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

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Evidence page or explaining page?

@Bradv: Is GS allowed to explain in Evidence page by creating subsection like responding to xxx? Hhkohh (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Given that you "commented" on GS evidence first, I'm surprised by this question. Yes, it's generally allowed to put forward rebuttals in the evidence phase, though generally clerks will step in if matters fall into tit-for-tat. We also have an "analysis" of evidence section during the workshop phase, which allows for looking into any parts of evidence in more detail. Addendum: it's best to just focus on providing your evidence and not worry about what other people are writing. Worm^TT(talk) 12:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

GS' s evidence

(Moved from my section on the main evidence page, for length reasons and to avoid it becoming too much of a back-and-forth)

Extended content moved from evidence page

GiantSnowman using personal attacks and misinformation to defend himself Above, in his reply to me, they start with "Once again, misrepresenting the truth: " (well, I presume they are trying to describe my evidence and not their reply). "Once again" is a personal attack if not supported by evidence, and "misrepresenting the truth"? Some examples: "Cipow (talk · contribs) was reverted for adding unsourced material eg this." Um, that addition, just like everything else already present in the infobox, is supported by Soccerbase, a source already present in the article. And your reply ignores that "unsourced" is not an argument to rollback anyway, if the edit is factually correct... "70.21.191.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - yes I reverted and warned for this, they removed valid references from the article" How did that happen? Oh right, you reverted his correct changes, they explained their change at length in the edit summary, you reverted his edit again[1] but added sources at the same time, they reverted again[2] and added their reliable source, you reverted yet again[3] and warned for the removal of valid sources (what about your removal of their valid sources, which actually contained a valid fact?), and then you remove one of the sources they removed anyway, and reinsert their fact and source[4], but still maintain that they were vandalising? Bizarre... "89.211.190.236 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - blocked for repeatedly adding unsourced content like this and this". Thanks for making my point yet again, that you didn't correctly apply our policies, and still don't understand them. We don't block people for adding unsourced but correct information, we thank them. this one? You didn't even revert it, probably because, you know, it is actually true, but you use it as evidence that you block was justified? Staggering. And the second one, [5], was correct information that multiple IPs tried to add to that article 7 times, but you reverted them each time, instead of being productive, constructive and welcoming. You should have done either this or nothing at all, but you choose the worst option instead, blocking productive, correct IPs. An admin who, after it has been explained to them numerous times, still maintains at their Arb case that blocking people for adding unsourced content is the right thing to do (without any consideration of the correctness of the information), should not remain an admin any longer. Fram (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC) GS: "OK, I'm going to quote WP:BLP (one of our mostimportant policies) again seeing as Fram either hasn't read it or is deliberately ignoring it - "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source" (my emphasis) and if not it should be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Then, "users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing". That is all that I have been doing. GiantSnowman 18:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC) " The policy wasn't written as permission for an admin (or anyone) to challenge everything they didn't write, and to use that as justification for reverting everything (and calling it vandalism) and blocking, while at the same time doing the exact same thing yourself to boot. Furthermore, as has been shown, many of the edits you reverted, objected against, warned about, ... were sourced, and the major "problem" was that an obscure bit of markup, rendered in small print in the infobox, wasn't updated at the same time. Basically, you use a sledgehammer to remove a tache de beauté, and abuse the BLP policy to chase away editors changing the number of games someone has played in the current season from 15 to 16 (which, even if false (which it wasn't in the examples objected against), is hardly a shocking, problematic BLP violation anyway). That there may be many vandals and factually incorrect edits in sports articles (just like in most articles) is not an argument to treat all of them as vandals. Otherwise, if the problem really is that hard to cope with, you should just run an RfC and ask for extended protection for all football biographies. You don't want new editors laying their dirty hands on your articles anyway. "Then, "users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing". That is all that I have been doing." Have you even read what has been said? A user adds a source to 25 articles, and in one article he mentions the source in the edit summary, but forgets to add it to the article. The info they add is correct and is indeed contained in that source. How is that an example of "persistent or egregiously violate this policy"? You are engaging in extreme wikilawyering. Admins should be able to use policies with common sense, evaluating the different policies and guidelines against each other, instead of picking one bit of policy, interpreting that in an extreme way (and in a self-fulfilling prophecy, first "challenging " correct info and then using that "challenge" as justification for a block), and misusing policies to terrorize a whole domain of popular articles. Fram (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC) @GiantSnowman: when I highlight another poor block [6], your response is this[7]: "*121.212.176.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - blocked (for the second time) for repeated vandalism and unsourced content; they'd been issued a final warning 3 days prior to my block." Their only edit since that final warning was, like I clearly explained, a sourced and correct edit, actually correcting an error in the article (which you then reinserted). If you even can't check the facts during your ArbCom case, after it has been explained to you, but only repeat the incorrect claim that lead you to the block in the first place, then it becomes more and more obvious that you can't be trusted with the tools, since you block IPs based on incorrect information, and are either not willing or unable to check whether they make improvements or "vandalism" even when questioned about it. I have now rollbacked your reinsertion of the incorrect information as the vandalism it actually is. The chance that the IP editor returns after you blocked them for making an actual improvement is slim though, judging from their reaction then. I can't blame them. 10:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC) You since "clarified" you block with " In the edit highlighted by Fram, the IP was seemingly changing sourced content. It was fair to revert and view as vandalism."[8]. And here I was thinking that admins, before blocking someone, have the duty to check that the edit they believe to be vandalism actually is vandalism. What's the point of giving someone a warning, if they get blocked for their next edit no matter what? Yes, it takes a bit more time and effort. If you are not willing to make that effort but block anyway, and even worse continue to defend the block even after it has been pointed out that it was unwarranted, then you shouldn't be an admin. How hard is it to simply say "oops, I screwed up that one, after the previous problems I thought that that edit was vandalism, I should have looked better"? But instead, you simply repeat "repeated vandalism and unsourced content" as if repeating a mistake suddenly makes it correct. Fram (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge that, in hindsight, I should have checked the edit which I thought was vandalism. Happy? PS I'm willing to accept criticism of my conduct - but not from you, given how you have acted towards me over the past 2 weeks. There is a way of going about stuff with people which you don't seem to grasp (the irony, given that is also what I am being accused of!) GiantSnowman 10:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

You are free to ignore my criticism (probably not smart at an ArbCom case, but that's up to you). You are even free to reply to my criticism with personal attacks, nonsense, non sequiturs, or other prime examples of "when in a hole". It won't stop me from highlighting the many, many problems with your attitude and actions towards newbies (and even experienced editors), and the repeated abuse of admin tools. And I haven't really seen you "accepting criticism" from anyone else, all you have done is offering some crumbs to avoid formal sanctions, while at the same time repeating that your approach generally is the right one, your blocks were correct, and so on. Fram (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps not exactly evidence but...

Thought I should bring attention to that while this is ongoing, GS is still biting newcomers and even straight up lying to their face. Not sure if this measures up to the evidence required here or if IP editors are even allowed to bring up evidence to begin with (not finding a policy about either). But latest example (as of posting this):

IP editor adds info GS warns IP about unsourced, saying it's removed Rather than remove the info, GS adds further info

If it was unsourced when the IP editor added it, well then it's unsourced when GS added to it since GS is just adding clarifying info to the location. If it's not unsourced, well then the warning wasn't warranted in the first place. Either way, GS warns a user saying it's removed, when adding more to the same, without adding any new references.84.219.252.47 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

GS *did* add a reference (to Soccerway), as can be seen in this edit, in the "Club career" section. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

In that edit, GS added <ref name = "SW"/>, which means the source was already in the article. Meanwhile, just today, GS changed infoboxes without adding new sources here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I assume GS didn't add a source for those edits because one was already in the article. If that's OK for GS, why isn't it OK with another editor? There is nothing at WP:BLP or WP:FOOTBALL that says you need an inline citation for each and every fact. Levivich (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Probably because the statistics tables updated in those edits were *already* referenced. Next? Mattythewhite (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The IP editor’s edit was also already referenced. Why did that deserve a warning? Levivich (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

erm, if it has an information icon at the beginning of the paragraph then that isn't a warning! Govvy (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a distinction that is lost on a new editor (such as myself). The message received by the IP is "I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Emem Eduok, but you didn't provide a reliable source." However, the source was already in the article. The documentation on Wikipedia says an inline citation is only needed for "controversial" or "challenged" edits, but the messages from some admin is that an inline citation is needed for every edit. Yet, these same admin do not follow this supposed "rule" themselves. We new editors can recognize this; we're new but we're not stupid, we can RTFM just like anyone else. The message received, thus, is "don't touch this article." I'm telling you, as a new editor: this is confusing and discouraging. This is what many editors (both old and new, registered and unregistered) have been trying to communicate. Levivich (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Levivich, your comments about BLP are not correct - "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source" (my emphasis). GiantSnowman 08:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You always seem to ignore the challenged or likely to be challenged part though. And the part about you imposing one rule for others, and another rule for yourself. Fram (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

All unsourced content is likely to be challenged. And where have I said there is one rule for me and one one rule for others? GiantSnowman 08:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Then propose to change the BLP policy to read "everything" instead of "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged", if you believe those to be the same anyway. Fram (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding but, by asking for a source, is GS not meeting the challenged or likely to be challenged part by challenging the information himself? Kosack (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Technically, yes. In reality, he turns this into a self-fulfilling prophecy by challenging everything, and giving warnings and blocks for not having provided a source before it was even challenged. Fram (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

A GS edit from today: [9]. If the change is not supported by the inline source, it is a BLP violation, right? Heck, even not updating a corresponding date is a BLP violation, right? One of these gets a warning, and after a few you get a block, right? Or do we assume good faith from our editors? To make a fuss about this "error" (can you spot it?) would be completely ridiculous, but this is the kind of "problem" edit which has caused much of the ArbCom case, leading to mass rollbacks, warnings, blocks, ... But only for others, of course, not for GS. Fram (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Or an edit from yesterday[10] about someone who died this week (recent deaths = BLP policy). GS added two sources, but the first is not about the subject at all, and the second contradicts information in the infobox (well, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, it isn't even internally consistent). The problem with the first source is simply a typo, but that kind of excuse is not valid when others edit football BLPs, so... I guess we are, in their own twisted logic, now up to a second warning for BLP violations for GS? Fram (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

These are not the same and you know it. GiantSnowman 10:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

How is updating numbers of matches played, based on a source which isn't about that season, and where you don't update the "accessdate" of the source, any different to people updating the number of games played in an infobox but forgetting to update the timestamp in the infobox? Despite your claim, I really don't know how they are different (well, perhaps yours is worse, as you don't update the date and the source is for the wrong year, but I don't think that's what you mean). Fram (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

In those edits I am making it clear why I am making the edit, and as Mattythewhite has already explained (but you've conveniently ignored), the stats are already sourced. That is completely different to an editor changing a number in an infobox with no source or indication why, particularly given (as Ymblanter said, and which again you have ignored) this is an area of Wikipedia with a particularly high instance of vandalism. GiantSnowman 11:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

In all cases of thos editors you wrongfully blocked and which are listed in the evidence section, it was quite clear why they were making the edits; to improve the encyclopedia. Like you say, "the stats are already sourced", but that didn't stop you rollbacking and blocking e.g. User:Caitlinwebb3. But of course, if you change them, it is clear that they come from "the source", even if the source is incorrect (as in this example); and if you change them, you don't need to change the accessdate of the source, but if a lesser editor does the same, they are vandals. The only difference is that you consider yourself incapable of vandalism, while nearly every other editor gets treated as a vandal unless they follow your rules to the letter, even the ones you regularly ignore.

Of course, if you chase away so many constructive editors, you are left with a handful of "accepted" editors and a lot of vandals. I have trouble feeling any sympathy for that situation which is largely your own creation. Fram (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @GiantSnowman: you wrote, "All unsourced content is likely to be challenged." Where does it say that? Not at WP:BLP, not at WP:INLINE, not at WP:FOOTBALL, that I can find. Please provide a source for that statement. I want you to know in no uncertain terms that, as a new editor, your writing that just now is the first time in a month that I've ever heard anybody say "all unsourced content" is likely to be challenged or needs a citation, for a BLP or any other type of article. I believe that is not written anywhere, or at least not in a policy.

@Kosack: One of the problems in my view is that GS has not challenged the information prior to reverting it and/or posting warnings and/or issuing blocks. So reversion alone with an edit summary, "I challenge this as factual; please provide source," would be fine, but that doesn't merit a talk page warning. That's the challenge. If the other editor then replaced the challenged content without a source, then that would merit a warning as violating our policies. But GS's pattern is to revert and template in the first instance. We wouldn't be here if, instead of revert/templating/blocking, GS had posted a message to editors' talk pages along the lines of, "Hi, I think what you added is factually incorrect, because..." or if GS had just edited the factually incorrect information and replaced it with correct information, or added a source to unsourced information, instead of revert/template/block.

Second, a challenge has to be in good faith. You can't just blanket challenge everything.

Third, is there anything more easily verified than what team a professional athlete plays for, or what position, or what number they wear? This sort of information is extremely well documented on the internet in multiple reliable sources. "Challenging" such "vanilla" facts is nonsense.

Fourth, once an editor "challenges" an unsourced fact, in my view, the editor becomes WP:INVOLVED in a content dispute, and thus cannot and should not use their admin tools, such as by blocking a user.

Fifth, and most importantly, GS has blocked users even when the information they add is sourced, and even when they add more sources in response to talk page templates, such as the incident I laid out in the evidence I posted. Levivich (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, please see WP:BLPSOURCES. How does one define 'challenged or likely to be challenged' or 'contentious'? It's difficult, and not done anywhere that I know of. But we err on the side of removing possibly problematic/unsourced/poorly sourced material - "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". I have edited for 13 years, been an admin for 7 - my removals and request for explicit sourcing (which is aview held by others) has never been an issue until recently. GiantSnowman 17:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I define "challenged or likely to be challenged" or "contentious" as: (1) actually disputed, or (2) probably going to be disputed. "Barack Obama was born in Kenya" is a good example. "Donald Trump is a self-made billionaire" is another example. "Athlete X played for Team Y in Year Z" is not: that's easily verifiable, not likely to be disputed.

Where does it say "all unsourced content is likely to be challenged"? Are you saying that all statements in a BLP must have an inline citation? Have you been enforcing this rule for 7 years as an admin? Finally, do you appreciate why, as a new editor, it is alarming to hear that there may be an unwritten rule that directly contradicts a written rule and can get me blocked? Levivich (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you read WP:BURDEN? "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". So, yes, if something is added which is not supported by an inline citationfrom a reliable source, I remove it, in line with policy. GiantSnowman 18:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Well here's exactly what WP:BURDEN says, I've bolded the parts that you seem to be missing: "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind that such edits can be easily misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular POV, as that may result in accusations that you are in violation of WP:NPOV. Also check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all of these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question cannot be verified. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."

Looking through your talk page archives I see recurring complaints from editors that you've reverted and templated them. In one case it seems to be because you reverted the addition of the fact that Basel had finished third in their UEFA Champions league group. Ignoring the fact that anyone who follows football would know that (and therefore it's not remotely contentious) is that seriously so hard to source yourself? Instead you end up in a back and forth talk page discussion with the editor(s) in question when all the drama could simply have been avoided by you just sourcing it yourself, as indeed many of those editors asked you to do. Valenciano (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Valenciano Thank you for the support. I did not know that I was the only one being attacked by GiantSnowman. You are correct in suggesting that these methods hinder good faith edits and prevent longtime and new users alike from wanting to make edits on wikipedia. I do not know where this hostility comes from but I do not think it is a good or endearing strategy and @GiantSnowman is creating more harm and enemies than good.Rupert1904 (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

GS "vandalism" from yesterday: claiming that someone is born in "1.88m"[11]? Isn't that the kind of edit you find so terrible when an IP makes it? Isn't it perhaps time you realise that most editors (including IPs) are trying to help, and that a markup or technical error (not actual, intentional vandalism, but things like not updating a timestamp or not sourcing everything when adding things to a section where nothing was sourced to begin with, or even making a typo among a lot of good edits, or forgetting to add a source once between 25 sourced edits) is not a reason to rollback, warn, block, ... ? Following your own approach, this would have been your third vandalism warning in a row, and your next similar error would result in you being blocked (and no, this isn't a threat, I haven't issued any vandalism warnings and someone blocking you over this would deserve a desysop themselves). Fram (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Yawn. (You'll also note that in the edit you highlight, I was referencing this unsourced edit by another user! But you ignore that because all I do is remove unsourced material, isn't it?) Please find an edit where I have reverted/warned an editor for adding the height parameter into the birth parameter in error or similar? Not updating a timestamp is a problem; because another editor comes along, doesn't think it has been updated, and then changes the stats again - so the stats become incorrect. GiantSnowman 08:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the one where you reverted and vandalism warned an editor for adding the age to a birthdate parameter on the birthday of the person[12]? You did this last week, and it was discussed yesterday on the evidence page... The stats should be updated based on what the source says, not on what the timestamp says. Simply adding 1 without checking if the new number is correct is the responsability of whoever updates this. Oh, and while there is nothing wrong with adding that ref, it is again typical of your mindset to call the previous edit "unsourced"; the source was already in the infobox, and used to source things like the date of birth and playing position (above and below the newly added height). Which you should now because that is how it was when you created the page[13]. There is nothing wrong with that, just like there is nothing wrong with adding another piece of information from that same source. That you check it, fine, but that you feel the need to call it "unsourced" when it is sourced exactly like your own additions just shows the problem. Fram (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

My word, you think these editors are actually checking sources when adding stats? Ask at WT:FOOTBALL for people's experiences please, see who agrees with you! PS it was unsourced, WP:BURDEN requires an in-line citation, where was the in-line citation for height? Oh there wasn't one til I added it. GiantSnowman 08:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Burden requires an inline citation when challenged. You only challenge what everyone else adds, and their edits require an inline citation. You, on the other hand, are free to add anything you want to an infobox without inline citation. Like I just said, there were three fields in that infobox header, all three added by you, but only one with an inline source. This presumably means that all three are sourced to the same source. A good faith editor, who has alreday made countless edits to that article, adds one more bit of info from the same source. There is "no" BURDEN here to add that same source, unless you have the exact same BURDEN for the other two "unsourced" bits in that infobox header. Thank you for highlighting this prime example of your double standards. Fram (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Lessons learned

User:107.77.173.7 makes some very poor edits, gets escalating warnings, the final warning on 13.15 today. At 13.16, they make one further edit, [14]. Result: one week block by GS. Problem; that edit was correct, the IP changed "is a professional soccer player who plays with Wigan" to "is a soccer player who played with Wigan". The Stoke Sentinel[15] makes it clear that the payer was released by Wigan this summer. His profile page at Wigan FC has been removed[16], he is not mentioned in any of their teams. Soccerbase lists him as having no club[17]. So yes, he isn't a professional player, and he doesn't play for Wigan.

What's the point of a final warning if the editor gets blocked afterwards anyway for their next edit, no matter if it is correct or not? Once a vandal, always a vandal? Please unblock, apologize, and give them a friendly reminder of the need for sources. Fram (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy for an admin (obviously not involved with this ARBCOM case) to review and unblock if deemed necessary. I simply saw an editor making a large number of vandalism edits and warnings in a very short period of time continue to edit in that way. Would any other admin acted in any other way? I doubt it. GiantSnowman 13:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

No, you saw "an editor making a large number of vandalism edits and warnings in a very short period of time continue to edit ", and you didn't bother to check if their edit was constructive or not. Worse, even now that it has been pointed out to you that the edit was constructive, you don't even consider unblocking them yourself. Why? Fram (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Because I would appreciate the input of somebody else on the matter, rather than being bullied by you. GiantSnowman 13:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, that IP made 6 deletion/obvious-vandalism edits in under 10 minutes which were reverted by other users who placed multiple talk page warnings. I would have fully supported a block at that point and thanked an admin for blocking this IP editor for those 6 edits.

But the 7th edit was a correct edit. The IP updated Anthony Plant with correct information from SB (which was already cited as a source in the article). The reversion of that correct edit replaced correct information with incorrect information. (I have updated the article to put back the correct information.)

If someone makes 6 bad edits and gets a final warning, and then their 7th edit is a good edit, that shouldn't lead to a block. That's a sign of a user correcting their behavior in response to a warning, which is exactly what we want. When a user corrects their behavior, it makes no sense to respond to that with a block. The IP should be unblocked in my opinion. Levivich (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Levivich Evidence

Quick note, the original content added by VanTong18 was OR/Synth. The article added was correct and sourced part about the controversial call. It did not source this part:

Hey was criticized for his aggressive behaviour in this match towards the Vietnamese players and their manager Park Hang-seo. After the match, he faced further criticism and furor from Vietnamese fans when he posted a tweet targeting Park for refusing to shake his hand. Many fans were quick to point out the hypocrisy in Hey's tweet.

The tweet is not acceptable as a source for "aggressive behavior" or "hypocrisy" part. That is OR. Putting the two together makes it synth. spryde | talk 16:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Spryde: Hello! I agree that the original content contained the unsourced material as you point out, but the editor corrected this problem and was blocked anyway. This may not be clear from my evidence. My initial draft of the evidence included quotations of the passages in question, but I was way over the 500 word limit, so I cut it down to just the table I posted. Since you've brought up the issue, and it case it may benefit the arbitrators, here are the various versions of the passage in question from Antoine Hey:

Extended content

VanTong18's original post: In the 2018 AFF Championship, Myanmar managed a draw against Vietnam due to a highly controversial call by Thai linesman Lekhpha Phubes. The linesman raised the offside flag on a goal that was proven to be onside in subsequent video replays. Hey was criticized for his aggressive behaviour in this match towards the Vietnamese players and their manager Park Hang-seo. After the match, he faced further criticism and furor from Vietnamese fans when he posted a tweet targeting Park for refusing to shake his hand. Many fans were quick to point out the hypocrisy in Hey's tweet. References VT's second version: In the 2018 AFF Championship, Myanmar managed a draw against Vietnam due to a highly controversial call by Thai linesman Lekhpha Phubes. The linesman raised the offside flag on a goal that was proven to be onside in subsequent video replays. Hey was criticized for his aggressive behaviour in this match towards the Vietnamese players and their manager Park Hang-seo. After the match, he faced further criticism and furor from Vietnamese fans when he posted a tweet targeting Park for refusing to shake his hand. References VT's third version: In the 2018 AFF Championship, Myanmar managed a draw against Vietnam due to a highly controversial call by Thai linesman Lekhpha Phubes. The linesman raised the offside flag on a goal that was proven to be onside in subsequent video replays. Hey was criticized for his aggressive behaviour in this match towards the Vietnamese players and their manager Park Hang-seo. After the match, he faced further criticism and furor from Vietnamese fans when he posted a tweet targeting Park for refusing to shake his hand. References The version posted by GiantSnowman: after blocking VT: In the 2018 AFF Championship, Myanmar drew with Vietnam under controversial circumstances. Hey was criticized for his aggressive behaviour in this match towards the Vietnamese players and their manager Park Hang-seo. References

The sentence in the original that was OR/SYNTH was sourced in the second version. A third source was added in the third version. And GS put the second sentence back in after the block. Nobody said to the editor "primary sources" or "Twitter" until after the block. Nobody pointed the editor to WP:PRIMARY or WP:PSTS. Nevertheless, the editor added proper sourcing for the material, and that material was–amazingly–restored by the blocking admin after the block. This new user, on their first day, added more sources and was blocked anyway. Levivich (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Request to present additional evidence

I am over my 500-word limit. GS's statement above that he had been an admin for 7 years and never had a problem until recently prompted me to investigate. I went through a few of the search results for "GiantSnowman" at ANI and this is what I found. If it's useful to the arbitrators, I request permission to exceed the word limit so I can paste this content into my evidence section (just the diffs, or the quotes, too, if they're helpful... or none of it if it's not necessary). Thank you. Levivich (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested addition from Levivich

This 2013 thread about templating and threatening blocks in content disputes included this comment: "Your warning is bullshit... The warning and block threat were totally unacceptable and it is acceptable for a non-admin to get upset about an inappropriate threat to block them...So quit being a dick and threatening to block someone who you are currently engaged in a content dispute with and you won't have people calling bollocks on you." A second 2013 thread about GS entitled "Questioning an administrator's attitude" about GS's conduct in content disputes, ended with this comment: "I'm sure GiantSnowman is now aware that [editor] takes offense at being called a troll." A third 2013 thread, included a lengthy discussion about whether it was OK to block users for not properly categorizing articles: GS posts: "I had experience with one editor, who was constantly adding unreferenced material to BLPs - the info not controversial and later verified to be true, but it was still a problem." Another editor: "The fact that the "B" word has been mentioned in the context of an editor who doesn't dot every I and cross every T is troublesome indeed." Another editor: "To even think of blocking an editor for leaving categorization for others is way out of line." Another editor, ending the discussion: "I mean, you slapped the guy's talk page with four messages in six hours, the last of which was announcing that you were taking the matter to this noticeboard...As admins, we have a duty to educate and communicate, not merely to threaten and enforce." A 2014 thread called "I want to report administrator GiantSnowman" ended with this comment: "I'd say that GiantSnowman, if you're going to enforce BDP (or BLP) to someone who doesn't seem to get it, you'll get better results if you take the time to explain the situation to them, explicitly and with something other than three-letter acronyms. Yes, policy supports reverting, and yes, a block can be used against someone violating BLP, but surely it's better to just take the time to explain fully rather than curtly, and thus not have to block?" A second 2014 thread about whether all content needed to be sourced, and when admin action should be taken: "Let me add that Snowman's objection to Salvatore Caronna was paricularly absurd. The guy is an MEP, so clearly notable; and, while the article was only a micro-stub, its content was sourced by the reference given." "I'll quote part of WP:BLP: 'All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation.' (emphasis original). Is Muñiz de Urquiza's membership in EP actually being challenged?" "If ya'll want to make up a rule that no unsourced BLP articles can be created, start an RFC. But as of today, there is no such rule." A third 2014 thread: An editor, to GS: "How are Melkor's edits (with edit summaries) worse than your straight-up reverts?" Another, to GS: "it would appear that, if anyone is abusing rollback and/or Twinkle here, it's you" Another: "GS, I'd take it easy here if I were you. WK is not out to get you and he has a valid point." Another: "The trout goes to the Snowman." "In addition, BLPs aside, there is no requirement that a citation be provided in the article to pass WP:V - the verifiable reference must only exist."

Reply from GiantSnowman

Kudos, my 'new' editor, on picking & choosing what to display and what quotes to present here, so as to try and make me look bad. To go into more detail: The 1st 2013 thread - "I move to close this as no action needed" The 2nd 2013 thread - User jumped to ANI following a minor content dispute. Conclusion? "I don't think any further action is necessary" The 3rd 2013 thread - a question between a number of editors about how to deal with an unresponsive/un-co-operative editor. I didn't threaten to block at ANI as you purport. I discussed ways forward with other users. The 1st 2014 thread - the editor in question was told by numerous other editors to add sources and abide by BLP. The 2nd 2014 thread - many other users agreed with me that creating an unsourced BLP was not acceptable (about the user in question - "these actions are very troubling", "I recommend that Pigsonthewing be blocked for disruption if he creates another unsourced BLP article", "the fact is that all new BLP articles are required to be sourced, full stop" etc.) The 3rd 2014 thread - perhaps the only one where you have a small point; but you note I acknowledged that there and then. GiantSnowman 21:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

How another editor handled a similar situation 5 years ago

In researching "does every edit need to be sourced" debates, I came across this example which I think could be helpful to consider (and I ask for permission to add it to the evidence page):

In 2013, as a result of a discussion with another editor, a patrolling editor changed their "warning"/"information" template from this to this, and the other editor wrote, "I am very satisfied with the changes you have made, I think it looks really good. Thank you for making that change, much appreciated!" Levivich (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)