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

Status of the Proposed Decision
The bulk of the proposed decision has been posted, but there are a few additional remedies that will be proposed by the drafting arbitrators (and, of course, other arbitrators may propose additional items at any time). Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 22:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Running
late? &#x222F; WBG converse 16:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was wondering about that, too. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I plan to post the Proposed Decision on-wiki by early next week.  AGK  &#9632;  23:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update, AGK. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. GiantSnowman 11:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Presuming we'd rather start the process than delay the lot, I've posted as much of the PD as I could this evening. I will resume tomorrow. Please remember that except from this thread, the "own section" rule applies to this page. AGK &#9632;  21:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments sections

 * Could the clerks please either number or add bullets to the Arbitrators' comments sections in the PD? With multiple comments, it's hard to tell when one ends and the next begins, or be cognizant of whose comment one is reading.  Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Thryduulf
Thank you for the explanation of why you are including each item, that is very good to see.

One grammar note though, a small one but it is really bugging me for some reason: In the "MassRollback.js" finding one sentence reads "expected to review the target account's contributions and be sure that every edit needs rolled back." but it should end either "needs to be rolled back" or "needs rolling back". Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Re WBG's points 2 and 3:
 * The relevance of point 2 is explicitly mentioned by AGK below the finding. The point is to explain why arbcom handled this dispute and is a useful inclusion.
 * This is a correct statement of the default behaviour and there is no evidence presented that GS has done any such tweaking so it isn't relevant to this case. If it is worthwhile mentioning the possibility of tweaking (I'm unsure it is) then simply adding "By default" or similar wording to the statement would suffice. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni’s section
, if I may, I think the phrasing and be sure that every edit needs rolled back. could better be phrased something like ''that the edits being rolled back qualify under policy. Administrators and rollbackers should consider whether the use of mass rollback is the most appropriate course of action, even if permitted under policy.''As written this would effectively make WP:BANREVERT dead letter. I don’t think you could get consensus to do that in an RfC. I don’t advocate for mass rollbacking ever edit of every sockmaster, but there are certainly cases where BANREVERT is needed even if at face value the edits are constructive. In these cases, it often isn’t effective to check every single edit, so sometimes typos and the like are restored. They’re almost always instantly corrected by people in the topic area. My addition of the second sentence should also help to emphasize that even if policy would allow mass rollback, common sense says it’s not always the best option. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . As proposed, the finding of fact asserts that one must be sure that every edit needs rolling back.  This does not impose a requirement that every edit needs to be individually inspected.Suppose there was a brand new account with 100 contributions to celebrity biographies, the 5 most recent of which added photographs of a cock and balls.  I would be sure that "every edit needs rolling back".  Requiring administrators to be sure before they act is not a departure from current policy, and is already implicit in WP:BANREVERT.   AGK  ■  21:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, I see your point, but I think there could be some confusion around the way it is worded currently. Maybe just tweak the end to be that rolling back every edit is within policy, which I think gets at your point without the possible confusion. Regardless, thank you for your reply :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

WBG's section

 * The Wikipedia community conducts almost all of its activities online,


 * What's the relevance of the entire line? Side-sniping at LPac? &#x222F; WBG converse 12:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia makes use of this committee to handle "removal of administrative tools" and "serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve"
 * Needless and wasteful filling up of space. &#x222F; WBG converse 12:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * When clicked, rollback performs the action without explaining the reason by an edit summary.
 * Plainly false. Tweaking can lead to usage of customized edit-summaries. See this edit of mine, for an example. &#x222F; WBG converse 12:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If AGK is talking about the default rollback link that is displayed at various places (history, watch list et al), he is correct. But, I don't see any reason about why we shall deal with a default link rather than the flag, itself. We grant the flag in it's entirety, which might be (ab)used through the link, as one of the many available options. &#x222F; WBG converse 12:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Re (Thryduulf)-->You are wrong.See GS's diffs, over his first paragraph on this very t/p. AGK had used a bunch of rollbacks with explicitly descriptive edit-summaries, as an evidence of abuse, over the PD.  &#x222F; WBG converse 14:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Mass rollbacking is equivalent to opening a user's contributions.
 * Where are you getting that number? I can change the URL of someone's contribution-page in a jiffy to display as many as I want. 2000, 5000, whatever. And, then run the script. Since, I don't see anything obvious in the script js, that restricts the number of executed rollbacks to 500, I suppose that you are wrong. &#x222F; WBG converse 12:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, assuming that you are speaking about the default rollback-link-button, the script allows usage of edit-sums. Wrong, again. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Before using the script, rollbackers or administrators are expected to review the target account's contributions and
 * No, when we are doing BMB reverts or combating good hand-bad hand trolls; we choose to exercise the nuclear option, despite knowing that soms of those edits were good. Your last phrase, effectively supercedes an existing policy by fiat and if you wish to change it, RFC is thatway. Frankly, even if not in the scale of BMB, if I see some blatant POV pusher over ARBIPA, spamming about the greatness of a part. caste, in every random article and/or faking references, I won't bother screening hundreds of contributions to sieve out the ones which might be correct/good enough. Commonsense is required to evaluate about the (and accordingly the usage of the tool) and most editors know it, when they see it. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * The first line is sheer bloat. And I don't have a clue about what the heck stands the second line, for. Can you explain, please?
 * AFAIK, there is absolutely not any need (technical or whatever) to slap an archive template and if I recall correctly, many long-standing administrators don't see eye to eye on the necessity of the very usage of the tag. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman's section

 * When clicked, rollback performs the action without explaining the reason by an edit summary.
 * Not correct, as highlighted by WGB. Indeed, one of the instances of my rollback highlighted by AGK as part of the proposed decision had bespoke edit sumamries. GiantSnowman 12:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * GiantSnowman continued to incorrectly use the rollback tool; eg 9 December 2018, 20 December 2018
 * 9 December instance - as stated in my evidence, I thought that was in-line with # of ROLLBACKUSE.. Nobody has yet explained what that entry is for.
 * 20 December - reverted a known vandal, and that use of rollback is not as clearcut as AGK states, as confirmed by another Arb.
 * I am concerned that the evidence being used is entirely one-sided. GiantSnowman 12:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * GiantSnowman has wrongly blocked other users
 * You mean editors who persistently added unsourced content to articles? You're also forgetting that WR227's unblock request was initially declined.GiantSnowman 18:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * GiantSnowman only blocked 46 editors in this period
 * Why that particular period? Also 2 'wrong' (questionable; see above) blocks out of 46 does not show a problem. GiantSnowman 18:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Clarification: The period starts at the first block and ends at the second.  AGK  &#9632;  19:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But you've not explained why that is the 'first block'? GiantSnowman 19:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But you've not explained why that is the 'first block'? GiantSnowman 19:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Whatever our findings about GiantSnowman's judgment, nobody contends that they acted out of a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia
 * Err I think/hope that there is a word or two missing there...surely it should be "...nobody contents that they weren't acting out of a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia" or similar? GiantSnowman 20:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * GiantSnowman desysopped
 * Does this really show errors that are frequent, sustained, and serious? No. As TonyBallioni said, "we are not talking about someone who has been repeatedly warned and who was frequently at noticeboards for bad conduct, but someone who apparently had been doing this for years, who never had it brought up to them, and who had blocks reviewed by other admins that were upheld" (though I wasn't doing it for years, and and purely because I thought it was allowed by ROLLBACKUSE.) Furthermore I'm not sure how you can jump from the position that I was editing under a genuine belief I was improving Wikipedia to "he can no longer be trusted with the tools". GiantSnowman 21:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a second. I remarked that I think you are editing in good faith and trying to improve Wikipedia.  That is very different to concluding that, though well-intentioned, your actions did not contain a number of serious errors.  You need to address the conclusions reached in the decision – rather than quoting a good review from some passing commentator or misapplying quotes of my own comments in voting.   AGK  &#9632;  21:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Now of course I would say this, but there is a big difference between "acting incorrectly but in good faith" and "deliberate abuse of the tools". I think only one of those is grounds for losing the mop. GiantSnowman 08:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply to MrX - as explained many times before, I thought my reverts were in-line with #5 WP:ROLLBACKUSE. I have now been told they weren't, and I so have stopped. I do not believe that constitutes "gross or persistent misjudgment". And, for what it's worth, nobody has still yet explained exactly what #5 of ROLLBACKUSE therefore can be used for... GiantSnowman 15:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply to MrX - as explained many times before, I thought my reverts were in-line with #5 WP:ROLLBACKUSE. I have now been told they weren't, and I so have stopped. I do not believe that constitutes "gross or persistent misjudgment". And, for what it's worth, nobody has still yet explained exactly what #5 of ROLLBACKUSE therefore can be used for... GiantSnowman 15:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

- that is a very unfair summary, and also factually incorrect. This user was first advised (no warning templates used!) back in 2009 to add references, and again in 2010, and again in 2012, and then later in 2012, and also in 2012. The first warning template that I can see for unsourced content was in 2012 - after the user had been blocked (by me) and then unblocked (again, by me) after promising to add references. But they continued, resulting in another warning in 2012 and another in 2013 etc. It was clear that this user, having been given advice over a number of years from numerous editors, wasn't listening - so escalating warnings were the next step, followed by blocks. Yes I am the admin who blocked them a number of times - and that is because our editing habits (Dutch football articles) overlap, and so I was the one who saw him repeatedly adding unsourced content to article. Implying I have harassed this editor is extremely unfair. I wasn't the first to template them; and I tried before then to talk to them (they never responded until they were blocked, see this exchange). Please note that some of these diffs were previously presented as Evidence, but (again) they have been ignored by ArbCom... GiantSnowman 10:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was referring to you when I said non-help and non-advice, etc. I can make that clearer, but before I do, do you have evidence of where you have offered the user help and advice? This is what I see on his talkpage: 2010 PROD, May 2011 PROD, May 2011 AfD, Aug 2012 Warnings and a block, Aug 2012 PROD, June 2013 warning, Aug 2013 advice, Apr 2014 warning, May 2014 warning, June 2014 ANI note, Feb 2015 comment, May 2015 warning, Jun 2015 warning, Aug 2015 two warnings, Feb 2016 warning, June 2016 warning, July 2016 warning, July 2016 block, Jan 2017 more warnings, June 2017 warning, July 2017 warning, July 2017 block, Jan 2018 warning, May 2018 warning, June 2018 block, June 2018 advice, Oct 2018 warning, Nov 2018 warning, Dec 2018 exasperated comments, two warnings, a block, A user comments that what they are seeing is borderline bullying, users discuss your attitude toward WR227, Dec 2018 advice. On that evidence I see three small pieces of advice given in a barrage of years of warnings and blocks and exasperated, unhelpful language, even when WR227 is reaching out and asking for help and advice. Other people also noticed this and commented, but you still feel that your approach was the right one? SilkTork (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I acknowledge I should have been more patient - but you've (again) missed this (linked above and on the Evidence page) from 2012, pre-dating the blocks. See also this and this and this and this. Saying I have done nothing but warn and block is not correct.
 * I have shown above that, before his first block, there were 3 years of various users (myself included) trying to reach out to him, with no response or change in behaviour. He was blocked, unblocked after a promise, and then went back to his old ways. What would you have done differently, encountering an editor who had years and years of ignoring messages and repeatedly adding unsourced content to articles? Since when was using warning templates banned?
 * Also you cannot highlight PROD/AFD notifications as evidence of harassment, they are required - WP:PROD says "You should notify the article's creator", WP:PRODNOM says "The article's creator or other significant contributors should ideally be left a message at their talk page(s) informing them of the proposed deletion" and WP:AFDHOWTO says "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion". Are you saying I should not have done that? If I hadn't then no doubt I would be criticised for sly/underhand nomination techniques. Guess I'm damned if I do and damned if I do. GiantSnowman 11:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how carefully you read what I posted above, but I include those links, and I note that you have given advice. Pointing out to me what I have already mentioned is not helpful, particularly as the big point I am making is that your general attitude to that user has been excessively negative such that it amounts to harassment. You want to point out that you are receiving criticism for what you thought was right, and you feel uncomfortable about this criticism. Take on board what you are feeling, because the people you warn and block feel the same way. You are prepared to dish out criticism, but complain when people do the same to you. I'm doing it, and have been doing it, with the intention of making you realise what you are doing, so you acknowledge it and commit to stop doing it, so I can vote for a lesser sanction than desysopping or banning. I'm doing it to help you. I'll be honest and say that a lot of what you have done appals me. Your treatment of WR227 has made me angry. But where I am coming from is that I don't think you were doing this maliciously. I think you were doing it because you genuinely thought that was the right thing to do. While there have been times when people questioned your approach, those times have been few and rare, so it wasn't until this incident that the community have really made known to you that you have been heavy handed, excessive and unhelpful. What I want to hear from you is not defensive squirming, but a complete and utter understanding that treating a fellow good faith user the way you treated WR227 is not good for the user, not good for the project, and not good for yourself. If you had approached WR227 in a more collegiate and supportive manner right from the start, and spent a little time helping, you might have saved yourself a lot of effort down the years. Clearly your warnings and blocks were not educational, yeah? So why not try the other approach. Though, be aware that telling someone something (especially in an aggressive way, so they become less receptive) is rarely as effective as showing or explaining. And also be aware that the nature of learning is that we need to be shown more than once. And we need to encourage confidence in the other person, not fear. Is any of this making sense to you? I don't want a defence of what you did to WR227. That's in the past. I'd just like to see some understanding that it was wrong, and why it was wrong, and why you won't do it again. SilkTork (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate (as ever) your advice; I have already said that I should have been more patient (because, yes, my past approach of simply templating good-faith users was at best lazy, at worst unduly aggressive, and definitely unhelpful either way). For what it's worth I have already started trying to actually talk to users, both in my interactions with this user and others. This is something I should have started doing long ago. However, I hope you and others take into account my conduct since these issues was raised, and not just my conduct before they were highlighted to me. PS I am not trying to be aggressive or defensive in my comments here, but apologies if I have been. GiantSnowman 15:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * GiantSnowman must not take any action that breaches Wikipedia's guideline, please do not bite the newcomers
 * I think this is too vague/open to interpretation? Also, as a guideline, surely I (and every other editor) is already subject to that 'editing restriction'? GiantSnowman 20:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * at least one other admin has been following his example
 * Yes other admin(s) might edit like I do - but there is no evidence I was the instigator or have 'inspired' other etc.


 * General comments on BITE
 * I've already taken commented (at ANI, the Evidence/Worskhop phases, and here) into account and modified my behaviour accordingly. But there is no Evidence my conduct with others hasput editors off - and indeed I presented Evidence that all those who have had a 'run in' with me are still editing, including one IP who has likely registered an account... GiantSnowman 16:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * indefinitely prohibited from using rollback
 * As says, "no misuses have taken place in the past seven weeks, and if that is true, perhaps it is is worth noting" and as  notes, the last incident of misuse (9 December) were undone by me and an apology issued. What good is a rollback restriction now, when that issue has been resolved? Prevent me re-installing any scripts without ArbCom approval, sure. GiantSnowman 09:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * if he can take on board the criticism and modify his approach, the community would look favourably on a second RfA
 * Firstly, I already have modified my behaviour.
 * Secondly, respectfully, we all know that if I am desysopped there is zero chance I would pass a second RFA; either I'll stop editing (increasingly possible) or, if I do stay around, the usual suspects will simply rally the troops and oppose me, no matter what I do or say. GiantSnowman 09:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 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
 * I'm sorry but this basically says to me "no matter what you said or did over the last two months, you would have lost the mop anyway" - so I could have just not bothered engaging and discussing and improving, and saved myself the stress and sleepless nights??? (I mean I wouldn't have ignored the situation anyway, but still...) GiantSnowman 08:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * - the two diffs you have just highlighted both have edit summaries? GiantSnowman 11:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - aha, yes, thanks for clarifying. Obviously the proposed remedy is incredibly onerous...! GiantSnowman 11:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - another 'default' edit summary which would see me blocked in future! GiantSnowman 11:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * is indefinitely prohibited from using rollback and from leaving a blank or default edit summary
 * I don't think means what you want it to mean. There has never been any issue with my edit summaries for non-rollback edits. But, as Cryptic points out below, and me just above, there are a number of default edit summaries (related to starting new sections on talk page posts or using scripts such as ReFill or HotCat which are currently covered by the remedy and which would see me blocked for editing in-line with how the rest of the community edits. That is patently unfair. Better wording is "is indefinitely prohibited from using rollback and and from leaving blank or default edit summaries while reverting other editors' contributions" (as per Lourdes) or similar. GiantSnowman 11:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * General comment on edit summaries
 * I use them for every single edit and have done for years - the only exceptions are default edit summaries (as detailed above) and standard (ie non-script assisted) rollback (where you can't). You're basically trying to enforce what I already do? GiantSnowman 16:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Reply to
 * I remember seeing somebody at some point over the past 2 months stating that there is a script which can be added to 'remove' the option to rollback. If/when any such restriction is passed I'd intend to install that script (if somebody would be kind enough to remind me of it!) so that there won't be any accidents... GiantSnowman 12:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * GiantSnowman admonished and placed under review
 * - you allow BANEX, but that doesn't appear top include reverts/blocks of socks...? GiantSnowman 14:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by isaacl
Regarding proposed principle 2, "Raising concerns": None of the findings or remedies are based on a problem with escalating concerns appropriately, or continually restating concerns. As it stands, since the issued principles in a case exist to establish the basis for the findings or remedies, it's unclear to me if this principle is needed.

Proposed principle 4, "Terminating discussions", seems too detailed to me. The existence and purpose of the archive top template isn't relevant for any of the findings. The second paragraph seems more apt for a reminder in a remedy, rather than a principle. All edits should be taken with their effects on other editors in mind, so it's oddly specific to single this out as a principle for the closing of a discussion. The first sentence of the third paragraph isn't a principle that the community can use as guidance; it's a description of what can happen after a discussion is closed. The last sentence is redundant with the second paragraph. Although perhaps with different wording I might feel differently, at the moment I agree with Katie: I don't feel the arbitration committee should be providing guidance on how to close discussions in the form of principles. isaacl (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding The committee may recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Proposed_decision&diff=881149881&oldid=881136514&diffmode=source], in my opinion, it would be more fitting for general Wikipedia policy to be presented as case principles, and for specific calling to attention to be presented as a remedy. This clearly separates the underlying pre-existing policy, which usually originates from the community, from any refinement and reminder that the arbitration committee is publishing. isaacl (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the "Fix or revert" principle, I feel the second and last sentences are overly broad. Whether or not a fact belongs in this encyclopedia is often a matter of debate; due weight considerations and community consensus on what information is included or not included must be weighed. The second sentence does not adequately place this into context. The last sentence shifts the onus for complying with Wikipedia policies and guidelines away from the editor introducing the change, with a very broad "where possible and appropriate" clause. For example, fixing an editor's propensity to leave out citations is usually possible, but may take five to ten times the effort for someone to hunt down a source and properly integrate the original change into the overall body of text. I agree in the interest of collaboration, editors should be flexible in doing this fixup work when the change is likely to be correct, but the converse is true as well: editors must be flexible in learning how to make complete changes themselves. There must be incentives for editors to improve the quality of their contributions, or else managing the inflow of content becomes unsustaninable.

Regarding "Check before reverting", I think it may also be overly broad. Reverting the edits of banned users is a long-standing practice, regardless of whether or not the edits are helpful. Editors known to introduce edits with errors or that contravene consensus should be held to a stricter standard. If they make a block of edits that have a high number of problematic edits, or appear similar in content and a sampling exhibits issues, reverting the edits should be considered reasonable (and I believe reflects current practice). I would not include omitting citations as a problematic edit for this purpose, though, as long as the change itself is a reasonably plausible one. isaacl (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying. I think there is a tension between the desire to build the encyclopedia and the desire to prevent inappropriate edits. I'm not sure we can ever comfortably resolve that, and perhaps it is appropriate to retain that tension. However, if we are to err on one side or the other, my interpretation of the spirit and aims of Wikipedia is that we should err on the side of building rather than protection. Can you suggest ways of clarifying the principles? SilkTork (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In the workshop I gave an example of an editor who made edits contrary to community consensus, by adding information to team season logs that had more detail than deemed necessary, was repetitive, or was deemed not sufficiently important to record. A part of building is structure: the content in Wikipedia is organized based on what the community decides. Editors should not be making work for others to maintain structure where it is reasonably avoidable. I'll see if I am able to formulate something that emphasizes the need to collaborate on improving text, both on the part of the original editor, who should be adapting to feedback provided, and editors reviewing the changes (in the ordinary meaning of the word "reviewing"). isaacl (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ping me when you have something. SilkTork (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding But we don't simply go down the easy route - we go down the most appropriate and helpful route, even if that requires a bit more effort. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Proposed_decision&diff=881565735&oldid=881564405&diffmode=source]: whereas that is the laudable goal, time is the most valuable asset that volunteers have to offer, and it's an imposition to ask them to devote endless hours fixing up what others can more easily do themselves. In an ideal world, there would be a continual fresh stream of page patrollers, to avoid burn out, but there are many (if not most) areas in Wikipedia that are dependent on a small number. A site ban or a removal of administrative privileges feels like an undue escalation when intermediate restrictions have not yet been tried. Please note that maintaining an article's coherence and structure is also beneficial for editor retention: it gives contributors confidence that they do not have to continually fix problems themselves, and so it is worthwhile to contribute to Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

As requested, pinging. Not sure I'm fully satisfied with the wording, but it's a start. isaacl (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Isaacl. I think this is a tricky principle to get across. I like your Be accommodating. But I'm taking on board what others are saying that this is something that the community doesn't have the stomach for. Our community is made up of a variety of users with a range of views, experiences and temperament, and some users are more inclined to be helpful than others. We can't expect everyone to want to spend the time helping, same as we can't expect everyone to be able to research methodically or add beautiful, meaningful prose. We each do our part. And that's what works. While some users can do new page patrol and write featured articles, mostly those things are done by different users with different skill sets and temperaments. I'm wondering how helpful it is to write a proposal that is requiring users to be something that they are not, but meanwhile they are still able to contribute positively to the project using other skills and temperament. I suppose what is needed is a principle that says what users shouldn't do rather than what we would in an ideal world like them to do. SilkTork (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that we cannot expect editors to invest time that they do not have, which is where I was coming from as well in my comments. Of course an editor can just leave a problematic edit to someone else to resolve, but like I said there's a multiplier of maybe 5 to 10 times of fix up effort, so we reach a limit of available volunteers pretty fast. I do think though that being accommodating is important, and so I included the qualifier "as practicable" in my proposed principle to try to balance the concerns. I also think it is important to pair it with an expectation that once the bare minimum expectations have been explained to editors, such as a bare URL as a source, they are expected to start complying. If they don't, then less accommodating responses can reasonably ensue. isaacl (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed principle: Be accommodating to less experienced editors
To foster a collaborative community, editors should accommodate when contributors lack experience in a specific aspect of Wikipedia's process or consensus guidelines and practices. As much as practicable, editors should work with less experienced editors to help them improve the quality of their contributions, and seek to preserve their contributions when appropriate. Additional flexibility should be given for edits that beneficially update Wikipedia and are likely to be correct.

Proposed principle: Strive to follow community consensus
Less experienced editors should strive to learn community practices and follow them, whether or not they personally agree with the consensus view. Once less experienced editors are made aware of the bare minimum requirements for their changes, they are expected to eventually comply in order to alleviate the workload of others.

Incidents noticeboard
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Proposed_decision&diff=881735251&oldid=881734648&diffmode=source this edit]: whereas I understand the sentiment in support of the closing, I disagree that sanctions against an administrator can only be issued by the arbitration committee. Adminstrators are subject to community sanctions like any other editor. Only sanctions that effectively remove administrator privileges need to be enacted by the arbitration committee, and even so, the community has the responsibility to discuss the range of possible sanctions available, in accordance with the prerequisite that the community must attempt to resolve the issue itself before opening a case. isaacl (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Enforcement of edit summary restriction
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Proposed_decision&diff=882031255&oldid=882000439&diffmode=source concerns on enforcing an edit summary restriction]: more details on enforcement can be specified in the "enforcement" section. Personally I suggest requiring a pattern of behaviour to be apparent before progressing beyond warnings. isaacl (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I follow your suggestion that GiantSnowman be put on probation but that violations be left undefined. I imagine I'm missing something? As KrakatoaKatie suggests, I think it is necessary to specify what behaviours are under scrutiny, and what is problematic. As I allude to, I think a pattern of behaviour should be outlined that, if observed, would trigger sanctions. isaacl (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the discussion on KrakatoaKatie's talk page, while I appreciate the advantage of being to hold an actual discussion between non-arbitrators and arbitrators alike, I feel it is unduly limiting to those who prefer to post on this talk page, where more interested parties would likely see the discussion. Although it appears the discussion may have drawn to a close, if it continues in some form, can an arbitrator open a designated section on this talk page for it? isaacl (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Caution
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Proposed_decision&diff=882258084&oldid=882243680&diffmode=source this comment]: I think history shows with high-profile cases, there are editors willing to examine problematic behaviour and raise them to the attention of the arbitration committee. isaacl (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Levivich
Regarding proposed principle 4, "Terminating discussions", it may be too broadly-stated, and might benefit from being narrowed to address only specific types of closes or specific close situations, rather than closes in general. For example, closing a thread because discussion has concluded vs. closing a thread to stop ongoing discussion. Or, a close by an admin of a thread discussing another admin's tool misuse vs. other kinds of closes. Such closes might be good or bad depending on the particular situation, and so a more narrowly-focused statement of principle here (describing existing practice, perhaps, instead of prescribing new practice) may be more helpful to the community. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich  04:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

"Under review"
Regarding 's comment about a bright-line restriction: obvious vandalism v. clueless newbie, how many edits to check before a mass roll back, when you're too involved to block... these are all judgment calls. They probably can't be reduced to a set of instructions; there may not be any restriction that prevents bad judgment. If the problem concerns the community's trust in an admin's judgment, and the admin needs the opportunity to demonstrate sound judgment and earn back the community's confidence, how about something like this: I recognize some of these are best practices that GS already follows. These restrictions would require that best practices (in the areas where there have been past concerns) are followed while the bit is under review, under penalty of desysoping. The intent is that after a certain period of time, there would be a track record that proves that GS follows best practices and thus the community can be confident in placing their trust in his judgment without the need for further restrictions. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich  07:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) GS is admonished and reminded to "lead by example" and "strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy" (WP:ADMINCOND); "to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed" (WP:ADMINACCT); to "not act as [an] administrator[] in disputed cases in which they have been involved," which is "generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor" (WP:INVOLVED); to "treat newcomers with kindness and patience" (WP:BITE); and to apply these principles in all interactions (in talkspace and edit summaries) with all editors (new, experienced, IP, or registered).
 * 2) GS's administrator access is placed under review. During the review, he is subject to the following restrictions. Violations may be reported by any editor to [AE/ARCA?] and may result in desysoping or other sanctions. After # month(s), GS may request that the committee, with the community's input, review whether the restrictions and reminders have been followed, and whether any or all restrictions should be lifted.
 * 3) Rollback/revert restriction: (3.0/3.1, whatever language is decided)
 * 4) GS is prohibited from blocking an editor without first using escalating messages and template warnings[, subject to BANEX?].
 * 5) GS is prohibited from placing a warning template on an editor's talk page without having first placed an appropriate non-template message[, subject to BANEX?].
 * 6) GS is prohibited from acting as an admin in any matter in which he is or may reasonably appear to be involved.
 * 7) [Rollback permissions remedy, #4]


 * I was thinking of something very close to this last night. I had a list of bright lines, which are close to those you have suggested, such as only blocking a user once, and if he feels the user is continuing to be problematic, to refer the matter to another admin, to only place a template on a new editor's talkpage after he had left a self-composed message, etc. I do like your introductory notes. I'll write something up this afternoon after lunch which is going to be very close to what you have written yourself. SilkTork (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Fram's section
It seems very strange to have an evidence phase and a workshop phase where no evidence about me or proposals about me are discussed (despite AGKs prior claim that " We will now prepare proposals for discussion at the Workshop. I counsel you to accept that answering questions about your conduct is not optional. AGK ■ 12:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC) ", but then to get "proposed findings of fact" about me anyway. Strange, but not surprising sadly.

The "unnecessarily personalised the dispute with other users" part:
 * with GS is "evidenced" by this, which is a reply, on my own talk page, against an accusation by GS: "Please stop following me around". Furthermore, like I already said to AGK, this turned out to be a mutual misunderstanding which we amicably resolved in the same discussion on my talk page, here.
 * with UninvitedCompany: is a disagreement with their position, hardly something problematic.

The "assuming bad intent on the part of others": which part of my post their is not accurate? Like I explained elsewhere, GS was not editing in bad faith (with bad intentions), they believed that they were editing for the good of the encyclopedia. The problems were that their interpretation of what was needed "for the good" was way too strict and not in line with general community expectations, and that they too often saw a few problems with an editor, and assumed that all edits then needed rollbacking. Or, like I said, they didn't act in bad faith, but they too often assumed bad faith in others.

The "demonising" (sic!): when looking at GS edits, I often encountered user:Mattythewhite making similar edits (without the extremes that lead to this ANI and arb case). It seemed (and seems) strange to have whole discussions about GS, but to ignore another editor working at the same articles with the same approach. I did not drag them to ANI or this Arb Case, I left them a note providing background of why I was there (the link about the GS ANI discussion) and what I found problematic in his edits, with examples. The ANI cases offered background to the opinions of others about such actions, and at the same time I offered Mattythewhite, a natural supporter of GS (if one wants to divide people in such categories) to a discussion about GS actions. Your "finding of fact" seems to suggest that I tried to canvass Mattythewhite to support me in the discussion about GS by demonising GS, while the opposite is true.

It is not clear to me what the actual problem is with my post to Mattythewhite's page. Should I not have mentioned the extremely similar GS discussion? Should I not have spoken directly to an editor I saw making many (in my view) problematic edits (or more in general having a problematic approach towards newbies)? Should I instead have dragged them to ANI, even though their edits were a lot less problematic and no prior attempts to discuss it with them had been made (as far as I know).

Basically, I noticed problematic edits, and discussed these with the editor on their talk page. At the same time, I alerted them to a discussion they might not have been aware of, and where their input would likely by antithetical to my position (at least in some respect), but where they were welcome as they had experience with the same issues and editors.

In their comment AGK claims "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.", which disregards e.g. the evidence by GS where they pinged Mattythewhite who had blocked the same editor GS did. More in general, it disregards the plain fact that GS and Mattythewhite are two of the most active admins in the footy project, and two of the most like-minded admins in their approach to newbies or "unsourced" editing and so on.

As an example, look at the editors in my evidence section, where GS is said to have misused rollback: User talk:Caitlinwebb3 starts with messages by Mattythewhite, is filled mainly by messages by GS and Mattythewhite, and is blocked first by Mattythewhite and then GS. User talk:Jamieroot11: first Mattythewhite, then GS. User talk:Footballinbelgium: two most recent messages are first by Mattythewhite, then by GS. User talk:Davidstockholm: a plethora of messages from both editors. The same appears with e.g. blocked IP User talk:121.212.176.113.

There clearly was a basis for "lumping the two editors together" with regards to their approach to unsourced or not perfectly formatted edits in football articles, and my message explained what the problems were with their editing. So it would be nice if you could explain what was wrong with that edit, and how I should have handled it instead, as I am rather flummoxed how this edit ended up here as evidence of my misbehaviour. Fram (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you are not "in effect endorsing those low standards", and I promise never to use bad-faith allegations like accusing someone that they have "taken on the guise of prosecutor", that they are "demonising" users, or that they are deliberately criticising others, "throwing everything at the wall to see if it sticks" with their actions being "disproportionate in its quantity, intensity, and broad scope". Fram (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Mr.X's section
I'm a bit put off by the finding of fact concerning Fram. The evidence seems very weak for reaching any conclusion other than that Fram acted in good faith in pursuing WP:ADMINACCT, in a case that would have otherwise been shut down as "not a big deal; GS has learned his lesson; y'all go home now".

After AGK added Fram to the case, I submitted evidence of Fram, and two other admins, upholding policy and seeking resolutions to the matter. That stands in sharp contrast to the actions of other admins who collectively (whether intentionally or not) suppressed efforts to rectify the issues. Fram's persistence in pursuing a resolution seems to be a direct consequence of Giant Snowman's repeated defensiveness, evasiveness, flippancy, deflection, and his own assumptions of bad faith (for example, claiming that he was being harassed).

I'm concerned that singling Fram out in this way will have a chilling effect on the community's ability to handle any WP:ADMIN issues outside of Arbcom. If Arbcom wishes to be the only venue where admins can be held to account, this would be a pretty good way of accomplishing that.- MrX 🖋 13:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Although I don't have an opinion on whether Giant Snowman should be desysopped because I have not pored over all of the evidence, I am struck by his comment above "... there is a big difference between "acting incorrectly but in good faith" and "deliberate abuse of the tools". I think only one of those is grounds for losing the mop."


 * WP:ADMIN is clear that "if the dispute reflects seriously on a user's administrative capacity (blatant misuse of administrative tools, gross or persistent misjudgment or conduct issues), or dialog fails, then the following steps are available: ... Remedies that may be imposed, at the discretion of the Committee, include warnings, admonishments, restrictions, and removal of administrator privileges." WP:CIR applies to admins too. - MrX 🖋 15:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Ritchie333
I am also surprised to see Fram here. While this is not the first time at the Arbcom rodeo, I generally think he's improved his conduct since then. There is still an air of "being right and being a dick at the same time" ie: Fram tends to be most abrasive when he is right, and other people haven't picked up on his explanations - this makes it difficult for action to be taken because people think "well, Fram was actually right". Hopefully with some more self-reflection, this problem will disappear of its own accord. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Alanscottwalker
So multiple, multiple times the admin in issue has raised from WP:Rollback:


 * "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page."

Which apparently according to Rollback has its generation or confirmation in this committees, 2009 statement: "However, rollback may be used in circumstances where widely spread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, since such edits would be tedious to revert manually. In such instances, it is expected that an explanation will be provided in an appropriate location, such as at a relevant talk page."

Now, whether the admin was right or wrong about what those words might mean, it seems, 1) very "unhelpful" that the committee does not directly address what those words are suppose to mean and how those words are to be operationalized or processed to everyone in the community (since, you know, you are suppose to interpret what "misguided" and "unhelpful to the encyclopedia" means, and point the way to identifying and settling disputes about "misguided" (we do have guidelines, eg, WP:RS, and WP:CITE) and "unhelpful"), and 2) unsourced material by WP:V and WP:BLP standards certainly seems rather "unhelpful to the encyclopedia", or at least that's within reason, and 3) finally, it seems rather more respectful and collegial here if the committee would address the issues directly put to you by the admin, the committee members are being asked to weigh in against. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Fix or revert
Number 8 is so truncated as to be misleading. "Editor". Think what that word means. The best editors on Wikipedia and off readily remove content because removing content whether by reversion or otherwise is a fix (and depending on the various definitions of reversion thrown around, in which we sometimes seem to need a theology degree on reversion, every removal is someone else's reversion). Removing content is one of the most important and sometimes difficult things editors do. (Eg., we most definitely do not want articles that contain every known mention in the literature because the article could then be a billions of words long mess.) And it most certainly is not limited to WP:BLP. WP:DON'T PRESERVE explicitly says: "Several of our core policies discuss situations when it might be more appropriate to remove information from an article rather than preserve it. Wikipedia:Verifiability discusses handling unsourced and contentious material; Wikipedia: No original research discusses the need to remove original research; What Wikipedia is not describes material that is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia; and WP:UNDUE discusses how to balance material that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, which might include removal of trivia, tiny minority viewpoints, or material that cannot be supported with high-quality sources. Also, redundancy within an article should be kept to a minimum." -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not following your objection. The intention is to clarify the situation where someone adds factual and accurate and verifiable and encyclopedic and useful information to a BLP article, but because they are a newbie they don't use an inline citation. GS so far has been reverting them, and using BLPREMOVE as justification. I'm looking for wording, using our existing policies and guidelines, to indicate that it may be more helpful, and more in line with Wikipedia's aims, to cite the information rather than revert it. I'm not saying that it's not OK to remove facts or ideas that should not belong in an encyclopedia, but that we should all, primarily, focus on preserving facts or ideas that do belong in an encyclopedia. I'm trying to stress that removing good content because some wording allows you to is not what we're about here. How would you word that principle? SilkTork (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I had the editing window open and added a sentence on the difficulty of defining reversion but I don't think that changes the meaning.  But I think you need to acknowledge in that principle that removing is also sometimes fixing, and it cannot fall just on the shoulders of the single remover, and sometimes between removal and not knowing what to do with it, removal is going to be the right choice. Or eg., if I remove it from here, and you think it belongs somewhere else in encyclopedia collaboration also involves you moving it (for one, I can't know all the rest of all the pedia), or etc., etc. And I also refer you to Issacl's comment above about learning to properly add to the pedia, where and how, and for those already knowledgeable, working with others in doing so. Eg. many times a question of weight depends on where you found this information, you think it's important to add and me guessing where you found it is hardly a substitute for you telling us. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I see your reply now to Issacl above. Sometimes building the encyclopedia is editing out - it is what sometimes makes for coherence in an article, among other important things. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. What I am looking for is a principle that says our priority is to build the encyclopedia not protect it. And if in doubt if an edit is helpful (which is what the case is with many of GS's reverts, it's not that the edits are obviously wrong, it's that he doesn't know if they are right or wrong, so he defaults to it being wrong as he has protection as his priority), then we look to check it or fix it as our priority, unless there are compelling reasons not to (such as the editor is known for making mistakes). Reverting is easy, so that is the route many choose, and GS has chosen that route to extreme, even reverting me during this case while I was still actively editing. But we don't simply go down the easy route - we go down the most appropriate and helpful route, even if that requires a bit more effort. SilkTork (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, I'll just leave it as, it's all more nuanced than the proposed principle allows. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Hobit
As far as I know, this "set" of issues is the first time GS has been made aware of just how significantly people are viewing his actions. My sense of him over the years is that he will (now) take this on board. He does a lot of good work and I'd hate to lose that. Now if there are continued problems, that's another issue. If he isn't desysopped, I'd expect him to be very very careful moving forward with rollback and blocking as well as hopefully extending good faith and clear communication even when he's pretty certain someone is a troll/sock. If this is the wrong place for a comment of this nature, please move or delete as appropriate. Thanks Hobit (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the right place. Thanks for your input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Barkeep49
I am glad to see proposed principle 4.1 isn't going anywhere but have concerns over statement that, "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." which he then reiterates FOF 7 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. Discussion is a fundamental part of how Wikipedia works - I think this mischaracterizes the role ANI can (though obviously doesn't always) play in the case of concerns over administrator actions. It is a way for the community to discuss issues among itself and make sure that concerns are heard. The difficulty ArbCom also has in dealing with these issues is present in this case's discussion to date. It's not an easy topic, but I'm not sure that the pressure cooker of a formal ArbCom case is better for the administrator under discussion, even if it does serve to cool the passions of the community. Perhaps after slightly further discussion, GS could have made a commitment that the community was satisfied by. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you reword Proposed remedy 3 if you want it to apply if GS is not desysopped as there is no way to revoke his rollback ability while he remains a sysop. Presumably you mean it to prevent the community from issuing a topic ban on GS and should probably have language to that effect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just proposed a second remedy in that section that should clear up that ambiguity.
 * I hadn't considered that 3b, as worded, would prevent the community from topic banning GS from rollback. I don't think that was the intention although, in practice, it's very unlikely to come up. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks for your reply and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggested Remedy
The question asked when the case was being considered of (and I'm paraphrasing here) "if we can't trust a user with rollback, can we trust them with the tools?" has stuck with me and I have answered the question both ways at various points. There have been mixed feelings on the right remedy, but broad support that there has been problems with hearing criticism (which have improved during the case), inappropriate bans, and inappropriate rollback. Two of these three areas are areas non-admin can work-in (not BITING, appropriate reverting). Perhaps the committee could consider "suspending" Giant rather than making him go through a community RfA - which would essentially remove the tools permanently. He could then apply for reinstatement to this committee, showing sustained improvement, after X months (3 or 6 would be my suggestion). This seems better than an editing restriction which would be difficult to enforce at AE and could, if problems were to continue, lead to it coming back to ArbCom anyway (with perhaps further community rancor having transpired in the interim). Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand the thinking here, and did consider it. But what made me reject it is that it includes a power that the community have not given to ArbCom: the power of granting sysop rights to a user that has been desysopped. As, essentially, what we would be doing is the same as a site-ban: removing access until ArbCom themselves decide to reinstate it. But that is not part of policy: WP:ARBPOL. If we want to introduce the power to ArbCom of resysopping a desysopped admin, then there would need to be a formal community discussion on the matter. Under the current remedy, Giant Snowman can ask for the tools back via the community at any time (generally that would be several months after an ArbComn case), and that works fine. I would prefer we reduced ArbCom's power rather than increased it, so if there were to be a community discussion on the matter, I suspect I would not be in favour. As regards the editing restrictions - those are being considered separate from desysopping. So if passed they would apply if GS is desysopped or not. SilkTork (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I hear you, but I think a suspension falls well within your existing remit. As a thought experiment, if the committee wanted they could suspend this case for 3 months or 6 months and make its final vote then. The findings of misconduct are already established - that is not being stretched out, simply finding the correct severity of remedy. I would also argue it is with-in policy in two different ways: It is a natural consequence of how to To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools. Because of this policy you may create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced. Alternatively you could desysop and then choose, in 3 or 6 months time, to at your at sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time. and decide that was incorrectly decided because there is evidence on the record of GS improving and subsequent events would go to show that this evidence is correct. On a practical level I think the community would welcome ArbCom's ability to have gradations of thinking beyond admonishment and desysop. Not everyone may agree that a gradation should have been done here, but conceptually that kind of concept if found throughout our behavior policies. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It would need the clarity of a consensus from the community. My own view is that rather than give the power of resysopping to the Committee, I would prefer giving the power of desysopping to the community. At the moment if GS is desysopped, he can apply to the community in three months. I would prefer that, than he be made to apply to ArbCom. The Committee are representatives of the community, but only step in where the community can't agree. The community can handle a RfA, and where a RfA is close, then a 'Crat sorts it out, not ArbComn. The other option that has been mentioned is probation. Let GS keep the tools, but if there is a problem in the next six months he is desysopped. I think I would prefer probation over an indefinite removal of the tools. SilkTork (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * except I don't think it would be a resysopping in at least two of the three ways it falls in your remit above (suspension of case, creation of procedures). Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I know you think that. And I think differently. Which is why it needs a wider discussion. The only way I could see it working is by not actually removing the tools from an admin, but by forbidding them from using the tools or acting in an admin capacity. But that would be more frustrating and embarrassing than an actual desysop. People might ask GS to do some admin task, and he'd have to say he can't, and explain why. Probation would do the same thing, but in a less awkward and embarrassing way, and without having to consider policy changes. The problem with probation is setting up the parameters and monitoring them. Each time I serve on the Committee I become aware of rulings which looked good at the time, but which end up causing problems and having to be amended. The areas of concern with GS have been rollback/reverting, and biting/blocking new editors. We are struggling to find the right wording on those principles. If we can get those areas right, and if the final vote goes to a desysop, we could look at suspending the desysop subject to GS adhering to the restrictions. But if we get those areas right, and the final vote does not support a desysop, then we wouldn't need a probation or a temporary desysop. However, we are still struggling on getting the wording of his restrictions right. SilkTork (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your time and consideration of my thoughts and for the time you invested in replying to them. It is appreciated. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A version of your suggestion has been used previously: . SilkTork (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * but that strikes me as punitive in a way that what I am proposing is not. I am suggesting that GS have a conditional ability to resume being an admin based on demonstrated actions that show he has taken aboard the findings of fact in this case. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Remedy 1.2
Violations may be reported by any editor to WP:AE. GiantSnowman may appeal any or all of these sanctions, including the review itself, at any time. - It's traditional to say that the appeal can be to ArbCom (ARCA) for clarity, unless it's intended for the restriction to be able to be lifted by AE/AN as with a DS/GS in which case I would suggest saying that. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You're quite right. Done. SilkTork (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dweller
I'd really like Arbcom to weigh in on the subject of my evidence. I don't think principles 8 and 9 quite cover the nuance. Just because someone challenges material in a BLP doesn't mean it's contentious, which is the argument I've seen. Inherently uncontroversial but unsourced material even in a BLP should also not be removed on sight. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought your evidence was interesting in highlighting the fact that this is not a new issue (which of course could be interpreted as "see, this has been going on forever, he'll never change!" or as "see, he's been doing this for so long that he had good reason to think he was doing the right thing"). As for the substance of the BLP issue, though - well, I don't know that it's the best interpretation, but it's certainly not uncommon to argue that if someone does in fact challenge material in good faith, then by definition it is "contentious" or "likely to be challenged". Another angle to this (and you may have more insight here) is the maintainability of the topic area as a whole. Sure, in any individual isolated case you can argue that fixing an edit or adding a source is better than reverting it, but it's unclear to me if that's a scalable conclusion. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I think GS is a good admin, who has been heavy handed in some areas. And I think in part he's been heavy handed because he's been so convinced he's right and entrenched in very very longstanding attitudes.

On the specifics, I really do not think football is particularly special. I could make very similar arguments about a whole slew of topics. The question for me is, if I add, for example, a birth town to a BLP without a source, that is not a contentious edit even if it not a terrific quality edit. It is only contentious if there's a perceptible negativity, so for example, if the edit was that they were born in "Arseholeville" or the like. The purpose of BLP is to protect living people from slurs and derogatory editing, not to ensure that every article is Featured quality.

On the meta, admins are so precious. And GS isn't just an admin but a really active content contributor. The committee isn't stupid, you know the impact it has on many admins when you desysop them. When an admin has been misguided, I wish you'd consider some kind of probation as an intermediate option between ticking off and desysopping - and not just in this case. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I echo. Even a mention of site ban is ridiculous. It is insulting to Giant Snowman and utterly demeans this committee. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand that viewpoint. I'm airing site-ban because it has been on my mind at times when looking closely at what GS has done. My thinking is perhaps more of the "how insulting it is to the people who have been reverted and templated". We can sometimes rally round our own quicker than we can rally round those who are not yet part of our community. And that is understandable. But I'm looking at GS's behaviour from the perspective of the new editors, because they are our future - treated appropriately, they are the new community. The reality, however, is that a site-ban is not going to happen, but it nudges into my mind at times when I reflect on how some of those editors must have felt. SilkTork (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a site ban would be appropriate for someone in danger of repeating these offences with new editors, whom I too value immensely. If that were really a danger with GS, I refer you to my comments above about probation. That's a win-win. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal re probation
FWIW, I've been discussing with at her talk page, the idea of probation. I don't know if that should more properly be here or somewhere else, because I think it should be a default option for Arbcom to consider in any case where desysopping is a possibility. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Lord Roem
Quick feedback on the proposed editing restriction for GiantSnowman. Speaking as someone who's spending a lot of time at AE these days, I share SilkTork's concern and think it'd be helpful if the wording could be clarified from how it reads now now. While I certainly think we all have a general idea of what clearly crosses the line of "biting newcomers," it's those edge cases that could be tricky without something a little more tightened up. Otherwise, it's vague enough that it's practically unenforceable. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Site Ban - what.......?
The fact that this has even been mentioned - even hinted at or suggested in passing - is shocking. Outrageous in this particular case and more so in the historical context of AC sanctions against past and current Admins. who's misbehavior far and away exceeds GS's errors of judgment / wrong actions. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand that you have been shocked at the mention. As I said above, my thoughts have been at times with those new editors, so I also experienced a degree of shock. I have not concealed that I have been dismayed at GS's treatment of some editors. We are a community of different sorts of people - that is very much our strength. And some of us may have different levels of empathy for the new editors because they are not yet part of our community - most of our empathy goes to the long serving members because that is the nature of communities, but that doesn't mean that we should have no empathy at all for the new members. Be that as it may, I am not going to propose a site-ban, nor would I support one if it were proposed, but I have to be open and honest and say that the thought has been in my mind more than once when reflecting on aspects of this case. SilkTork (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment
Comment moved here:


 * I understand we are supposed to "remain in lanes" but my lane has been closed and as I am mentioned directly here I would like to add this. Anyone who has seen me around in the last 13 years knows I am no fan of "bad" Admins. I am on record. I have also not been a great fan of GS in football matters. It would be rare and unusual for me to plead for retention of Admin rights. Yet I unashamedly have done for GS since this case opened and in the various stages. Punishment benefits no one. Leaky caldron (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This comment has been moved here by Silk Tork from the section above by Dweller. Seems only Silk Tork is allowed to add their response to that section so thanks for breaking the context of what I was trying to communicate. Be real polite if you applied the rules to your own comments as well, or does it not apply to Arbs? (: Leaky caldron (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the big message at the top? "This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion. Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section." Doug Weller  talk 16:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Fish and karate
I agree with Ritchie333. I am particularly surprised given that there was no reference to any proposal concerning Fram's behaviour in workshop phase,, nor was there any relevant evidence presented during the evidence phase, meaning that a finding of fact/proposal concerning Fram is very much out of left field. For it to appear in this manner obviates non-arbitrators' opportunity to collate/submit any evidence that could have leavened this finding of fact. I am glad to see the proposal is looking like it will be voted down. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 11:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

re Remedy 3
So does this apply to any revert without an edit summary, or only ones specifically made with a tool? There's a (not very good but not entirely unreasonable either) argument to be made that rollback itself isn't a tool, since it's baked into the Wikimedia interface itself rather than being a gadget or user script or so on; there's a much better argument, though, that just clicking on the edit button and manually editing out whatever some other user just put in isn't. If - as I suspect - this was meant to mean any summaryless revert no matter how it was made, and you feel you have to make that explicit for some reason despite 383 archives of WP:AN/3RR giving admins practice at identifying what's a revert and what isn't, then writing "by any method" instead of "with any tool" will save everyone the inevitable trip to WP:ARCA. —Cryptic 18:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, specifically re this vote: Already done, to the extent it's possible to do, at WP:Customizing watchlists. —Cryptic 19:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I knew I'd seen it somewhere, thanks <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>) 19:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The intention isn't to stop GiantSnowman reverting, it's to stop him reverting without an explanation. The "any tool" bit is there because things like Twinkle's rollback and the undo function are technically not "rollback", but if you don't change the default edit summary they function in exactly the same way. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I get that; it's why I wrote "without an edit summary" and "summaryless". My comment wasn't about reverting vs. reverting without an explanation; it was about reverting without an explanation vs. reverting without an explanation with technical aid not provided by Wikimedia core functionality.  People are going to read what the ruling says, not what you intended, and right now it says the "with technical aid" version. —Cryptic 02:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I get you now. I was thrown off by "giving admins practice at identifying what's a revert". To me "tool" doesn't imply a non-MediaWiki tool, but if other arbs agree with you I've no objection to changing the wording to "method" or similar. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And now the current wording makes and  blockable, by removing the requirement that the edits be reverts.  I'm sorry I brought the whole thing up. —Cryptic 11:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * in reply to Special:Diff/882032248: they both have default edit summaries. —Cryptic 11:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

For my part, Lourdes' version, with or without Amorymeltzer's suggested edit to it (but not Amorymeltzer's edit taken by itself, which is what we ended up with; or any of those just tacked onto the front while leaving the ambiguous parts), get the idea across. —Cryptic 11:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Separately - do the usual exceptions at WP:BANEX apply? I'd think not, in this case, but it should be made explicit. —Cryptic 11:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

re accidental rollbacks
Again, WP:Customizing watchlists. This is a non-issue. —Cryptic 12:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Late comment from Amorymeltzer on remedy 3 clarification
I only just read it this way following the comments from Katie and Worm, so I apologize for the late-hour of this comment, but it seems to me that Remedy 3 (the rollback restriction) is a little vague on what counts. Specifically, the remedy says "rollback" includes any revert, made with any tool, that undoes another editor's contribution without providing a rationale in the edit summary. Saying "without providing a rationale" suggests to me no edit summary rather than a providing a way to make a custom edit summary, which I doubt is the intent (see also ). Moreover, Katie and Worm note other tools like Twinkle, which has some options (rollback (vandal)) that autorevert without an edit summary and others (rollback, restore this revision, etc.) that allow for a custom edit summary but will provide a default if one is not provided. I don't think as written or opined-on it is clear if those latter options are allowed if customized. ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 22:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I used the word "rationale" rather than "summary" or "explanation" to try and indicate that a specific reason for the revert is needed, not just canned edit summaries like "Undid XXXXXXXXX by XXXXX" or "Reverted edits by XXXXX". But I'm open to suggestions. 00:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Roe (talk • contribs)
 * I might insert "custom" or "manual" before "rationale" to clarify that the restriction wouldn't mean a blank edit summary, assuming that still meshes with your intent and your colleagues' views. ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 10:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Custom" is a sensible addition. Alternatively, you could probably use " GiantSnowman is indefinitely prohibited from using the rollback functionality. GiantSnowman is additionally indefinitely prohibited from leaving blank or default edit summaries while reverting other editors' contributions." Lourdes   12:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion! Could even just write ..using the rollback functionality and from leaving blank or default... (my changes in bold) ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 12:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a good suggestion, folks. I'll amend it later today. Thanks. :-) Katietalk 14:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Can't we find something that won't risk the chance of him being blocked for just one blank/default edit summary? Doug Weller  talk 11:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Lourdes' suggestion of GiantSnowman is additionally indefinitely prohibited from leaving blank or default edit summaries while reverting other editors' contributions seemed perfectly sensible to me. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Lourdes section
Section created and comments moved here. SilkTork (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

"Custom" is a sensible addition. Alternatively, you could probably use " GiantSnowman is indefinitely prohibited from using the rollback functionality. GiantSnowman is additionally indefinitely prohibited from leaving blank or default edit summaries while reverting other editors' contributions." Lourdes  12:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Well Leaky caldron, with two of the proposed decisions against GS already passed, and with the remaining two almost about to be passed, including desysopping GS, I'm just wondering at the benefit of their participating in this case with genuine effort in the first place... It's a nice case study and a lesson to learn for administrators in the future. Lourdes   16:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * A gentle reminder that threaded discussion is not permitted on this page. Please comment in your own section. Bradv 🍁  17:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment by FlyingAce
The page header does state with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section, so arbs are indeed exempt from having to create their own section. –FlyingAce✈hello 15:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I like 's solution better – I believe it was more polite to move the comments around instead of just closing the discussion. –FlyingAce✈hello 15:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken
Note to Only Remedy #3 has actually passed at this moment, since 3 of the votes for Remedy #4 are contingent on Remedy #1 (desysopping) passing. Since that is not currently passing, Remedy #4 only has 5 votes, which is not sufficient to pass. Of course, that could change if the arbs who voted for it change their vote to be absolute instead of dependent, or if one additional arb voted in favor of it without conditions (6 votes being needed for passage in this case when there are no abstentions). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Or if, as has occurred, new proposed remedies are posted, drawing votes away from other remedies. It's simply my opinion, but it seems to me that the remedies which the committee appears to be heading towards are much more reasonable than those which were (seeimingly) getting traction before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that there's a script available to automate the undoing of an accidental rollback? Since my computer does the same thing you describe, I occasionally hit the rollback button accidentally, and having an "undo" script would be quite helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think he means the css/js thing that hides rollback, but I could be wrong. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Ymblanter
There is a technical issue concerning the rollback restriction. It is actually very easy to hit a rollback button accidentally. I have a pretty fast laptop, but still my watchlist loads some stuff in three stages, and after every stage it looks like everything is fine and I can click on the links, I click, and suddenly it turns out that I was clicking on a different link one or two lines above what I actually intended to click. I accidentally hit rollback in this way about once per month. (In these cases, I undo it with apologies). I rarely edit from a cell phone, but from what I remember it is even easier to accidentally hit rollback there. Unless there is a script which just protects the rollback button from showing anywhere (which I am not aware of), and if the restriction passes, it might have sense to add a clause that if GS hit rollback incidentally, they must immediately undo their edit and redo it with a proper edit summary. We unfortunately have some users who would be happy to point out at this accidental rollback as a violation of the topic ban. (Note that I did not express any opinion on whether a rollback restriction is a good idea, but merely pointed out one of its technical aspects).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this kind of thing is already covered by WP:NOTBURO. Any sanction we put on GS is only going to be enforceable by admins and 'crats; I think we can trust them to exercise some common sense. We could go on forever trying to cover every possible edge case and loophole. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyway, since a script is available, this is moot for the time being.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I indeed was talking about a script which hides the rollback button. I can not think why one can need a script which undoes their own accidental rollback. Depending on the context, this rollback can be undone by either hitting rollback again, or, in most cases, by undoing it with a helpful edit summary.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)