Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop

Request semi-protection
Please semi-protect main page to match talk page, thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon's proposals
is not an ARBCOM member. However, the proposals they added (and headed simply 'Proposed Principles') imply that those are the official/final proposals by ARBCOM. Perhaps it would be prudent for the heading to be amended to avoid any confusion? GiantSnowman 08:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I added the subheading that seems to have accidentally been dropped. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. GiantSnowman 09:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Use of "vigilante"

 * I am concerned about Robert McClenon's use of the term "vigilante" throughout his section. A vigilante is someone who operates outside of the normal societal processes, i.e. the rule of law in its usual usage. I don't believe that the evidence presented support Giant Snowman's actions as being "vigilante" -- as an admin, he is, by definition, inside of the normal processes. The question is not whether he operated outside of them, as a vigilante would, but whether he abused them or not.  Thus "vigilante" is not only polemical and inflammatory in nature, it is also quite inaccurate.  The last thing we need in any ArbCom case is rhetorical overkill.If Robert McClenon does not rephrase his proposals to remove "vigilante" from them, I suggest that Arbitrators direct the clerks to strike it out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Use of rollback
I think it is important to differentiate between the use of the mass rollback script and normal rollback. GiantSnowman 14:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, I addressed this question at Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop.  AGK  &#9632;  16:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

"Sporting personalities"
- I'm interested how you have come to the conclusion that "Since the commencement of this case, GiantSnowman has constrained his reverting to edits about a minor sports personality, team, or club [...] Prior to the commencement of this case, GiantSnowman frequently reverted edits to topics other than sports personalities"? I edit in the same area I always have, as far as I am aware...perhaps you could kindly clarify? GiantSnowman 17:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Could you raise that point in the section itself? There is an area for "Comment by parties", and I would prefer to keep analysis in one place.   AGK  &#9632;  17:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course; still trying to navigate how the heck this thing works... GiantSnowman 19:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Question to AGK
Why did you feel it necessary to move the "Analysis of evidence" section from the bottom of the page, where it normally lives, to near the top of the page? ,  It gives the impression that you're featuring your own contributions.

The workshop began with the "Analysis" section at the bottom, and I think it should stay there for this case. If the Committee feels it's better at or near the top of the layout, then start the next case with it in that position, a clean start.

My opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to ping. . Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Can I get a response, please? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I took it as a comment, :I was concerned that much of the Evidence was still disputed or unclear. By the time of Workshop opening, many paragraphs added in one user's evidence had been disputed in another's.  We were receiving Workshop proposals at a time when I regarded evidence analysis as the more relevant next stage of the process.  And I had in mind several points of fact that needed clarifying – mock PD proposals are not the most effective means of doing that.  As the case's drafting arbitrator I am generally responsible for ensuring the case proceeds on-time, fairly, and in the correct order.Does that help?   AGK  &#9632;  13:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it not unusual, though, for a drafting arbitrator to analyze the evidence in advance, in public? Surely that is a job which you and your co-drafter should be undertaking later in the privacy of your deliberations on the PD?My understanding of the workshop process is that it is intended to give the drafting arbitrators some input and guidance from the community as to how the PD might be structured. By moving the analysis section to a more prominent position near the top of the page, and by doing the analysis yourself, instead of allowing it to be undertaken by non-arbitrators, its easy to get the impression that you are pre-judging the evidence before the Evidence stage is even closed.  Combined with your statements concerning the expansion of the scope of the case -- which, although I assume you meant them to be straight-forward questions which should be addressed, can easily be read, again, as prejudicial -- I think you may have inadvertently tainted the outcome of the case, whichever way it falls. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I second 's assessment about this; in fact, I feel it may represent that you have already adjudged GS even before this particular stage is over. I would suggest you withdraw from the case or at least as the drafting representative, to avoid questions of impropriety cropping up. I'm not saying that this is why you did it, but the impression is quite negative. Thanks, Lourdes   02:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 19, a few editors expressed the desire for as much analysis as possible to take place in public, and I posted a request based on this feedback. (I stated my concerns, but others felt the arbitrators could adequately judge what conversations were better held in private.) Since a posted analysis isn't binding, I don't think public discussion in of itself taints the outcome. It provides an opportunity for dialogue with the community, should this be desired. I'm more of the opinion that arbitrators should be given some space and not have to continually engage with commenters, but even some of the arbitrators in the discussion expressed a desire to engage, so I deferred to their opinion. isaacl (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, my concern was not only with the public nature of AGK statements and analysis, but also with the way it was expressed. I believe other drafting arbs have made public analyses during the course of a case, but I never felt in those instances that they were pre-judging the outcome. I don't necessarily believe that AGK is either, hence I have not joined in with those calling for his recusal, but the way his statements and questions were worded did give me pause.  If nothing else, I hope AGK will be more careful in the future to express things in a more precise and obviously non-committal manner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I called for AGK's recusal because Arbs are cheap and I think this case is already reasonably compromised and complicated as it is. I have no strong interest in any particular outcome (I would be very dissapointed to lose GS as an editor and I definitely think their behaviour was innapropriate, but the behaviour that bought them to ArbCom doesn't really affect my own areas of editing so I don't really care) but I do have a strong interest in ArbCom being good, impartial, and fair, especially given some of the terribly short-sighted decisions that have been made in the past. I don't think AGK is completely barking up the wrong tree (ArbCom needs change!) but to unilaterally make decisions about how to conduct an ArbCom case with no community discussion is... misplaced, at the very least, and unfair on the parties to that case. We can do better, and we really should hold our Arbs to a higher standard. -- a. spam &#124; contribs 14:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Took a bit of hunting down to find where you called for a recusal... There is a broader context than just what was discussed above. In the interest of not forking the conversation, I suggest not branching out that discussion to here. isaacl (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Aye, forking the discussion is not my intention; Improvements to the ArbCom process should be discussed outwith this case. -- a. spam &#124; contribs 17:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Conduct at this case
Can somebody please review the conduct of, not only here (where they don't seem to grasp proper drafting competence) but also now that, and no doubt linked to this ARBCOM case, they have taken to nominating a number of my drafts for deletion (1, 2, 3) without even attemptig to discuss matters with me first? It seems improper/gravedancing (even though I'm still here...) GiantSnowman 15:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * MfD withdrew and closed by myself Hhkohh (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Closed by actually. GiantSnowman 15:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , you are wrong. this is closed by me not  Hhkohh (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Personally I would say it's gravedancing - HH had commented on GS's arbcom case months ago so would've known he was here .... and he's not particiapted or nominated anty MFDs since 11 December so I feel HH came to the conclusion "GS is gonna be booted so lets delete every userspace they've created" ....,
 * Ofcourse I'm not at MFD all the time and when I am it's random drafts not one editors (if it is one editors then it would've been abandoned drafts!).
 * Sorry I feel it's gravedancing. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He has few edits and English is quite clearly NOT his native language. How about a bit of WP:AGF before making accusations? - I suggest you sit this case out. Some of your contributions are confusing to say the least. An editor's future is at stake and this is becoming an extremely complex and difficult to manage case for many people involved.  Leaky  Caldron  16:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He has 30,000 edits—how many does it take to go from "few" to "many"? &#8209; Iridescent 16:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ...about 300,440, at a guess :)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No idea. I was incorrect about his EC. Leaky  Caldron  16:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how English not being their first language justifies this kind of behaviour? GiantSnowman 20:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? You are the one who raised the concern "(where they seem to grasp proper drafting competence)". Move on. Leaky  Caldron  20:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Talking of which,, did you miss out a somewhat important "not" in that statement...? ;) ——  SerialNumber  54129  20:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Drafting incompetence has nothing to do with their language skills, it's more their understanding of how ARBCOM works - and I was talking more about the deletion nominations anyway... GiantSnowman 08:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite. So why do you say that they seem to grasp proper drafting competence? ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't ;) GiantSnowman 09:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don't like my response then you know perfectly well what to do about it Leaky  Caldron  14:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A wonderfully unhelpful statement. This case is not a circus, here for your amusement. GiantSnowman 14:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Further to Hhkohh's grave dancing, we now have comments like this, and actions like this, both of which are basically taking the piss. This is not a joke; I'm extremely disappointed that editors are treating it like such and even more so that ARBCOM don't seem to care/be doing anything about it. Without wanting to sound overly dramatic my future is at stake here. It feels increasingly like a show trial. GiantSnowman 14:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That was an accidental rollback on my part, which I immediately reverted. The page jumped as I was thanking LC. Yes, the irony struck me. But I didn't realise it would be grounds for attack; you could've at least pinged me. Having said that, I don't deny that from your perspective, you've been shown such a quantity of bad faith throughout these proceedings that I can hardly complain at any you show... ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for clarifying - though it would have been helpful if you had posted here earlier to say it was an error... GiantSnowman 13:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A ping would certainly have brought e here! ;)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I assumed you were watching, apologies! GiantSnowman 15:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly what I advised the person concerned above since when he has left you alone, AFAIK. I did not introduce the nonsense in this thread. As for you, you seem completely indifferent to well intentioned advice per your lack of response here  Leaky  Caldron  14:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I took the comments of all on board. Don't jump to assumptions. GiantSnowman 14:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it a joke? You added don't in your previous response while you responded Hhkohh (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because another editor told me I had made a typo (well, forgotten a word); I was correcting it. Nice to see you still taking on LC's sage advice to step away from this. GiantSnowman 14:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And you also have nominated a mass deletion in mid 2018. I have seen your response to Hmlarson's evidence and some comments about this. I just think you are... Hhkohh (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See, clerks (?), this is the sort of thing that should lead to editors being restricted to email participation. Not what Legacypac did. Please hat most of this thread as straying wildly off-topic, and address Leakycauldron and Hhkohh's unhelpful contributions. Fish +Karate  14:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The unhelpful comments here include making a joke out of a simple mistake and doubling down on it by Iridecent and Serial54129. Please get off my back. At least I attempted to convince Hhkohh to respect GSs request. Leaky  Caldron  14:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was merely poking Iridescent over their own "many" edits, not you. ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Can a clerk close this discussion?, meaningless to me to open Hhkohh (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Everyone, before posting on these pages, please ask yourself “is this comment going to help arrive at a fair and well-informed decision in this case?” If the answer is no, don’t post it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

173.228.123.166
I am curious why this the IP is here, how he/she found this ARC, Govvy (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IPs are editors as much as logged-in users are - they have a right to participate also. This IP happens to be a fairly prolific contributor who is quite helpful over on the refdesk as well as contributing positively to mainspace and the encyclopaedia's content. (Also, the pronoun you're looking for is "they", I think?) -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me &#124; contribs 09:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just think it's interesting way of contributing, it's feels like a lack of identity and choosing this way leaves a mask, like a hidden face, a voice without identity. Don't know if it's me, but it is irksome. Also I tend to associate "they" as plural... Govvy (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is the intention of a lot of people people who choose to edit as an IP - content sans identity. Don't discredit their contributions because you want everybody to have a name. ('They' can be easily used as singular too!) -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me &#124; contribs 18:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Workshop phase closing
The workshop phase of this case will close in the next 24 hours, per the schedule posted at the top of this page. Bradv 🍁  21:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)