admin conduct. I think I would prefer a principle focused on that. SilkTork (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also not a fan of this one; it seems both overstepping and unnecessary. WTT's idea for an alternative principle on "supervoting" would help with the overstepping part, as that's a well-established concept, but IMO it still isn't really necessary. Perceptions of necessity presumably correlate with the FoF below, which I also think is unnecessary - but if we're going to have that FoF then I think we need a corresponding principle that states the issue without the prescriptiveness. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 4.2 is more to the point, I think. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * On noticeboards with an open-ended discussion format (as opposed to pages like XfD or RfA with predefined lengths of discussion), it is not always clear whether and when a discussion should be marked "closed." Sometimes it is obvious (e.g. "the editor reported as a vandal has been uncontroversially blocked"), but sometimes it is not (e.g. "I don't think further bickering here is going to be productive"). On the other hand, leaving unproductive, disputatious discussions open when they are unlikely to achieve anything can itself generate ill-feeling, disruption, and waste of time. And not marking things as closed wastes editor time in a different way, by requiring those who skim ANI to read through threads where no further comments are going to be helpful. As Winged Blades has noted on the talkpage, there is no requirement that ANI discussions ever be closed; they could just be allowed to peter out on their own and auto-archive when they are ready. Over the years there have been different approaches to when ANI discussions should be marked closed, and when they should be reopened after they have been closed. Often a single editor or a small number of editors dictate the closing pace, because any single editor can insert the archive-top and archive-bottom headings. Whether ArbCom should weigh in on this whole issue, I'm still thinking about. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm of a similar mind. I'm not against it yet, but I don't think we need to be telling people how to close discussions. Katietalk 01:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Three observations for colleagues. 1) The committee may recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct.  This is not outside our remit.  Historically, some important community norms started with the committee clarifying that something was unhelpful.  2) This case started life as an ANI thread about GiantSnowman's conduct.  Two administrators closed the thread in quick succession.  A majority of the thread participants were non-administrators (and admin–nonadmin relations is important to the community).  While this is an ancillary issue, I can't agree it is unimportant.  3) The principle doesn't tell people what to close and what to leave open.  It simply asserts – as a point of best practice – that users should think carefully about preventing legitimate discussion by the community.   AGK  &#9632;  19:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Terminating discussions <2>
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".


 * Support:
 * Try this. Please feel free to tweak and tidy up. SilkTork (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * An improvement on the above because it is neutrally framed and cites policy. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is better. It may seem a little insubstantial, in just restating the relevant policies rather than interpreting or clarifying them, but again IMO I don't think we really need to say much on this topic. I've found this subtopic about who closed which discussion and when and why and wherefore to be a minor side issue since it was first raised in this case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer this over 4.1. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a good improvement. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * AGK &#9632;  17:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * <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>) 18:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 17:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * better wording.  DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I'm with OR on this. Katietalk 15:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * (Clerical note) Renamed from Terminating discussions 2 to Termination discussions <2>; if passed, this principle would not contain the number in its title.  AGK  &#9632;  17:56, 4 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).


 * Support:
 * Proposed; it is normal to note why the committee is handling a particular matter.  AGK  &#9632;  20:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I kinda like the wording as it presents the Committee as a tool of the community. SilkTork (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 01:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * <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>) 13:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 17:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * I fear this won't be the first time the ArbCom has been described as a group of tools. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Damn, you beat me to it. :-) Katietalk 00:54, 31 January 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.


 * Support:
 * Proposed.  AGK  &#9632;  20:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable with "pursue their duties" (perhaps "carry out tasks"?), but it's a minor quibble; I agree with the overall point being made. SilkTork (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed 'pursue their duties' to 'perform administrative tasks', but yes. Katietalk 01:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have also changed "consistently" to "repeated". <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>) 13:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 17:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * I'd like to change "consistently" to "repeatedly." To me, the former implies poor judgement manifested in most or all admin actions, but I think what is intended is that making the same mistake again and again is grounds for desysoping. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:38, 31 January 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...."


 * Support:
 * Proposed. While experienced editors should also be treated appropriately, I believe WP:BITE concerns are at the heart of this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is important. Thanks NYB. SilkTork (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Per SilkTork.  AGK  &#9632;  19:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * –&#8239;Joe (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO this is the key point in the case. The central question here is where the balance lies between being accommodating of inevitable newcomer errors and being prompt about addressing incorrect or unsourced information, especially in BLPs (and even more especially in large numbers of individually low-traffic BLPs that need frequent updates). All this other stuff about adminship is more "interesting" from an inside-baseball (er, is there a soccer equivalent of that phrase? :) wikipolitical perspective, but it's not the important part from the perspective of either reader or new-editor experience, and both of those things are much more important to the project as a whole. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 13:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Slightly reluctant support, see my comments below. I agree with the sentiments expressed but there are times when it's unrealistic. Fortunately they are few. Doug Weller  talk 17:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * <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>) 18:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:


 * I'm still thinking this over. While I support the spirit of this guideline, in practice, and perhaps because I edit it some contentious areas, I do come across new accounts (I typed new editors but I know they haven't all been new editors) who are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia but to push their views, sometimes aggressively with no willingness to listen or learn, which ends up occasionally with a number of editors simply wasting their time.. I work hard at times with new editors who are clearly read to learn, but there are limits. I see one point is we should "avoid using blocks as a first resort". I'm sure most active Admins know that there are times when you have to act first and if sensible talk later. So the advice is great, but it's not always practical in the real world of Wikipedia editing. Doug Weller  talk 15:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Those things are true in many topic areas, but from my reading of the evidence, POV-pushing isn't a major feature of bad editing in this area, and socking only somewhat. It's unsourced/poorly sourced edits that are the most common problem, or at least the problem most commonly reflected in the evidence, which seems to be substantiated by some of the general comments about the difficulty of editing in this area. While I'm thinking of it, I actually think we could use one more principle about BLPs, since a lot of disputed edits were to biographies of current players. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)



Fix or revert
8) We preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. When noticing recent changes in a BLP article editors are faced with a choice of removing material they feel is contentious, or fixing the problem. Where possible and appropriate, in the spirit of building the encyclopedia, it is preferable that problems are fixed rather than reverted.


 * Support:
 * PRESERVE v BLPREMOVE has been an issue in this case. There is no guidance on what is "contentious" - and there has been some debate as to if a minor statistical change in the number of appearances a football player has made could be classed as contentious; we cannot provide that guidance, nor relax the protection on BLP articles, but we can indicate that in spirit of building the encyclopedia and encouraging new users, it is better to fix than to revert. SilkTork (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a general principle, not one specifically about the topic area. Though we need to be very conscious of BLP and V, we still need to focus on sourcing  relevant information when possible in preference to deleting it without checking for possible sourcing. The automatic application of BLPREMOVE is not generally the best approach. This case shows what can happen if editors  apply policies  indiscriminately.   DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * Per the comments below. I don't want to be responsible for creating an unrealistic expectation for what people must do, especially given the enormity of the topic area and the difficulty that can occur in finding reliable sourcing for minute changes to sports stats. Mass rollback is obviously not the answer, but neither is putting the onus on whoever encounters the change. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Having read the more recent discussion I don't think this is appropriate. Doug Weller  talk 17:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've given this thought, and the more I think about it, the less I believe that this is warranted by the committee. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I hold myself to this principle, however I'm not happy with the committee issuing it to all editors. <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>) 09:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Worm and PMC. Katietalk 15:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * This is a nuanced area. Perhaps it's possible to write a principle about how to deal with low-quality or incomplete edits, but I think this attempt is so broad that it would be irrelevant.  Coming to mind is the adage Wikipedia works in practice, not in theory.  You cannot easily teach or regulate how to deal with many types of changes to the wiki.   AGK  &#9632;  18:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * You're right in principle but I wonder about how well this really plays out in practice. One of the themes that came up during the case was the sheer size of this topic area - especially in combination with the frequent updates and the fact that a lot of coverage of international players will be in non-English languages. We can tell people all day long that they ought to be fixing instead of reverting, but if the scope of the task is too large for fixes to be realistic, then we're not really addressing the practical problem that was exposed by this case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. Sometimes you just can't find a source for something in a timely manner, especially if the sources are for minute statistical details or not in English (or both!). From a practical perspective, removal can be better than retention of something you can't be sure is accurate, especially if you're not familiar with the topic area and can't be certain that someone else will fix it soon due to the enormity of the area. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree too. I'm not sure that contentious is necessarily the right word for the sort of information either. Unsourced, plausibly incorrect information about BLPs should not just be left in and when the scale of the area and difficulty in sourcing is taken into account, I don't want to be pushing an onus onto anyone. <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>) 19:09, 4 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.


 * Support:
 * This was another grey area for GS, and he has asked for guidance on when he can use ROLLBACKUSE#5. I am hoping this may be of help in providing guidance as to when it is inappropriate to use ROLLBACKUSE#5 (ie, when he hasn't checked carefully enough that the edits are in violation of our policies). SilkTork (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am happy with any wordsmithing that might happen, but I do agree with the underlying principle here. <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>) 19:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I too agree with this as a general statement. WP policies on Verifiability are essential, but applying them without judgment can be unconstructive.  DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This works in general. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally, yes. Katietalk 15:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I can accept this. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Again, a nuanced area. I do not feel strongly enough to oppose and the advice is generally fine.   AGK  &#9632;  21:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * I think I understand (and agree) with this in principle, but the current wording doesn't make sense: you can't check the intention behind edits. We're supposed to assume good faith. I'm stuck for alternative wording though. Something alone the lines "check whether any of the affected edits could reasonably be construed as being in good faith"? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. I took the good faith wording from WP:STATUSQUO, but I can see that it can be vague, because - as you say - what to one person is a good faith edit can appear to another like a unholy violation of BLP. I have adjusted slightly to emphasise that a reverter does need to check that the edits are unhelpful before reverting. I am wondering if WP:ROLLBACKUSE#5: "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia", which was introduced by ArbCom, can be clarified or amended by ArbCom. I'm wondering if there needs to be some form of consensus before an editor can rollback hundreds of edits they personally feel is unhelpful. At the very least, an approach to the editor or bot owner to clarify what is going on. SilkTork (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree that there could be some clarification here, but I worry that we're looking too late in the sequence of events. We don't seem to need an extra required checkpoint before mass-rollbacking edits by malfunctioning bots, or, for example, edits by confirmed socks whose MO is to introduce errors. But in the situations that gave rise to this case, the problem was just garden-variety errors (or things that appeared to be errors on first glance) - one might ask how someone managed to make hundreds of edits with defects in one topic area before it got so bad that someone felt the need to rollback all of their edits? In a high-activity topic area with fewer articles and more watchers, someone making unsourced edits or serious source-formatting errors that impede understanding would get advice about how to avoid that problem before they'd done it to so many articles that mass rollback would seem like a good option. I think we all agree that GS chose the wrong solution, but that doesn't mean he was wrong that there was a problem. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * how someone managed to make hundreds of edits with defects in one topic area before it got so bad that someone felt the need to rollback all of their edits -, I think you nailed the crux of the problem here. As I see it, there's two major factors that make football particularly ripe for this kind of thing. First, there are simply a huge number of football biographies. Anyone monitoring the area would be hard-pressed to keep track of even a fraction of them, let alone all of them. Second, the enormous popularity of football draws in people who aren't established editors, either to make good-faith edits without knowing about sourcing, or to vandalize.Overall, you have a huge, poorly-tracked topic area that is a honeypot for both friendly but clueless newbies and malicious actors. It's entirely possible that someone could blunder around on low-traffic player pages for quite awhile before someone else starts paying attention. Changing the number of appearances made or goals scored is exactly the kind of low-key edit that might fly under the radar at recent changes, so unless someone's got the page on their watchlist and is editing close to when the change is made, what are the chances someone notices right away? So the person keeps making changes - good-faith or not - because no one's stopping them. If they're prolific, a couple hundred in a few hours or days isn't unthinkable.Now picture being the person who discovers that someone has made hundreds of unsourced edits to statistics on minor biographies. It may not be immediately possible to tell that an edit is true except by verifying each and every single one with an external source. In that situation, I can see how the impulse becomes to treat vandalism and good-faith unsourced edits as one and the same, because the amount of effort it forces up you to establish otherwise might well be enormous.I'm not arguing that it necessarily makes it okay for GS to have resorted to mass rollback, only that I can understand why these unsourced edits proliferate in the topic area and why GS might have come to treat the nuclear option as the best option. The question is, what will the community do to get a handle on the topic area? It's easy to say we should increase our scrutiny of football articles or perhaps reduce the number of them, but I'm not sure the best method of doing that. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:59, 3 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.


 * Support:
 * Proposed.  AGK  &#9632;  20:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've made it clear in the title that this is the default behaviour as it can be modified with user scripts etc. I would also note that rollback effectively states "it's so obvious why I'm going to undo your edit that it's not even worth my time to tell you" and so it should only really be used in the case of vandalism (i.e. an obviously bad faith edit) or equivalent <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>) 13:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 17:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Rollback was created and is intended to quickly remove obvious problematic edits, typically vandalism. If the reason for reverting the edit is not immediately clear or is debatable, or is not a revert that every admin would do, then using the standard rollback without edit summary is not appropriate, and an edit summary should be used. SilkTork (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * –&#8239;Joe (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * True as far as it goes, though the fact that it was "rollback" and not "undo" or whatever is mostly irrelevant (and, IMO, therefore most of the focus on "rollback" as a user right and as part of the admin bundle is also that inside- baseball football stuff that tends to dominate Wikipedia's back-office discussions regardless of whether it's the most significant part of the issue or not). Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Re below: just about anything that can be done manually can be done en masse by script. It would just be silly to write a mass-undo script. Sounds like what's really relevant is the speed, not the technical mechanism. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Rollback vs. undo is entirely relevant, as using undo would have forced GS to deal with each individual edit in a far more time-consuming manner. Not sure he would have taken the time to put in an edit summary, but it would have been far preferable to rollback. Katietalk 13:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually do think that rollback vs. undo is relevant. Undo allows for a manual edit summary and cannot be done en masse via script. Obviously, as a result, undoing edits takes more time and just a little bit more thought. If GS had used undo he could have included reasoning in his edit summaries, which although it is not a substitute for talk page communication, is at least better than the total lack of communication provided by rollback. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. In the discussions leading up to this case, the community debated how to treat concerns about an administrator's use of rollback.   AGK  &#9632;  20:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I had considered writing a bit about the history of roll back being unbundled, that it was initially considered an administrator user-right and so on, but didn't feel it was necessary. <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>) 13:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 17:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * SilkTork (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * –&#8239;Joe (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but see comments on preceding FoF. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 13:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Some of GiantSnowman's reverts in evidence were the by-product of using this script.   AGK  &#9632;  20:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * <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>) 13:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * With the caveat that as noted on the talkpage, this doesn't require looking for needles in haystacks: if an editor has made 100 rapid edits today and the first 10 are serious vandalism, it might make sense to go ahead and nuke all of them. But where a good-faith, unbanned editor is making a variety of types of edits, one should not jump to the conclusion that every edit should be rolled back just became some should be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * With the caveat mentioned by Newyorkbrad. Doug Weller  talk 17:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * –&#8239;Joe (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per NYB. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per NYB. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also per NYB. Katietalk 13:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I would change the end to "and be sure that rollback is proportionate and appropriate", but I am late to the game, and the general principle of taking care with the use of rollback is being made, and that is what I am agreeing to. SilkTork (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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).


 * Support:
 * Proposed.  AGK  &#9632;  20:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The crux of the 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>) 13:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed with WTT, this is what the case is about. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, but noting Newyorkbrad's comment below. Doug Weller  talk 17:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Including the December examples. That he apologised on the 9th is commendable, but doesn't erase the original misuse. On the 20th he rolled back the good faith addition of a verifiable fact; that's a misuse of rollback, no debate about it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and support this, because there is broad consensus that GS's rollback habits were inappropriate. However, I think it's significant that even now there are questions about individual examples. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, although per Iridescent's evidence and my own comments on principle 9, I can see how he arrived at the conclusion that the nuclear option was the best option. More needs to be done to monitor these pages to prevent the more football-focused admins from coming to the same conclusion. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per PMC. Katietalk 13:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes but.... SilkTork (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Noting my comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * This is generally accurate, although as has been noted, the 20 December 2018 citation is more debatable than the others. If that one use is put aside, it would appear that no misuses have taken place in the past seven weeks, and if that is true, perhaps it is is worth noting. GiantSnowman's perception that football (soccer) player biographies are unusually subject to deliberately inaccurate editing (for reasons discussed in Iridescent's evidence), while by no means justifying all of GiantSnowman's behavior, is also context worth noting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition to the 20th Dec revert being debatable, the 9 Dec reverts were undone by GS (random sample:, , , ), and an apology given to the user: . SilkTork (talk) 23:11, 31 January 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.


 * Support:
 * Proposed.  AGK  &#9632;  21:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While the main points are true, the final point, the revert of 107.77.173.7, is debatable, as that user had been editing that article disruptively that day: . SilkTork (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with SilkTork, and would rather the last point is removed. The IP had made 6 disruptive edits to the article in the previous 8 minutes, without heeding discussion in that time, and had been reverted by two other editors. I agree the rollback tool shouldn't be used, and it came while this case was ongoing, but I'd rather we didn't include it in the finding. That said, otherwise, I support. <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>) 13:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The final point should be removed, as stated above, otherwise this is a valid area. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If the final point is removed. Doug Weller  talk 17:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * An accurate summary. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I read that last comment about uninstalling the script as making a prediction about the likely reaction to the uninstall, not as "criticizing" the lack of reaction to his edit two minutes prior. (Not that it matters, but the uninstall is at 11:08 and the next post is at 11:10 - two minutes, not one!) But it's not in dispute that GS made additional errors or questionable judgments after the original concerns were raised. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 13:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * I have removed the final point, the debatable revert of 107.77.173.7. SilkTork (talk) 23:15, 31 January 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).


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Administrators are not expected – or required – to be perfect and I do not like seeing concerns blown out of proportion, especially in an arbitration decision.  However, GiantSnowman only blocked 46 editors in this period (1,295 less 1,249).  These errors of judgment with the block tool do not appear occasional or isolated.   AGK  &#9632;  18:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Reading through the contributions history, block log, and talkpage of is quite disturbing. GS in his defence of the block he gave WR227 said that this was a user with "previous blocks", what he omitted to mention was that all those blocks, four to the main account and one to the IP address back in Aug 2012, were done by GS himself. It is true that WR227 has struggled to use appropriate referencing. But what is also true is that GS is that user's main point of contact with Wikipedia, having been the person who has contacted WR227 substantially more than anyone else: . Those communications consist almost exclusively in abrupt warnings, block notices, and Prod and AfD notices. We have what amounts to several years of non-help and non-advice, but plenty of what would appear to the user to be harassment. To WR227's credit, they have stuck at it, and have created 378 articles, including one which is now a GA (Maikel Kieftenbeld). The user is not a vandal, is not disruptive or rude, and is contributing to the encyclopedia the best way they can and learning slowly. It is disturbing not just that GS treated this person this way, but that we as a community have allowed it. We kind of hope that admins on seeing someone treat another user this way would step in and stop it, but in this case it is the admin himself who is dishing out the unhelpful and chilling warnings and issuing petty blocks. SilkTork (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Echoing SilkTork. <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>) 14:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The escalated blocks were inappropriate, and GS should have let another admin review before continuing to escalate blocks, especially on edits that may not have warranted a block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 17:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Disturbing" is the right word for GiantSnowman's bullying of WR227. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per SilkTork. The WR227 incident is really not a good look, for GS or for Wikipedia as a whole. In fact this makes me think we maybe need a principle about getting fresh eyes on admin situations, because a big part of the problem here was the repeated engagement by GS. Sometimes you just don't connect, no matter how much advice you give or how many times you re-engage (and that would be true of direct interactions as well as templates and such) - it's much better to let someone else try early on than to just keep repeating the same ineffective approach and getting increasingly frustrated. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per SilkTork. For me this is where GS's behavior goes from misguided but understandable to unnecessary and problematic. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The blocking issues are the larger behavioral problems in this case for me as well. Katietalk 13:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Taking actions with good intentions can nevertheless lead to consequences that were difficult to foresee.  Several respected members of the community were challenging GiantSnowman's actions prior to the ANI thread closing.  If their challenges were allowed to be heard, I think this matter may not have reached arbitration.  And if it did, less conflict would probably have been generated along the way.  I think it is important that we recognise when we, as a community, could have better handled a problem.   AGK  &#9632;  19:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is factual, and Bbb23 has noted in evidence that he made an error: Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence. Given that concerns were raised about admins covering up for GS, it is appropriate that we look into that concern. But, absent other examples of Bbb23 smothering legitimate concerns about GS or any other admin, I'm not sure we can take this any further. SilkTork (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an accurate statement. I haven't seen evidence that this is something that Bbb23 does regularly, nor that there was any request from GiantSnowman to do so, so I don't think there's much more to be done than a general reminder. However, shutting down the conversation in the manner and circumstances Bbb23 did had the effect of disenfranchising other editors who where legitimately discussing the issue. <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>) 14:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * With BBB23 admitting that he may have made an error, I consider this a reminder to less the conversation go as needed, and it possibly could have averted a more contentious situation. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * # I'm in agreement with RickinBaltimore on this. Doug Weller  talk 17:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Accurate statement worth supporting as a reminder that it is usually best not to close discussions in progress unless they have descended into utter disruption. Like WTT and RickinBaltimore though, I don't think this needs to go any further than a reminder. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I'll disagree with Bbb23: I still think it was a good close. The key phrase is "no administrative action is going to be taken here". ANI, insofar as it has a legitimate role in dispute resolution, is supposed to produce concrete outcomes that admins can implement to "break the back" of a dispute. When GS acknowledged concerns and committed (however imperfectly) to addressing them, any reasonable prospect of admin action was taken off the table for the time being. Allowing "respected members of the community" to make noise is not an administrative action and I strongly suspect it would have inflamed the situation rather than resolving it. In any case it wouldn't have been productive. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Rereading what Joe has written, I believe that the closure was reasonable. We don't call them "drama boards" just as a joke, and when it becomes clear that there is going to be no admin action it seems both reasonable and prudent to close. Doug Weller  talk 16:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly what Joe says about making noise. I think the close was reasonable at the time, so I agree with December Bbb23 more than with January Bbb23 :) Also notable: if everyone involved, especially but not exclusively GS, had stopped what they were doing at the time of Bbb23's close, we wouldn't still be discussing this two months later. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't get on board with making the case more about how the ANI threads were conducted and closed than with how GS behaved. I also can't get on board with criticizing admins for making good faith closes of AN/ANI threads they reasonably believed were unproductive or disruptive. Bbb23 was absolutely correct that no administrative action was going to be taken as a result of that thread. It was sound and fury signifying little or nothing, because the correct place for requesting a desysop or sanctions against an admin is right here. Katietalk 13:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue of when noticeboard discussions should be closed is complicated (see my comments on the principle), and I don’t think one person should be singled out for a debatable call in this regard. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Fram
8) While raising some legitimate concerns, has also:


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Many types of personality make up our community, and one user may be more forthright than another.  This is no bad thing.  However, Fram appears to have gotten carried away with holding GiantSnowman to account:i. Fram appeared to adopt a "them and us" attitude about other users.  I am unsure how Fram truly regarded the users whose view of GiantSnowman's conduct differed from theirs.  However, edits such as these give the impression that if you were not on Fram's side then your view was worthless and your credibility questionable ("apart from Drmies, whose judgment or impartiality I seriously doubt."; "If your attitude prevails, it won't be long until we are here again, with more newbies scared off and more time wasted.")ii. Whatever our findings about GiantSnowman's judgment, nobody contends that they acted out of anything but a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia.  This comment by Fram indicates an assumption that GiantSnowman treats Wikipedia like a personal fiefdom.  Such comments involve regarding other users in a manner that is incompatible with a collegial environment.iii. At first, Fram appeared to me like a neutral party with serious concerns about another administrator's conduct.  The impression of neutrality became difficult to endorse when Fram turned their attention to other users editing the same topic area as GiantSnowman.  There was no basis for lumping those two users together and the passing reference to GiantSnowman was not appropriate.The community does not condone this manner of interacting, and the hostility underpinning it seemed without excuse or explanation.  As far as I can see, Fram simply found an ANI thread and proceeded to take absolutely no prisoners with GiantSnowman or any user who got in the way.  This was an unhelpful distraction for a community that, at the best of times, can struggle to hold effective and focussed discussions about administrator conduct.   AGK  &#9632;  20:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * with special reference to HJMitchell's comment cited below.  DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I read the cited diffs as fair points expressed in a tone which, while perhaps not ideal, matches those of the users he is responding to and is mild by ANI standards. More generally, the project needs people that are willing to do the thankless and socially difficult job of scrutinising editors with positions of trust. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think points 2 and 3 are legitimate raising of concern which we hope admins will do. The statements in Point 1 are not ideal, but not significant enough for an ArbCom case. And if someone is a little strident when uncovering admin abuse, I am a little more forgiving. Punchy, personalised language is not acceptable, but can sometimes be understandable when put into context. SilkTork (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fram's style of presenting concerns at exhaustive length in an unrelenting tone of MAXIMUM URGENCY is, well, exhausting. And the habit of treating every molehill as a mountain is ironically ineffective at drawing attention to actual mountains - it's alarm fatigue in text form. That said, I don't think we need a finding (or a remedy) in this case about Fram. This seems to me to be of a piece with the proposals about Bbb23 - sort of a side point that risks distracting the decision away from its focus on the core problems and into back-office stuff. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I went back and forth on this one. Ultimately, unlike the reminder about closing discussions early, I don't think this is warranted. I particularly object to the inclusion of point 3 as a negative. I think it was perfectly reasonable to say "hey, someone else is currently under scrutiny for something you seem to be doing, you might want to adjust your behavior so you don't also wind up under scrutiny." The rest of that conversation is civil, if not necessarily sunshine and rainbows, given its nature. I agree with OR that Fram's tone can sometimes be overly urgent, but I don't think it rises to the point of requiring a finding here. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I also went back and forth and ultimately can't support it. I have concerns about how Fram behaves in these circumstances; he's like a dog with a bone, a really, really tasty bone, and it does not reflect well on him or the issues which he champions. Harry Mitchell's recent comment is spot on, and I hope Fram takes this criticism in the spirit in which it's intended – to help him. However, this case isn't about Fram or Bbb23. It's about GiantSnowman, and these proposed FoFs are a sideshow. Katietalk 14:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there are any comments made by my colleagues opposing this that I disagree with. I do like Opabinia's description "exhausting". There's no need for a finding here. Doug Weller  talk 17:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not feel that there is a finding here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per the other opposers above and per my comment on the proposed remedy below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * The difficulties I have with Fram's behaviour are hard to explain, Fram understands Wikipedia policies associated legal requirements better than almost anyone I know. The way they explain it, however, would be impossible for any user to manage. I see HJ Mitchell has recently commented Fram has an ugly habit of railroading good-faith but somewhat troubled editors like this by taking a legitimate but relativley minor issue, then subjecting an editor to levels of scrutiny nobody could withstand, then blowing the issues out of all proportion, all the while badgering the editor incessantly so that they feel they can't breathe without Fram coming down on them like a ton of bricks. - which does explain my concerns rather well. Now, I'm not sure that I support this particular finding, but I am reminded that the last time I felt Fram was overstepping the mark, they responded with introspection and I don't recall seeing issues for the remainder of the year. Whether or not we do pass something, I hope Fram will take our concerns on board. <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>) 14:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree it's with "mild by ANI standards", and it's  certainly not mild by the standards almost anywhere else on WP today.  Some of the angry people who are found at ANI may have low standards, and  it's the particular duty of the admins who choose to work there to be responsible  forr keeping the standards high, and not descending to the level of some of the people who need to be dealt with there. It's possible that there are a very few other admins who deal there similarly, and they are an equal problem. By not passing a motion such as this we are in effect endorsing those low standards.  DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

GiantSnowman desysopped
1) 's administrator access is revoked. GiantSnowman may apply to the community for reinstatement at any time.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. I would support a lesser action if this case revolved around a simple disagreement by the community about how to deal with simple fact-checking in articles about minor sports personalities.  However, the problems that GiantSnowman poses seem to go deeper than such structural issues.  This case documents errors that are frequent, sustained, and serious.  The errors involve multiple tools (rollback, block) as well as ineffective communication (with newbies and experienced editors).  On balance, I think GiantSnowman has demonstrated judgment below the standard Wikipedia requires from an administrator.   AGK  &#9632;  20:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Like AGK, I would have been content with a restriction on rollback if that's all this case was about. Unfortunately, the initial concern over GiantSnowman's use of rollback exposed a deeper biteyness problem that extends to his use of other admin tools (i.e. blocks). I believe this problem stems from good intentions: GS applies a very high standard of verification to his area of special interest (football biographies), which he justifies under the BLP policy. However, as an admin, he should have known that this high standard is not required by policy, and that when using advanced tools, maintaining a welcoming and collaborative working environment is at least as important as maintaining the factual accuracy of articles. In his defence, GS doesn't seem to have been made aware that his use of rollback was contrary to policy until recently, in the ANI thread that very rapidly escalated to this arbitration case. Since then, he has been outwardly responsive to concerns, if slow to truly "get" the extent to which his approach diverges from the community's expectations. I wish that he had been given more time to absorb and show that he could act on these criticisms. However, here we are, and respect for an experienced administrator's contributions to the project must be balanced against the multiplicative effect that misuse of admin tools has on the health of our community. Ultimately, it can no longer be said that GiantSnowman has the confidence of the community to use the admin tools with due discretion and civility. On that basis, the committee has to remove them. I hope GiantSnowman won't take desysoping as a rejection of his valuable work, and that, if he can take on board the criticism and modify his approach, the community would look favourably on a second RfA. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have given this a great deal of thought, and it was difficult to come to this decision. However, the problems listed in the case are severe enough for me to support a desysop, especially given that the community does n't trust his judgement with the tools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I come down here, with a great deal of reluctance after much thought. As I said above, the blocking problems are the most important for me, and an editing restriction won't take that away. An administrator who blocks inappropriately can be a menace, and there's no telling how many editors have been punished unnecessarily. We lose those editors, and we can no longer afford (if we ever could) to deter new blood from entering the project. I appreciate and thank GiantSnowman for his willingness to actively participate in this case and for his openness to change, but I'm not confident right now that promises are enough. A respite from mop duty is in order. I think that after a year or so of consistent good editing and welcoming behavior, the community could look favorably on an RFA. Katietalk 21:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Stricken in favor of 1.2). Katietalk 15:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a widely-reaching lack of judgment, and in particular the effect on new editors can be serious .This i s the only way that can adequately address it. I agree there has been a lack of malice, but we have to deal with the results of his actions, not his motivations.   DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * In view of there being some explanation for the excessive zeal GiantSnowman displayed, as well as his having now stepped away from the problematic behavior, a less severe sanction should suffice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * After much thought I find myself here. My main concern has been GiantSnowman's long term treatment of IP and new accounts, and the general lack of consideration behind many of his reverts. I have struggled to put together a principle that encompassed that, but we don't have an explicit policy which asks editors to balance up the effort of checking the edit before reverting it when there is a possibility of doubt that the edit is good. We even have a widely accepted essay (WP:BRD) which sees reverting good faith edits as a normal part of editing, and puts the onus on the first mover to discuss or explain their edit. I fell back on the spirit of Wikipedia that we prioritise building over protecting, but this is a vague notion on which to desysop someone. What has been at the back of my mind a lot during this case, is that GS does not appear to have acted out of malice. He has acted at all times in what he thought was the best interest of the project. And he did so for years with hardly a criticism of what he was doing. And what criticism there was could be seen as a difference in views. GS has pointed out a number of times the policies and guidelines he had been following. And I understand the counter arguments, as I have attempted to formulate them into a principle, but failed. So, in many ways he is right. I don't like that GS is so blunt with new users, and that he has reverted so often without reflecting if the edit is worthwhile. But for most of what he has done he is in line with our existing policies and guidelines (though he has come foul of WP:BITE). If we don't want admins and editors to go round quickly reverting doubtful edits without first checking them, and templating the editors without reaching out to help them, then we need to brush up on our guidelines and policies and make it more explicit. Without that explicit policy I feel we cannot desysop GS for his past behaviour - he was doing what he felt was right and appropriate, and was supported in that by others doing similar things, and by the lack of objections. When he made a significant error with Rollback, he did, yes, take his sweet time coming round to accepting it, but he has accepted it. So that inappropriate use of Rollback has been addressed. He has put it right. He has shown he understands the problem, and has committed to not doing it again. As such I am left feeling there is nothing we can desysop him for, apart from not adhering to WP:BITE closely enough, and even there he has taken on board the criticisms and shows signs of being more considerate. SilkTork (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, come throw tomatoes on my talk page about how arbcom never desysops anybody (not really...) and it's all our fault that RfA sucks because it's so hard to desysop (unlikely). Basically, I think this is a systemic problem of which GS was the unfortunate exemplar. I'm not of the "pour encourager les autres" school of arbitration, so I don't think it's necessary to impose a severe sanction on one person as some kind of message-sending exercise. I think it may be time to consider something like a probation period (though maybe the rollback restriction plus a reformulated version of the "no biting the newbies" one is essentially equivalent). Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've spent a lot of time thinking over this, and I end up here also. I'm putting my faith in the fact that GiantSnowman did engage during the case. Although he was slow to react when the issues with rollback were brought up, I have to bear in mind Joe's point that he hadn't been particularly challenged on this way of thinking previously. I'm willing to give him that chance to prove himself. <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>) 17:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've supported several desysop proposals in the past; this is the first one where I've taken so long to come to a conclusion about my vote. I agree with Opabinia's point that this isn't a case where we really need to desysop in order to make a point to other Administrators. I also don't see malice or sheer incompetence. His participation during the case hasn't shown me that he lacks understanding so we'd have to desysop him to stop his behaviour. And like Worm I take Joe's point about him not being particularly challenged before. I think we should be able to deal with this without removing the mop. Doug Weller  talk 11:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a solid argument to be made here for a desysop. GS has, at times, acted excessively. He was wrong to allow his frustration with WR227 to turn to aggression. He was wrong to resort to the nuclear option of mass rollback on a grand scale. He was wrong to continue along those lines after people brought their concerns to them in the ANI thread. At the same time, when I look at the the reasoning behind his actions, I can see how he got to where he did. I see an editor working with the intent to protect an enormous topic area from unsourced edits, many of which are made by drive-by editors. I believe him when he says he thought he was rollbacking in line with policy, especially given that no one had really questioned his use of it prior to the initial ANI thread. As I said above, the circumstances don't absolve him of responsibility, but they make his behavior more understandable. In addition to that, GS has chosen to engage meaningfully with this case throughout the process. He has been willing to admit he was wrong and accept feedback rather than doubling down. He has not only pledged to change his approach, I believe his recent edits indicate that he has changed his attitude and his approach. Breaking old habits doesn't happen in a day, or even a month, and no one is perfect; on the whole, I believe he will maintain this more mature, more communicative approach in the future. Given that, I believe that the other behavioral restrictions, and/or a probationary period, will be enough to ensure that that is the case, and that a desysop is not needed at this time. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * I will be reviewing everything for another day or two before voting, so this is not meant as any sort of commitment, but I anticipate that there will at least be discussion of a less severe alternative. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a time when reviewing GS's actions going back years, and realising the chilling effect he had had on hundreds of users new to Wikipedia, that I wondered if a desysop would be enough. In mitigation, though there had been some comments to him about his approach, the community had not properly made him aware that this approach was inappropriate until the recent AN discussion which led to this case. Though it has taken him a while to adjust to what the community have been saying (and understandably so, given that he'd been doing this for so long that he thought it was acceptable), he has taken on board that his approach is not one we expect of any of our community, let alone an admin, and so at least considering a less severe sanction seems appropriate. Having said that, AGK does make a convincing case for desysopping. SilkTork (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Joe also puts forward a convincing argument for desysopping. And at the back of my mind is the principle that even though it was not made clear enough to GS that his actions were inappropriate and unhelpful to the project as a whole, decent common sense and existing policies and guidelines should have been enough. Also the very fact that he has been doing this for a long time, and at least one other admin has been following his example, suggests that we should consider the long term impact of his approach to editing. And what I'm also considering is that much of the bitey behaviour he has exhibited has been done without use of the tools, so site-banning cannot be ruled out. But between a lesser sanction and site-banning, desysopping might be the more appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We have no way of knowing to what extent there will actually be a change in his approach that will persist after the conclusion of this case. (I do not mean GS is particularly liable to this: the problem is general; arb com has never ben able to predict whether such a promise will actually give the desired result.  This gives the dilemma of accepting any excuse, or preventing people for improvement. We have tried various forms of probation, but violations of probation just repeat the problem.) DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In response to a colleague’s comment above, site-banning certainly can be ruled out, for a long-time, high-commitment, good-faith contributor with no prior warnings. Certainly I rule it out without much difficulty as an outcome that I could ever consider voting for here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still thinking on this one, but wanted to re-emphasize NYB's point that casual talk of sitebanning is not necessary, even if it's just making a rhetorical point. More broadly, I think the circumstances of this case partially expose the unavoidable deficiencies of having a "dispute resolution" structure that has no role in content matters. Because we are formally investigating "user conduct", we focus on the one user whose conduct came to the community's attention, and from there to various internal concerns about admin accountability, how to raise and close discussions thereof, whether there was "closing the ranks", blah blah blah; meanwhile, in that strange part of the project that outsiders care about, how are all those poorly-tended BLPs doing? I confess I've been as guilty of this as any of us and hadn't noticed or thought about this divergence till I was away from Wikipedia for a few days and came back to read this case afresh this morning. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also pondering this. It took a long time for GiantSnowman to respond meaningfully to the concerns raised, having the same issue raised multiple times within the matter of weeks is unacceptable. In addition, I'm definitely concerned with his treatement of WR227. perhaps not realising the amount of damage to morale he can do by behaving that way. On the other hand, he as engaged meaningfully in the case and has shown insight that implies he has the ability to improve. Is it enough? <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>) 19:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman admonished and cautioned
1.1) GiantSnowman is admonished for his misuse or overuse of the rollback and blocking functions as discussed in this decision. He is cautioned to abide by the policies governing use of all administrator tools as well as the underlying principles discussed in this case. If within one year of this decision, GiantSnowman again seriously or repeatedly misuses any administrator tools, especially in a fashion that treats new or inexperienced good-faith editors with undue harshness, a request may be made to this Committee at WP:ARCA to consider whether further action, up to desysopping, is necessary.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. I have opposed desysopping. There has been support for some form of "probation" as an alternative, but the Committee has moved away from using legalistic terminology such as "probation." I hope the substantive and wording of this proposal are an outcome that all can accept. The bottom line is that I would prefer to allow and even encourage GiantSnowman to continue serving as an administrator, subject to his abiding by the principles we have discussed in this case. Going forward, I would also encourage him to consult with other administrators and editors with subject-matter expertise when problems arise, rather than feeling obliged to act unilaterally in addressing the issues concerning editing of football (soccer) articles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand AGK's concerns, but I support this as a lesser option than full desysop. <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>) 09:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Many editors are disinclined to bring matters to a serious, involved process like ARCA. I suspect within that category are several of the very users who were holding GiantSnowman to account, prior to the committee's involvement.  Telling the community "if the problem persists, bring it back to us" does not guarantee they will; at best they do inconsistently.  We have also delivered an informal message of disapproval to the most forthright of this user's critics, who may now be inclined to leave GiantSnowman to others.  The committee is generally expected to deal, decisively, with problems before us.  This remedy fails to do so.  Did remedies of "probation" not also provide for enforcement at WP:AE, which this does not?   seems like a softer option while still tackling the problems.   AGK  &#9632;  21:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Prefer 1.2 "admonished and placed under review" SilkTork (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Prefer 1.2. Katietalk 15:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Prefer 1.2. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Prefer 1.2 as well. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1.2. Doug Weller  talk 12:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * Borrowing an idea Joe suggested, if we could settle on a wording for remedy 2, and assuming one version or another of remedy 3 passes, we could simplify this to something like, if GS breaches the restrictions place on him at the end of this case, he can be taken to AE/ARCA for enforcement, including an immediate desysop if the breach is egregious. I would strongly prefer if we're going to pass this kind of sanction that it specifically be labelled as probation or something similar - we're not just cautioning him and being done with it, we're explicitly putting him under greater scrutiny for a set period of time. That's probation. It's heavier than a caution, and we should label it appropriately. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that an admonishment would be appropriate, but one year is not appropriate for "seriously or repeatedly misuses any administrator tools". This is not really adding anything, other than the admonishment, to what we have already proposed in the case or have in existing policies and guidelines. And this, like the editing restriction, lacks a bright enough line for AE admins to bring GS back to ArbCom. At the moment I tend to prefer the editing restriction, though think we need to continue looking for a remedy with a bright line. If that remedy is called probation or admonished or caution I don't see as important as getting the bright line. SilkTork (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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.


 * Support:
 * I was thinking of bright lines last night, and by this morning User:Levivich had drafted something which closely matched and articulated my own thoughts. I have used much of what they drafted. Some of this rolls up sanctions we're already considering. I have noted that GS is already doing much of this, and in discussions with him I have been impressed that he has taken on board what people have been saying. SilkTork (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with this, with a note that we should not have both the rolled up and non-rolled up versions of remedies. If this does pass, I'll look into which should be kept. <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>) 14:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I can support this instead of a desysop, but it's a short leash, particularly with the blocks. Katietalk 15:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as second choice as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I voted against a desysop, but I support this. Doug Weller  talk 16:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The most effective remedy we seem able to agree on. AGK  &#9632;  20:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per SilkTork. With the enforcement provision, I think this has enough teeth to reinforce the changes GS has already started to make. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This works for me. On Joe's point, I think the incentives here strongly lean toward a very conservative interpretation of "BLP violation" and "vandalism" on GS's part. Like, limited to "poopyhead" stuff, nothing subtle or requiring content knowledge at all. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I can't agree to this with the exception for "obvious vandalism", especially since the linked guideline includes BLP violations in that definition. The problems in GS's conduct have been almost exclusively with edits he considers vandalism or BLP violations, and we have no remedy that will help realign his conception of 'vandalism' with the community's. This could be an effective remedy, but I fear as written it is merely a wordy slap on the wrist. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * GS is asking if the wording could include an exception to the edits of known sock puppets. For me it is the quality of the edit not the person who makes the edit that matters, but I am aware that others hold different views. If someone wants to add that exception, I won't object, but I don't feel compelled to add it myself. SilkTork (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Added appealing the totality of the review per Dweller's suggestion on my talkpage. SilkTork (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And how does he know it's a 'known sock'? He doesn't frequent SPI, and I don't trust him right now to make that judgment for himself. He can report to AIV if there's an immediate problem with socking, or he can use the warnings. It will delay a block by maybe five minutes. Katietalk 15:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There should be no exceptions; the whole point is that GS needs to start treating all editors as if they're human beings. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I like this in principle but the exception for "obvious vandalism" seems to completely undermine it in practice. A major factor in this case is that GS consistently fails to distinguish vandalism from good faith but flawed edits. In his evidence, he justifies almost every action of his that has been criticised as 'vandal-fighting'. With this exception, I foresee him simply carrying on as usual, with attempts to enforce it getting lost in arguments about what counts as "obvious" vandalism. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman editing restriction
2) is subject to an indefinite editing restriction.  While restricted, GiantSnowman must not take any action that breaches Wikipedia's guideline, please do not bite the newcomers.  Nothing in this remedy is designed to impede the appropriate treatment of content changes, including combatting vandalism or reverting a change that, on balance, is unverifiable.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. GiantSnowman has made a number of commitments about how to treat new or inexperienced contributors.  It is important these commitments are kept.  For example, GiantSnowman must not revert edits that are supported by the named sources.  Or, faced with a new editor who correctly changed 20 articles but overlooked a source on the 21st – the correct action under BITE for an easily-checked fact is to help the editor add the source (or add it yourself).  These are all real scenarios from the Evidence that need to not be repeated.  Going forward, with this remedy, such conduct would be a matter for administrators to weigh on a case-by-case basis at arbitration enforcement.  (Note: I think the fitness for adminship question is quite separate.)  AGK  &#9632;  18:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We need a brighter line than this, but until one is drafted I support the principle of this. SilkTork (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Second choice after 1.2 "admonished and placed under review" SilkTork (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Moral support, I suppose - I like the idea, but I share the concerns below that this may not really be practical. Opinions vary widely on what is "biting" vs. reasonable policy enforcement, and I'd imagine that trying to take this restriction to AE would be a challenge. Also, I'm not sure what it means to be unverifiable "on balance". Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * As DGG points out every admin, indeed every user, is already under this restriction softly. However, putting it here means that GiantSnowman can be blocked for talking too sharply to a newcomer, and I don't think that's the issue. The evidence and workshop is clear that the issue comes from the scale of the area in which he works, combined with his belief that there is a strict onus is on those who want to add information, something that I hope he's less firm on after 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>) 19:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Prefer new proposal 1.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 17:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Prefer 1.2. Katietalk 20:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In favor of 1.2. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * This is the same restriction that applies to every admin. If we mean we will look upon it more strictly than usual, that's what we should say.  DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand (and like) the thinking behind this, as it is focussing on the real issue here, but I think we perhaps need to step closer to the mark and give greater clarity and bite so AE admins have a bright line. I'm thinking that if GS reverts any edit which is supported by existing sources in the article (he does this a lot, he's actually done it to me during this case) he should be subject to escalating blocks. That might focus his mind on actually looking at the edit and the article, rather than blindly reverting statistical updates and blocking good faith users. From comments he's made I think he's already doing this as I think he's genuinely taking on board what is happening, but we can't walk away from this case without properly tying up loose ends. We either put in place a properly enforceable restriction that isn't open to debate, or we desysop or site ban him. SilkTork (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To explain how this will work, if passed this remedy would be enforced as at . Contrary to the usual methods for resolving problems with editor behaviour, GiantSnowman would instead be referred to Arbitration Enforcement in the event of unnecessary reverts, unjustified/BITEy conduct, or other breaches of this remedy.  In the event of a breach, administrators could enforce by blocking – initially for 1 month, and increasing up to 1 year.   AGK  &#9632;  12:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Using AE is the part I like and support. My doubt is in just using WP:BITE as that is a civility behaviour guideline open to interpretation and wiki-lawyering. If GS reverts a newbie three times in a row, each time using an edit summary explaining he's doing it because the statistic the newbie has adjusted does not have an inline citation (though is supported by other citations in the article) and then blocks him under BLP violations, I can visualise a debate at AE and the matter ending up back in our lap. The bulk of edits that we are concerned about is GS reverting good faith and accurate edits because they don't meet WP:Footy standards, and falling back on BLPREMOVE as justification. What we need is clarity for everyone, GS included, as he's asked for it, as to exactly when he can revert an edit. I'll knock something up on BLPREMOVE and PRESERVE as that's the tricky area, and move forward from there. SilkTork (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman rollback restriction
3) is indefinitely prohibited from using rollback. For the purposes of this sanction, "rollback" includes any revert, made with any tool, that undoes another editor's contribution without providing an explanation in the edit summary. Default edit summaries, such as those provided by the undo function or Twinkle's rollback feature, are not sufficient. He may appeal this sanction directly to the Arbitration Committee at any time.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. At the heart of this case is GiantSnowman's sustained failure to understand that reverting good faith edits requires good faith communication. Hopefully, stopping him from using rollback will both force him to communicate better (especially with new editors) and make him think twice about whether an edit needs to be reverted. I support this whether or not motion (1) passes. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This makes sense. SilkTork (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Third choice after 1.2 "admonished and placed under review", and then 3.1 SilkTork (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the cycle of GS saying he understands and will change his behavior, and then repeating his errors with very slight variations, indicates that he needs some time off from the rollback button. I suspect it's a case of habit more than anything else, and cold turkey is a good way to break bad habits. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Switch to bundled 1.2. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Cold turkey seems appropriate. Doug Weller  talk 17:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Also switch as this has been bundled into 1.2.  Doug Weller  talk 06:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm firmly on this, and would appreciate any clever so-and-so who can create a script to help this. Indeed, if there were such as script (effectively removing rollback from an admin), I would recommend requiring it in the decision. <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>) 19:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Noting that as there are no other restrictions on Twinkle use, I'm okay with this. Katietalk 22:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Now my second choice to 3.1. Katietalk 03:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC) Second to 1.2. Katietalk 03:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In the interest of encouraging better communication when reverting. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC) - now oppose in favor of 3.1 &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No matter how serious the vandalism ,rollback is only a convenience, not an essential tool  DGG. But this is now the second choice to 3.1.  ( talk ) 04:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 07:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * AGK &#9632;  21:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Too categorical. Sometimes there are genuine vandals. I could support a more nuanced restriction, although I think GiantSnowman has got the point by now anyway. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In favor of 3.1. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Opposing this in favor of the bundled 1.2. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Covered adequately in 1.2. Doug Weller  talk 13:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * If he's desysopped, he loses rollback anyway unless we give it to him, or am I missing something? Do we automatically desysop to rollback/reviewer/all the rest? Katietalk 21:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Twinkle provides similar functionality and is covered by this remedy. <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>) 21:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Simply adding "vandalism" to the edit summary would allow GS to revert vandals while staying within this sanction. That doesn't seem too much to ask. (In fact I think we should all be doing that anyway.) –&#8239;Joe (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per a discussion on the talk page, I've added language prohibiting blank or default edit summaries. It won't make much difference if we ban rollback but allow a default edit summary like the undo function gives. Please evaluate and make sure you still support the remedy. Katietalk 03:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The way this is worded, he can never leave a blank/default edit summary on any edit, even when not reverting someone. Is that the intent? Because if so, I will change to oppose - that seems way too harsh. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This change stood out when I looked at the diffs from when I last edited this page. I can't support this either, it's too draconian. I understand the reasoning behind it but this allows him to be blocked for one transgression. Doug Weller  talk 11:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, my thinking is that the default undo summary is just as bad as the rollback summary. I don't want this to be a killer of the remedy. Could we get some more opinions? Would it be better to say something like 'leaving edit summaries with no details'? Katietalk 16:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:isaacl noted my comment on the talk page, saying " Personally I suggest requiring a pattern of behaviour to be apparent before progressing beyond warnings." I'd support something about a pattern of behavior. Doug Weller  talk 16:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've taken another go at clarifying the wording. The point is to prevent GS from reverting others without explanation. The addendum is to avoid pedantic objections about the difference between rollback, Twinkle rollback, undo, etc. As he has noted on the talk page, his use of edit summaries outside reverts has never been at issue. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's just spell it out that way rather than saying he can't use rollback and then adding a bunch of other stuff. How about:

"GiantSnowman is indefinitely prohibited from reverting any other 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. He may appeal this sanction directly to the Arbitration Committee at any time."
 * I haven't changed it because I don't want to overwrite this one again, but I think that adequately spells out the kind of conduct we're trying to prevent without being overly restrictive. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I would change "the default rollback function" to "MediaWiki's rollback function" for clarity. It's not in the normal editor's toolkit by default, after all. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good catch, I've updated mine. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is good – covers my concerns about undo. Do you want to propose this as 3.1? Katietalk 23:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's functionally exactly the same, just different wording, do we need to vote again? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agh, sorry Joe, I was already in the process of writing it up as 3.1 before you commented and didn't see it before posting. I think it might be reasonable to double-check by voting again since it's expanding prohibition from rollback to any uncommunicative revert. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * FTR, it was supposed to cover any uncommunicative revert as I originally proposed it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman revert restriction
3.1)

is indefinitely prohibited from reverting any other 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. He may appeal this sanction directly to the Arbitration Committee at any time.


 * Support:
 * Per my comments above, I think this more clearly describes what we're trying to prevent, without being overly restrictive. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * First choice. Katietalk 03:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree this is clearer than the alternative above. . Preferred choice over the alternative.  DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Either this or 3.0 –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * First choice over 3 <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>) 09:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Second choice after 1.2 "admonished and placed under review". SilkTork (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * In favor of 1.2. Katietalk 20:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In favor of 1.2, since it's been bundled there. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Bookkeeping oppose, prefer 1.2. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Bundled into 1.2. Doug Weller  talk 13:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

GiantSnowman rollback permissions
4) All requests for the rollback permission to be issued or removed from will be referred to the Arbitration Committee.


 * Support:
 * Proposed; and support only if passes.  If GiantSnowman's administrator permissions are removed, they may wish to be issued with the rollback permission.  I do not think it is fair or appropriate to expect a single administrator to consider a WP:PERM request, given the history here.  Conversely, I do not think there is a prospect that any administrator would grant – but restoring the permission may be an important first step in the staged removal of other sanctions.   AGK  &#9632;  18:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I can accept this even if GS is not desysopped. SilkTork (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Now only if desysop passes or 1.3 "admonished and placed under review" fails. SilkTork (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether or not GS is desysopped. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 17:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support only if the desysop passes. Otherwise, the above remedy is sufficient <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>) 19:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If 1) passes. Katietalk 22:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Probably the bookkeeping doesn't matter at this point, but this proposal is effectively obsolete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Since remedy 1 is not likely to pass and 1.3 is not likely to fail (numerically speaking), this doesn't seem necessary. If GS blows his review conditions so badly that he gets desysopped, I suspect getting rollback back would be the least of his concerns. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per PMC. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Can we delete "or removed"? As points out, it would stop the community from restricting his use of rollback if he still has it after this case closes, which I don't think is the intention. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a solid meh on this one right now. On the one hand, I don't think there's anything unfair about explicitly leaving a decision up to the community, even if the community's agreed-upon method for making that decision is that one person says "OK". (Is the idea that admins are too bashful to risk angering the mighty arbcom by disagreeing with them? I, um, haven't noticed that... :) But on the other hand some of our community processes are prone to drama-aggregation and I can see the argument for putting that in a forum where it can be managed more effectively. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Fram reminded
5) is reminded to conduct themselves appropriately when communicating with other editors.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. We have been here before, as Fram themselves admitted and explained at length last March.  Fram is an experienced administrator with an eye for detail.  The outcome desired here is for Fram to remain switched-on and results-orientated – but with a better sense of proportionality and a recognition that experienced users are obliged to set a good example.   AGK  &#9632;  18:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if at this stage this is not going to pass, it should have; it is appropriate and justified.  DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Per my comments above. Fram's conduct hasn't been a significant issue in this case. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per my comments at the FoF, I don't think this is necessary. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As above, I think Fram has a recurring sense-of-proportion problem. But I don't think a remedy is necessary in this case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per my comments in the FoF. Katietalk 14:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 17:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that Fram should moderate his approach to some issues, but this isn’t at the point of warranting an arbitration remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * SilkTork (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * I would be supporting this if there was a principle I could firmly get behind, but as this already failing, I won't push it futher. <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>) 19:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

General reminder
6) Users who are closing an active discussion about the conduct of an administrator are reminded that:
 * editors are free to question or to criticise administrator actions
 * administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools

Accordingly, such discussions should be reviewed carefully before closing to ensure that the principle of administrator accountability is not being frustrated.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. As noted by the community's arbitration policy, The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines [or] recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct.  It seems axiomatic in WP:ADMINACCT that credible, unresolved concerns about an administrator will not be denied a platform.  We have observed in this case that this isn't always happening.  This reminder seems prudent and important, without overreacting to any particular, well-intentioned closure.  Of course, the community decides how far to apply reminders of best practice.   AGK  &#9632;  21:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * when arb com is in a position to give apropriate advice relative to the events leading to a case, we should do so.  DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a large part of the case, but the early closure may have created an impression of circling the wagons, which is not desirable when discussing admin conduct. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with Arbcom issuing reminders, for those who will listen. I also believe that people need to be careful when closing threads, less gung ho at any rate. <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>) 19:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support. There is a valid point being made here. The reminder could be more balanced in pointing out that discussions that have petered out or become unproductive should indeed be closed, but it’s not worth keep the case open for that sort of wordsmithing at this stage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I've never been keen on ArbCom giving the community advice as I don't see that as part of ArbCom's role. SilkTork (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the ANI thread closing issue here is a distraction. Katietalk 14:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Decent advice but, as I've explained above, I don't think this question of closing discussions comes into this case. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree this shouldn't be considered part of this case. I think ArbCom should rarely give advice and that only on obviously key/important issues. Doug Weller  talk 13:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * I've never been keen on ArbCom giving the community advice as I don't see that as part of ArbCom's role. SilkTork (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Moved to oppose, otherwise this will pass if too many arbs abstain. SilkTork (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want to say the advice is wrong, so I'm not opposing it. It's just not our role, as SilkTork has said. Doug Weller  talk 17:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Forgot to strike this.  Doug Weller  talk 13:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Decent advice but, as I've explained above, I don't think this question of closing discussions comes into this case. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Moved to oppose like SilkTork. Sorry for the last minute change – I'd not appreciated that mathematically an abstain is more like a half-support. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with some of the above - I do think reminders and recommendations and best-practices can be within our role, especially if a case has revealed a policy gap, or a large divergence between policy and common practice, and it's necessary for the community to sort it out so future similar situations don't turn into arbcom cases. But I don't think this closing-discussions issue is really a central point. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments:

Proposed enforcement

 * Comments:

Implementation notes
''Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.''

These notes were last updated by Bradv 🍁  15:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on  by User:.


 * Notes

The closing clock runs out at 13:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC) -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  17:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Vote
''Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.''


 * Support
 * SilkTork (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * AGK &#9632;  12:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I'm off! :) Doug Weller  talk 13:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 16:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Awaiting a casting vote at .  AGK  &#9632;  10:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments